Communication with seriously ill patients in the acute setting is difficult. The proposed communication framework may assist surgeons in delivering goal-concordant care for high-risk patients.

Background: Many patients with serious kidney disease have an elevated symptom burden, high mortality, and poor quality of life. Palliative care has the potential to address these problems, yet nephrology patients frequently lack access to this specialty. Objectives: We describe patient demographics and clinical activities of the first 13 months of an ambulatory kidney palliative care (KPC) program that is integrated within a nephrology practice. Design/Measurements: Utilizing chart abstractions, we characterize the clinic population served, clinical service utilization, visit activities, and symptom burden as assessed using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale-Renal (IPOS-R), and patient satisfaction. Results: Among the 55 patients served, mean patient age was 72.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 16.7), 95% had chronic kidney disease stage IV or V, and 46% had a Charlson Comorbidity Index >8. The mean IPOS-R score at initial visit was 16 (range = 0-60; SD = 9.1), with a mean of 7.5 (SD = 3.7) individual physical symptoms (range = 0-15) per patient. Eighty-seven percent of initial visits included an advance care planning conversation, 55.4% included a medication change for symptoms, and 35.5% included a dialysis decisionmaking conversation. Overall, 96% of patients who returned satisfaction surveys were satisfied with the care they received and viewed the KPC program positively. Conclusions: A model of care that integrates palliative care with nephrology care in the ambulatory setting serves high-risk patients with serious kidney disease. This KPC program can potentially meet documented gaps in care while achieving patient satisfaction. Early findings from this program evaluation indicate opportunities for enhanced patient-centered palliative nephrology care.

Background: Clinical decisions for seriously ill older patients with surgical emergencies are highly complex. Measuring the benefits of burdensome treatments in this context is fraught with uncertainty. Little is known about how surgeons formulate treatment decisions to avoid nonbeneficial surgery, or engage in preoperative conversations about end-of-life (EOL) care. Objective: We sought to describe how surgeons approach such discussions, and to identify modifiable factors to reduce nonbeneficial surgery near the EOL. Design: Purposive and snowball sampling were used to recruit a national sample of emergency general surgeons. Semistructured interviews were conducted between February and May 2014. Measurements: Three independent coders performed qualitative coding using NVivo software (NVivo version 10.0, QSR International). Content analysis was used to identify factors important to surgical decision making and EOL communication.Results: Twenty-four surgeons were interviewed. Participants felt responsible for conducting EOL conversations with seriously ill older patients and their families before surgery to prevent nonbeneficial treatments. However, wide differences in prognostic estimates among surgeons, inadequate data about postoperative quality of life (QOL), patients and surrogates who were unprepared for EOL conversations, variation in perceptions about the role of palliative care, and time constraints are contributors to surgeons providing nonbeneficial operations. Surgeons reported performing operations they knew would not benefit the patient to give the family time to come to terms with the patient's demise. Conclusions: Emergency general surgeons feel responsible for having preoperative discussions about EOL care with seriously ill older patients to avoid nonbenefical surgery. However, surgeons identified multiple factors that undermine adequate communication and lead to nonbeneficial surgery.

No abstract

No abstract