Palliative Care Screening Tool Research Articles

The utility of the surprise question by nurses to identify hospitalised older patients nearing the end-of-life and promotion of advance care planning: An interventional study.

To assess the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question (SQ) when used by nurses working in hospital wards to determine 1-year mortality in acutely hospitalised older patients. The predictive accuracy of the SQ, when used by general nurses caring for older hospitalised patients, has not been comprehensively studied. A prospective cohort study. This cohort study recruited consecutive 10,139 older patients (aged ≥65 years) who were admitted to Taipei City Hospital and were evaluated for the needs of palliative care in 2015. All patients were followed up for 12 months or until their death. The c-statistic value was calculated to indicate the predictive accuracy of the SQ and Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST). Of all participants, 18.8% and 18.6% had a SQ response of 'no' and a PCST score ≥4, respectively. After controlling for other covariates, an SQ response of 'no' (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.83-2.31) and a PCST score ≥4 (AHR = 1.50; 95% CI: 1.29-1.75) were found to be the independent predictors for patients' 12-month mortality. The C-statistic values of the SQ and the PCST at recognising patients in their last year of life were .663 and .670, respectively. Moreover, there was moderate concordance (k = .44) between the SQ and the PCST in predicting 12-month mortality. SQ response of 'no' and a PCST score ≥4 were independent predictors of 12-month mortality in older patients. The SQ, when used by nurses working in hospital wards, is effective in identifying older patients nearing the end of life, as well as in providing advance care planning for patients. Patients' palliative care needs at admission were assessed by general nurses using the SQ and PCST.

Impact of a Nurse-Led Palliative Care Screening Tool on Medical Oncology Units.

There is a lack of early integration of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer, which has been shown to result in suboptimal quality of life across their disease continuum. Standardized palliative care screening too.

Piloting a Patient Tool to Aid Palliative Care Referrals during Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment

ContextPatient misperceptions are a strong barrier to early palliative care discussions and referrals during advanced lung cancer treatment. ObjectivesWe developed and tested the acceptability of a web-based patient-facing palliative care education and screening tool intended for use in a planned multilevel intervention (i.e., patient, clinician, system-level targets). MethodsWe elicited feedback from advanced lung cancer patients (n = 6), oncology and palliative care clinicians (n = 4), and a clinic administrator (n = 1) on the perceived relevance of the intervention. We then tested the prototype of a patient-facing tool for patient acceptability and preliminary effects on patient palliative care knowledge and motivation. ResultsPartners agreed that the intervention—clinician palliative care education and an electronic health record-integrated patient tool—is relevant and their feedback informed development of the patient prototype. Advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 20; age 60 ± 9.8; 40% male; 70% with a technical degree or less) reviewed and rated the prototype on a five-point scale for acceptability (4.48 ± 0.55), appropriateness (4.37 ± 0.62), and feasibility (4.43 ± 0.59). After using the prototype, 75% were interested in using palliative care and 80% were more motivated to talk to their oncologist about it. Of patients who had or were at risk of having misperceptions about palliative care (e.g., conflating it with hospice), 100% no longer held the misperceptions after using the prototype. ConclusionThe palliative care education and screening tool is acceptable to patients and may address misperceptions and motivate palliative care discussions during treatment.

Implementation of an Innovative Palliative Care Screening Tool in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Pilot Study.

Background: Pediatric palliative care (PPC) can improve the quality of care provided to critically ill children with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Early identification of patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) who may benefit from PPC involvement is essential. Objectives: To create a brief screening tool, the Pediatric Intensive Care-Pediatric Palliative Care Screen, identifying PICU patients most likely to benefit from PPC involvement and to assess if weekly screening with this screening tool increases the number of PPC consults placed in the PICU. Methods: This is a prospective investigational single-center study in a 24-bed PICU at a U.S. tertiary care children's hospital. Weekly screening was completed by two clinicians for a six-month period between April and October 2022. Results: A total of 162 screens were completed on 124 individual patients; 47 screens were positive (29%), and 115 were negative (71%). Fourteen new PPC consults were placed from the PICU with one PPC consult for every 36.7 compared with one PPC for every 41.4 admissions the previous year. Of the positive screens, 68% had two or more comorbidities at the time of PICU admission versus 26% of negative screens (p < 0.001). Technology dependence (57% vs. 5%, p < 0.001) and presence of congenital defects (26% vs. 10%, p = 0.013) were significantly more common among positive screens. Conclusions: Weekly screening with a short, 7-question screening tool can identify PICU patients most likely to benefit from a PPC consult. Patients with chronic illnesses and baseline comorbidities are most likely to screen positive.

A comparison of palliative care and rapid emergency screening (P-CaRES) tool, broad and narrow criteria, and surprise questions to predict survival of older emergency department patients

BackgroundPalliative care is a form of medical care designed to enhance the quality of life of patients with life-threatening conditions. This study was conducted to compare the accuracy of predicted survival the 1 and 3-month survival rate of Broad and narrow criteria, Surprise questions (SQ), and Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) after admission to the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted at an urban teaching hospital in Thailand. Patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted to the ED were classified according to their emergency severity index (ESI) (Level: 1–3). We collected data on SQ, P-CaRES, and broad and narrow criteria. A survival data of participants were collected at 1 and 3 months after admission to the ED. The survival rate was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests.ResultsA total of 269 patients completed the study. P-CaRES positive and P-CaRES negative patients had 1-month survival rates of 81% and 94.8%, respectively (P = 0.37), and at 3-month survival rates of 70.7% and 90.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). SQ (not surprised) had a 1-month survival rate of 79.3%, while SQ (surprised) had a 97% survival rate (P = 0.01), and SQ (not surprised) had a 75.4% survival rate at 3-months, while SQ (surprised) had a 96.3% survival rate (P = 0.01). Broad and narrow criteria that were positive and negative had 1-month survival rates of 88.1% and 92.5%, respectively (P = 0.71), while those that were positive and negative had 3-month survival rates of 78.6% and 87.2%, respectively (P = 0.19). The hazard ratio (HR) of SQ (not surprised) at 1 month was 3.22( 95%CI:1.16–8.89). The HR at 3 months of P-CaRES (positive) was 3.31 with a 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.74 − 6.27, while the HR for SQ (not surprise) was 7.33, 95% CI: 3.03–19.79; however, broad and narrow criteria had an HR of 1.78, 95% CI:0.84–3.77.ConclusionsAmong older adults who visited the ED, the SQ were good prognosis tools for predicting 1 and 3-month survival, and P-CaRES were good prognostic tools for predicting 3-month survival.

Nurse-Led Use of Palliative Care Screening Tool to Enhance Care Delivery in an Inpatient Oncology Unit: Should the Surprise Question Be Modified? (QI117)

Nurse-Led Use of Palliative Care Screening Tool to Enhance Care Delivery in an Inpatient Oncology Unit: Should the Surprise Question Be Modified? (QI117)

Development and Implementation of a Real-Time Inpatient Palliative Care Screening Process to Promote Earlier Palliative Care Referrals.

Despite the previous development of criteria for palliative screening tools, there remains a lack of validated and practical screening processes for the general hospitalized patient population for everyday clinical use. This quality improvement project's aim was to implement a practical institution-based adult inpatient palliative care screening tool embedded into the electronic medical record with an automated alert process to assist in identifying patients earlier within hospital admission. The project used a preimplementation and postimplementation design and followed the Plan-Do-Study-Act process to measure the effectiveness of the tool and alert process in decreasing time from admission to palliative care referral and impact on referring patterns. During the project period, 1851 palliative care referrals were completed, and minimal difference (0.6%) was noted in the average time from admission to referral preimplementation and postimplementation ( P = .939). There was a 3.7% increase in referrals postimplementation and a shift in referring service patterns ( P = .321). Although the expected outcome of earlier palliative referrals during admissions was not met, the development and implementation of the tool and alert process is a step toward the creation of a standard practical tool for the general hospitalized patient population.

Characteristics, ICU Interventions, and Clinical Outcomes of Patients With Palliative Care Triggers in a Mixed Community-Based Intensive Care Unit.

Objective: Integration of palliative care initiatives in the intensive care unit (ICU) benefit patients and improve outcomes. Palliative care triggers (PCTs) is a screening tool that aides in stratifying patients who would benefit most from an early palliative care approach. There is no consensus on PCT selection or best timing for implementation. We evaluated the clinical characteristics, ICU and palliative care interventions, and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with PCT in a community-based mixed ICU. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted in a 44-bed adult, mixed ICU in a 407-bed community-based teaching hospital in Florida. Eleven PCTs were used as a screening tool during multidisciplinary rounds (MDRs). Patients were analyzed based on presence or absence of PCT as well as having met high (>2) versus low (<2) PCT. Data collected included patient demographics, ICU resource utilization and clinical outcomes. We considered a two-sided P value of less than .05 to indicate statistical significance with a 95% confidence interval. Results: Of 388 ICU patients, 189 (48.7%) met at least 1 PCT and 199 (51.3%) did not. The trigger group had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Evaluation (APACHE) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores within 24 h of ICU admission. The most common PCTs identified were ICU length of stay greater than 7 days or readmission to ICU, terminal prognosis and assisting family in transitioning goals of care. There were statistically significant differences in ICU resource utilization, palliative care interventions, and overall worse clinical outcomes in the trigger-detected group. Similar findings were seen in the cohort with high PCT (>2). Conclusions: Our study supports the implementation of a tailored 11-item palliative care screening tool to effectively identify ICU patients with high ICU and palliative care interventions and worse clinical outcomes.

Surgical ICU Palliative Care Screening Tool: A Quality Improvement Project

INTRODUCTION: Seriously ill patients, their families, and care teams face distress in the ICU. This quality improvement project’s aim was to implement and tailor a palliative care screening tool identifying patients who may benefit from palliative care. METHODS: A screening tool was initially developed with 12 “yes/no” questions regarding major health indicators. The screening tool was to be completed daily by fourth-year medical students in the surgical ICU (SICU). Any question answered “yes” deemed the screening tool positive. Via Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles, 3 screening-tool renditions were developed with a reduced number of questions regarding each patient, while still best correlating positive screening tools with patients considered for palliative care. Data were analyzed to determine which questions best corresponded to patients receiving palliative care consults or goals of care discussions. RESULTS: A total of 282 screening tools were recorded, of which 22 were positive. All patients who received palliative care consults/goals of care discussions had positive screening tool(s) during all PDSA cycles. Questions that best correlated with palliative care consults/goals of care discussions were “Any team member (nursing, physician, pharmacy, etc) expresses concern the patient may need palliative care” (90.9%), “ICU or surgical team answers ‘no’ to the question: ‘Would you be surprised if this patient died?’” (81.8%), and “Comorbidities: irreversible, progressive, or untreatable severely impairing function” (77.3%; Figure).FigureCONCLUSION: The screening tool successfully identified patients who were candidates for palliative care. Integration of the screening tool into ICU teams could expedite identification of these patients. Early access to palliative care increases dignity and comfort for patients, reduces family confusion, avoids care team burnout, and potentially reduces healthcare cost.

Screening tools to identify patients with unmet palliative care needs in the emergency department: A systematic review.

This systematic review identified and assessed psychometric properties of the available screening tools to identify patients with unmet palliative care (PC) needs in the emergency department (ED). A comprehensive search of electronic databases and the gray literature was conducted. Two independent reviewers completed study screening and inclusion, data extraction, and quality assessment. A descriptive summary of the results was reported using median of medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). A total of 35 studies were included, involving the assessment of 14 unique screening tools. The most commonly used screening tool was the surprise question (SQ; n=12 studies), followed by the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) tool (n=8), and the screening for palliative and end-of-life care needs in the emergency department (SPEED) instrument (n=4). Twelve of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the screening tools, of which eight of these studies assessed the performance of the SQ to predict patient mortality. Overall, the median sensitivity (63%, IQR 38%-78%) and specificity (75%, IQR 57%-84%) of the SQ to predict mortality at 1 or 12 months was moderate. While the median positive predictive value of the SQ was low (32%, IQR 16%-40%), the median negative predictive value was high (91%, IQR 88%-95%). Across the studies, the proportion of patients identified as having unmet PC based on the criteria of the screening tools ranged from 5% to 83%. This review identified 14 unique screening tools used to identify adult patients with unmet PC needs in the ED. One screening tool, the SQ, was found to have moderate sensitivity and specificity to accurately predict future patient mortality. Additional research is needed to better understand the clinical value of this and the other available tools prior to their widespread implementation.

Symptom burden, psychosocial distress and palliative care needs in heart failure – A cross-sectional explorative pilot study

BackgroundBeyond guideline-directed treatments aimed at improving cardiac function and prognosis in heart failure (HF), patient-reported outcomes have gained attention.PurposeUsing a cross-sectional approach, we assessed symptom burden, psychosocial distress, and potential palliative care (PC) needs in patients with advanced stages of HF.MethodsAt a large tertiary care center, we enrolled HF patients in an exploratory pilot study. Symptom burden and psychosocial distress were assessed using the MIDOS (Minimal Documentation System for Patients in PC) questionnaire and the Distress Thermometer (DT), respectively. The 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) was used to screen for anxiety and depression. To assess PC needs, physicians used the “Palliative Care Screening Tool for HF Patients”.ResultsWe included 259 patients, of whom 137 (53%) were enrolled at the Heart Failure Unit (HFU), and 122 (47%) at the outpatient clinic (OC). Mean age was 63 years, 72% were male. New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms were present in 56%. With a mean 5-year survival 64% (HFU) vs. 69% (OC) calculated by the Seattle Heart Failure Model, estimated prognosis was comparatively good. Symptom burden (MIDOS score 8.0 vs. 5.4, max. 30 points, p < 0.001) and level of distress (DT score 6.0 vs. 4.8, max. 10 points, p < 0.001) were higher in hospitalised patients. Clinically relevant distress was detected in the majority of patients (HFU 76% vs. OC 57%, p = 0.001), and more than one third exhibited at least mild symptoms of depression or anxiety. Screening for PC needs revealed 82% of in- and 52% of outpatients fulfil criteria for specialized palliative support.ConclusionDespite a good prognosis, we found multiple undetected and unaddressed needs in an advanced HF cohort. This study’s tools and screening results may help to early explore these needs, to further improve integrated HF care.Graphical abstract

Comparison of intuitive assessment and palliative care screening tool in the early identification of patients needing palliative care

The intuitive assessment of palliative care (PC) needs and Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST) are the assessment tools used in the early detection of patients requiring PC. However, the comparison of their prognostic accuracies has not been extensively studied. This cohort study aimed to compare the validity of intuitive assessment and PCST in terms of recognizing patients nearing end-of-life (EOL) and those appropriate for PC. All adult patients admitted to Taipei City Hospital from 2016 through 2019 were included in this prospective study. We used both the intuitive assessment of PC and PCST to predict patients’ 6-month mortality and identified those appropriate for PC. The c-statistic value was calculated to indicate the predictive accuracies of the intuition and PCST. Of 111,483 patients, 4.5% needed PC by the healthcare workers’ intuitive assessment, and 6.7% had a PCST score ≥ 4. After controlling for other covariates, a positive response ‘yes’ to intuitive assessment of PC needs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 9.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 914–10.71] and a PCST score ≥ 4 (AOR = 6.59; 95%CI 6.17–7.00) were the independent predictors of 6-month mortality. Kappa statistics showed moderate concordance between intuitive assessment and PCST in predicting patients' 6-month mortality (k = 0.49). The c-statistic values of the PCST at recognizing patients’ 6-month mortality was significantly higher than intuition (0.723 vs. 0.679; p < 0.001). As early identification of patients in need of PC could improve the quality of EOL care, our results suggest that it is imperative to screen patients’ palliative needs by using a highly accurate screening tool of PCST.

Utilization of Palliative Care Screening Tool to Early Identify Patients with COVID-19 Needing Palliative Care: A Cohort Study.

There are very few programs that identify patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who need palliative care. This cohort study presents a model to use a validated palliative care screening tool (PCST) to systematically identify hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in need of palliative care. In this prospective study, we consecutively recruited patients with COVID-19 admitted to Taipei City Hospital between 1 January and 30 July 2021. Patients’ palliative care needs were determined by using the PCST. Advance care planning (ACP) and advance directives (AD) were systemically provided for all patients with a PCST score ≥ 4. Of 897 patients, 6.1% had a PCST score ≥ 4. During the follow-up period, 106 patients died: 75 (8.9%) with a PCST score < 4 and 31 (56.4%) with a PCST score ≥ 4. The incidence of mortality was 2.08 and 0.58/100 person-days in patients with PCST scores ≥ 4 and <4, respectively. After controlling for other covariates, a PCST score ≥ 4 was associated with a higher risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 (adjusted HR = 2.08; 95% CI: 1.22–3.54; p < 0.001). During hospitalization, 55 patients completed an ACP discussion with their physicians, which led to 15 of them completing the AD. Since hospitalized patients with COVID-19 had a high mortality rate, it is imperative to implement a comprehensive palliative care program to early identify patients needing palliative care and promotion of AD and ACP.

A missed opportunity in the ED: Palliative care consult delays during inpatient admission.

Although Emergency Medicine has recognized Palliative Care (PC) as an important aspect of Emergency Medicine, the importance of integrating palliative care into standard practice is underscored by the data that many patients qualify for PC but are not utilizing this part of medicine. We believe Emergency Medicine should integrate Palliative Care as our responsibility and not rely on our colleagues. To support our statement, we undertook an examination of patients who died while inpatient to identify whether they were appropriately receiving palliative care consults. We hypothesized that palliative care is under-utilized for patients during these admissions. Retrospective chart review from 2015 to 2018 of inpatient deaths using an Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Screening Tool to determine qualification for Palliative Care. Setting is John Hopkins Hospital. Participants were age 18 and over; who died during their inpatient admission. Percentage of patients who qualified for palliative care via the screening tool versus percentage of patients who had palliative care involvement. The final study sample included 428 patients who died inpatient in the hospital between January 2015 and December 2018. The analysis used a Palliative Care Screening Tool to determine which patients would have qualified for palliative care. Analysis demonstrates that 66% of patients qualified for palliative care, whereas only 27% received it. The data reflects the percentage of patients who qualified for Palliative Care compared to the definite number of patients who received palliative care. The discrepancy in the percentages support our statement Emergency Medicine should take the lead on initiating palliative care for qualifying patients.

Investigating Key Factors Related to the Decision of a Do-Not-Resuscitate Consent.

Background: The decision to sign a do-not-resuscitate (DNR) consent is critical for patients concerned about their end-of-life medical care. Taiwan’s National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) introduced a family palliative care consultation fee to encourage family palliative care consultations; since its implementation, identifying which families require such consultations has become more important. In this study, the Taiwanese version of the Palliative Care Screening Tool (TW–PCST) was used to determine each patient’s degree of need for a family palliative care consultation. Objective: This study analyzed factors associated with signing DNR consents. The results may inform family palliative care consultations for families in need, thereby achieving a higher DNR consent rate and promoting the effective use of medical resources, including time, labor, and funding. Method: In this retrospective study, logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine which factors affected the DNR decisions of 2144 deceased patients (aged ≥ 20 years), whose records were collected from the Taipei City Hospital health information system from 1 January to 31 December 2018. Results: Among the 1730 patients with a DNR consent, 1298 (75.03%) received family palliative care consultations. The correlation between DNR consent and family palliative care consultations was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Through logistic regression analysis, we determined that participation in family palliative care consultation, TW–PCST score, type of ward, and length of stay were significant variables associated with DNR consent. Conclusions: This study determined that TW–PCST scores can be used as a measurement standard for the early identification of patients requiring family palliative care consultations. Family palliative care consultations provide opportunities for patients’ family members to participate in discussions about end-of-life care and DNR consent and provide patients and their families with accurate medical information regarding the end-of-life care decision-making process. The present results can serve as a reference to increase the proportion of patients willing to sign DNR consents and reduce the provision of ineffective life-prolonging medical treatment.

Effect of a Palliative Care Screening Tool for Oncology Patients.

This pilot quality improvement project implemented an adapted screening tool within an outpatient oncology center for patients with advanced cancer to identify unmet patient needs, aid decision making, and increase the number of patients referred to palliative care. Baseline data were collected via retrospective convenience sampling to track the number of palliative care referrals generated from the oncology center. Over a 6-week period, screening was implemented during patient evaluations with their oncologist to identify needs for palliative care intervention and as a decision aid to support referring patients to a specialized palliative care service. During the pilot, key nursing staff were affected by COVID-19, and the ideal sample size was not met. Despite a small sample size, the number of palliative care referrals increased. The increased number of referrals affirms the use of a screening tool to identify palliative care needs and as a formal decision-making process to improve patient access to palliative care.

Instruments for the identification of patients in need of palliative care in the hospital setting: a systematic review of measurement properties.

The objective of this review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the measurement properties of the available instruments used by clinicians for identifying adults in need of general or specialized palliative care in hospital settings. Identification of patients in need of palliative care has been recognized as an area where many health care professionals need guidance. Differentiating between patients who require general palliative care and patients with more complex conditions who need specialized palliative care is particularly challenging. We included development and validation studies that reported on measurement properties (eg, content validity, reliability, or responsiveness) of instruments used by clinicians for identifying adult patients (>18 years and older) in need of palliative care in hospital settings. Studies published until March 2020 were searched in four databases: Embase.com, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and CINAHL (EBSCO). Unpublished studies were searched in Google Scholar, government websites, hospice websites, the Library Network of Western Switzerland, and WorldCat. The search was not restricted by language; however, only studies published in English or French were eligible for inclusion. The title and abstracts of the studies were screened by two independent reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Full-text studies were reviewed for inclusion by two independent reviewers. The quality of the measurement properties of all included studies were assessed independently by two reviewers according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Out of the 23 instruments identified, four instruments were included, as reported in six studies: the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) criteria, the Necesidades Paliativas (NECPAL), the Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST), and the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT). The overall psychometric quality of all four instruments was insufficient according to the COSMIN criteria, with the main deficit being poor construct description during development. For the early identification of patients needing palliative care in hospital settings, there is poor quality and incomplete evidence according to the COSMIN criteria for the four available instruments. This review highlights the need for further development of the construct being measured. This may be done by conducting additional studies on these instruments or by developing a new instrument for the identification of patients in need of palliative care that addresses the current gaps in construct and structural validity. PROSPERO CRD42020150074.

I've Got the Power: Nurses' Moral Distress and Perceptions of Empowerment.

Nurses experience moral distress when they feel disempowered or impeded in taking the ethically right course of action. Research suggests an inverse relationship between moral distress and empowerment. In the intensive care unit, providing palliative care services may reduce moral distress because palliative care is often provided in situations that give rise to moral distress. To evaluate the effect of nurses' use of a palliative care screening tool on their moral distress and perceptions of empowerment. A pretest-posttest pilot study was conducted involving day-shift medical intensive care unit nurses. The nurses administered a palliative care screening tool to their assigned patients daily for 8 weeks and communicated the results to an attending physician or fellow. Demographic information was collected, along with data on nurses' moral distress and perceptions of structural and workplace empowerment before and after the intervention. Moral distress was evaluated using the Moral Distress Scale-Revised. Perceptions of structural and workplace empowerment were quantified using the Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire-II and the Global Empowerment Scale, respectively. Preintervention and postintervention surveys were completed by 17 nurses. Paired-sample t tests revealed a significant decrease in the frequency of moral distress (t16 = -2.22, P = .04) and a significant increase in workplace empowerment (t16 = -2.75, P = .01). No significant changes in moral distress intensity or structural empowerment were found. Nurses' sense of empowerment and the frequency of moral distress are favorably affected by active participation in assessing and communicating patients' palliative care needs.

Factors affecting initiation of palliative care in a Ugandan Emergency Department.

IntroductionThe Emergency Department (ED) of Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital serves a largely rural population of 4 million people in western Uganda. Here, ED patients with incurable illness often have prolonged stays. Palliative care (PC) is a low-cost intervention that focuses on alleviating pain and suffering for patients with incurable disease, while improving satisfaction with care and optimizing healthcare utilization. This is especially important in low resource settings. A prior needs assessment in our ED revealed that 50% of patients have PC needs. The ED is an optimal location to initiate PC, yet this rarely happens. There is a great need to identify factors affecting initiation of ED PC in our resource-limited setting.MethodsA semi-structured questionnaire and chart review was conducted from March to August 2020. Patients admitted from the ED were assessed for PC needs. Those who met criteria were approached for inclusion and flagged for initiation of PC. The follow-up period was 7 days.ResultsSixty two percent of those subjects flagged for initiation of PC received it. By day seven, 36.1 of the study population had died. ED initiation of PC varied significantly by diagnosis, with cancer patients more likely to receive PC (p = 0.0097).ConclusionImportant barriers to PC initiation were identified in our Ugandan ED, related to diagnosis. These barriers could be overcome by improving awareness of PC amongst patients and providers alike and implementing a PC screening tool for all admissions. Future research is needed to identify other barriers, as well as strategies for improved hospital-wide uptake of PC in this resource-limited setting.

Enhancing palliative care consultation workflow on an inpatient oncology unit.

208 Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guidelines recommend early palliative care integration for all patients with cancer. At UMass Memorial Medical Center from Sept. to Nov. 2020, only 16% (29/184) of patients on the inpatient oncology unit received a palliative care consultation. Of these consultations, 55% (16/29) were placed within 72 hours of admission. Results from a pre-pilot survey of nurses (n = 20) and providers (n = 14) about attitudes toward palliative care, team communication, and perceptions of barriers to palliative care consultation highlighted a lack of multidisciplinary communication and consensus on criteria for palliative care consultation. Methods: An evidence-based palliative care screening tool and multidisciplinary communication process was piloted to support team collaboration and early identification of oncology patients who may benefit from specialty-level inpatient palliative care. The primary objective was to increase the percentage of palliative care consultations placed within 72 hours of admission from 55% to 65%. Nurses screened patients upon unit arrival for palliative care needs. Patients who screened positive were discussed during daily multidisciplinary rounds, attended by the resource nurse, primary team, case manager and social worker. Results: In March 2021, the percentage of palliative care consultations placed by providers within 72 hours of inpatient admission increased to 68% (13/19). The proportion of patients who received palliative care consultation also increased to 29%. All the patients who screened positive for palliative care needs received a consultation. In a post-pilot survey of providers (n = 9) and nurses (n = 14), most providers (78%) reported that discussions of patients’ palliative care needs occurred more frequently during multidisciplinary rounds. A majority of nurses (57%) agreed the screening tool led to enhanced multidisciplinary communication. 63% of providers agreed that criteria for palliative care consultation was clearer as a result of the pilot; both nurse and provider perceptions of “lack of provider agreement on palliative care consultation criteria” as a barrier decreased compared to the pre-pilot survey. Although a majority of nurses (71%) found the screening tool easy to use, only half were comfortable with all the questions or understood them completely. All providers and 93% of nurses preferred to continue using the screening tool and communication process, and supported electronic medical record integration. Conclusions: The palliative care screening tool and workflow process had a positive impact on earlier identification of oncology patients who could benefit from specialty palliative care, and increased the total number of palliative care consultations. This improved process also enhanced team communication and collaboration. Next steps include refining the screening tool and EMR integration.