Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Jan 1;178(1):48-54.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.6313.

Care Planning for Inpatients Referred for Palliative Care Consultation

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

Care Planning for Inpatients Referred for Palliative Care Consultation

Kara Bischoff et al. JAMA Intern Med. .

Erratum in

  • Error in Abstract.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Jan 1;178(1):157. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.8068. JAMA Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 29336538 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Importance: Care planning is a critical function of palliative care teams, but the impact of advance care planning and goals of care discussions by palliative care teams has not been well characterized.

Objective: To describe the population of patients referred to inpatient palliative care consultation teams for care planning, the needs identified by palliative care clinicians, the care planning activities that occur, and the results of these activities.

Design, setting, and participants: This was a prospective cohort study conducted between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016. Seventy-eight inpatient palliative care teams from diverse US hospitals in the Palliative Care Quality Network, a national quality improvement collaborative. Standardized data were submitted for 73 145 patients.

Exposures: Inpatient palliative care consultation.

Results: Overall, 52 571 of 73 145 patients (71.9%) referred to inpatient palliative care were referred for care planning (range among teams, 27.5%-99.4% of patients). Patients referred for care planning were older (73.3 vs 67.9 years; F statistic, 1546.0; P < .001), less likely to have cancer (30.0% vs 41.1%; P < .001), and slightly more often had a clinical order of full code at the time of referral (54.6% vs 52.1%; P < .001). Palliative care teams identified care planning needs in 52 825 of 73 145 patients (72.2%) overall, including 42 467 of 49 713 patients (85.4%) referred for care planning and in 10 054 of 17 475 patients (57.5%) referred for other reasons. Through care planning conversations, surrogates were identified for 10 571 of 11 149 patients (94.8%) and 9026 patients (37.4%) elected to change their code status. Substantially more patients indicated that a status of do not resuscitate/do not intubate was consistent with their goals (7006 [32.1%] preconsultation to 13 773 [63.1%] postconsultation). However, an advance directive was completed for just 2160 of 67 955 patients (3.2%) and a Physicians Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment form was completed for 8359 of 67 955 patients (12.3%) seen by palliative care teams.

Conclusions and relevance: Care planning was the most common reason for inpatient palliative care consultation, and care planning needs were often found even when the consultation was for other reasons. Surrogates were consistently identified, and patients' preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments were frequently updated. However, a minority of patients completed legal forms to document their care preferences, highlighting an area in need of improvement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Figures

Figure.
Figure.. Change in Code Status During Palliative Care Consultation
McNemar-Bowker test: P < .001; a total of 21 827 patients had code status preconsultation and code status postconsultation documented in the PCQN database and therefore the number of patients who were included in the analysis of how code status changed from preconsultation to postconsultation.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Sudore RL, Lum HD, You JJ, et al. . Defining advance care planning for adults: a consensus definition from a multidisciplinary Delphi panel. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2017;53(5):821-832.e1. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sinuff T, Dodek P, You JJ, et al. . Improving end-of-life communication and decision making: the development of a conceptual framework and quality indicators. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015;49(6):1070-1080. - PubMed
    1. Sudore RL, Fried TR. Redefining the “planning” in advance care planning: preparing for end-of-life decision making. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(4):256-261. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernacki RE, Block SD; American College of Physicians High Value Care Task Force . Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1994-2003. - PubMed
    1. Leung JM, Udris EM, Uman J, Au DH. The effect of end-of-life discussions on perceived quality of care and health status among patients with COPD. Chest. 2012;142(1):128-133. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types