OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic is a care crisis of unknown duration which has seemingly not yet reached its peak in many countries. A significant number of elderly and frail people and those with underlying serious illness will continue to develop severe forms of the COVID-19 infection. Most of them are not eligible for intensive care treatment but can still expect palliative care - in many cases provided by a Hospital Palliative Care Team (HPCT). Several teams have already gained experience in caring for these patients and their families, others are preparing for it.
METHOD: We report on a COVID-19 patient with pre-existing acute myeloid leukemia who was looked after by a HPCT until death. We discuss the challenges and difficulties while caring for COVID-19-positive palliative patients in a non-ICU setting.
RESULTS: Hospitalization of the patient in an isolation ward caused an enormous burden for the dying patient and his family. Symptom control was particularly difficult because of rapid deteriorating dyspnea and the scarce presence of medical staff in the patient's room.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: COVID-19 patients who are not eligible for ICU treatment may have a particularly high need for palliative care. Since beds in specialist palliative care units are limited, the HPCT should be prepared to care for these patients. They may offer support in decision-making, optimize symptom control, and provide psychosocial care for patients and their families. Visiting restrictions aimed to protect the general public must be weighted against the patient's and family's suffering.
While the strict regulations in hospital in Hong Kong effectively controlled the
outbreaks of COVID-19, they caused challenges in the care of our hospitalized cancer patients. Four clinical cases based on true encounter during the COVID-19 period with mitigations were summarised. These four cases reflected the unanticipated impacts of the extreme measures and
highlighted the deficiencies of our existing system. The pandemics offered us opportunities to explore new ways to improve our cancer care, especially concerning the psychological support to both patients and caretakers.
The COVID-19 crisis has amplified the importance of palliative care to countless patients suffering with and dying from this disease, as well as to their families, communities, and the worldwide cadre of overburdened healthcare workers. Particularly urgent is the need for spiritual care specialists and generalists to address spiritual suffering given the degree of isolation, loneliness, and vulnerability caused by this pandemic. Although spiritual care has long been recognized as one of the domains of quality palliative care, it is often not fully integrated into practice. All disciplines are ultimately responsible for ensuring spiritual care is prioritized to improve quality of life and the experience of patients and families facing spiritual emergencies amid the complex life-and-death scenarios inherent to COVID-19. Although the pandemic has revealed serious fault lines in many healthcare domains, it has also underscored the need to recommit to spiritual care as an essential component of whole-person palliative care.
I had been on the phone with Madeleine's mother for fifteen minutes, and she had sobbed throughout. She pleaded with me, "You won't even let our family visit her together. If you really want to help my daughter, you will let us stay with her." Madeleine, who was twenty-four years old, was dying of end-stage acute myeloid leukemia and was intubated in one of our intensive care units. Her intensivist had requested a clinical ethics consultation for potentially inappropriate medical treatment-in my world of clinical ethics consultation, routine stuff. Except that, in March 2020, nothing was routine anymore. The Covid-19 pandemic calls for creative thinking about ad hoc and post hoc bereavement efforts, and it may result in efforts to revise existing accounts of what constitutes a good death in order to accommodate patients' and families' experiences at the end of life during a pandemic.
In a field that strives to care for patients and families together, what can palliative care clinicians do when patients' families are physically absent? The Covid-19 pandemic has put both literal and figurative walls between health care professionals and families. How health care workers respond to these disconnections might have a lasting impact on patients, on families, and on our practice. Recently, I saw this in the case of a patient our palliative care team was consulted to see. Mr. B was minimally responsive and dying from multisystem organ failure of unclear etiology. As in other cases during this pandemic, our team became a facilitator of interaction between the patient and the physically absent family, seeing an intimacy we normally would not, in this case, by being present while our intern held the phone to Mr. B's ear for an end-of-life call from his wife, son, and daughter. Such moments force us clinicians to be even more present for our families and patients, and they allow us to bear witness to the strength and sadness and love that we might otherwise miss.
It is April 18th, 2020. I am writing this piece in New York City, the current world epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic, listening to the most recent updates on the number of cases and deaths from COVID-19. In the city where I was born, educated, raised a family, live and made a career in Psychiatric Oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. In New York City alone, there are now at least 130,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and close to 14,000 deaths due to the virus. About 1,300 patients were admitted to the hospital here today, and 507 people died here of COVID-19 today. But this is a global pandemic affecting more than 185 countries, a global tragedy. 2.4 million COVID-19 cases reported worldwide, 165,000 deaths.
The unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health care systems in different ways. In the United Kingdom, various subspecialties are deployed to the wards to help medical workforce in the frontlines, with dermatologists helping with general medical wards and on-calls. We present a case of COVID-19–related urticaria manifesting in a palliative setting and responding well to systemic antihistamine. This pandemic has highlighted a new subspecialty that should be explored and researched—palliative dermatology—bridging elements of dermatology with the concepts of palliative medicine. As dermatologists, we should be in the position to help with the last stages of a patient’s journey.
In few periods in human history have bereavement and grief been on so many people's minds as they are today. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ravages the world, we have seen many perish in a short time. Many have died alone because of requirements for physical distancing. Even more will succumb as COVID-19 continues to spread. Moreover, deaths from other causes, numbering over 50 million annually, are also happening amid physical distancing and other COVID-19-related challenges. The pandemic is affecting the way terminally ill patients are being cared for, when and how people are dying of other causes, and how bodies are being handled and bereavement rituals performed. The bereaved are required to grieve without the support of usual social and cultural rituals. Grieving is further encumbered by cascading life stressors deriving from policies needed to mitigate the pandemic. Though we are often heartened by human resilience in response to death and other hardships, for some, the burden of this pandemic will be too much. Among other mental health problems, we will likely see an increase in prolonged grief disorder. In this commentary, we review the new diagnosis of prolonged grief disorder and outline why we might anticipate increased rates of this condition on the heels of COVID-19, especially among older persons. We suggest ways we might mitigate this emerging problem.
The large scale and rapid spread of the current COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way hospitals and other health services operate. Opportunities for patient-centered decision-making at the end of life are being jeopardized by a scarcity of health system resources. In response, the traditional doctor-initiated advanced care planning (ACP) for critical illness may also need to be readjusted. We propose nurse-led and allied health-led ACP discussions to ensure patient and family inclusion and understanding of the disease prognosis, prevention of overtreatment, and potential outcomes in crisis times. We highlight known barriers and list enablers, long-term and short-term opportunities to assist in the culture change.
Family meetings are fundamental to the practice of palliative medicine and serve as a cornerstone of intervention on the inpatient palliative care consultation service. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the structure and process of in-patient family meetings, due to necessary but restrictive visitor policies that did not allow families to be present in the hospital. We describe implementation of telemedicine to facilitate electronic family (e-family) meetings to facilitate in-patient palliative care. Of 67 scheduled meetings and performed by the palliative care service, only 2 meetings were aborted for a 97% success rate of scheduled meetings occurring. On a five-point Likert-type scale, the average clinician rating of the e-family meeting overall quality was 3.18 (SD, 0.96). Of the 10 unique family participants that agreed to be interviewed, their overall ratings of the e-family meetings were high. Over 80% of respondent families participants reported that they agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to ask all of their questions, felt comfortable expressing their thoughts and feelings with the clinical team, felt like they understood the care their loved one received, and that the virtual family meeting helped them trust the clinical team. Of patients who were able to communicate 50% of family respondents reported that the e-family meeting helped them understand their loved one’s thoughts and wishes.
In palliative care, we strive to provide care to the whole patient. When we think about the whole patient, we include the people who are important in our patients' lives. Our New York City-based palliative care team has found that caring for patients' loved ones has proven to be an even more important aspect of the care we have provided during the COVID epidemic. In this article, we describe the multicomponenet interdisciplinary interventions we have implemented to enhance our ability to create a therapeutic alliance with family members and facilitate the provision of goal concordant care to patients with COVID during this extremely difficult time.
In this paper, we strongly advocate for universal palliative care access during the COVID-19 pandemic. The delivery of universal palliative care services has been called for by leading global health organizations and experts. Nurses are critical to realizing this goal. COVID-19 diagnoses and fatalities continue to rise, underscoring the importance of palliative care, particularly in the context of scant resources. To inform the writing of this paper, we undertook a review of the COVID-19 and palliative care literature and drew on our experiences. It is very clear that investment in nurses is needed to ensure appropriate palliative care services now and into the future. Avoiding futile interventions and alleviating suffering is an ethical imperative for nurses regardless of the setting. Multi-level practices and policies to foster the delivery of safe, high-quality palliative care for all are urgently needed.
During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is particularly critical to ensure that life-sustaining treatment (LST) such as intubation and resource-intensive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) are aligned with a patient’s goals and values, and to avoid LSTs in patients with a poor prognosis that are unlikely to be beneficial, but have a high risk of causing additional suffering. The high volume and acuity of COVID-19 patients makes it extremely challenging for emergency department (ED) clinicians to take adequate time to clarify goals of care (GOC). We implemented an ED-based COVID-19 palliative care response team focused on providing high-quality GOC conversations in time-critical situations. We examined the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients who received this intervention.
Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted in the ED of an urban, quaternary care academic medical center in New York, New York. We included 110 patients for whom the palliative care team was consulted between March 27, 2020, and April 10, 2020, with follow-up through May 9, 2020. Columbia University institutional review board approved this study and waived the need for informed consent.
Emergency department clinicians consulted the palliative care team for assistance with any palliative care-related needs, including GOC clarification and cases where stated GOC did not align with expected prognosis. The palliative care team (1 attending physician who was board-certified in hospice and palliative medicine, 1 hospice/palliative medicine fellow clinician, and 4 psychiatry resident physicians and fellow clinicians, all trained in GOC conversations and supervised by the palliative care attending physician) was available in person 12 hours per day, and for phone consultation overnight and on weekends. The palliative care intervention focused on GOC conversations: conveying the prognosis in a clear and simple way, exploring patients’ goals and values, and making care recommendations based on elicited goals.1,2
Deidentified demographic data were collected from the medical record. Primary outcomes included GOC before and after palliative care intervention, as well as GOC on death or discharge. Secondary outcomes included clinical course and length of stay in the hospital
Goals of care were defined as “full code” (pursue all LSTs including intubation and CPR); “do-not-resuscitate (DNR) only” (pursue all LSTs excluding CPR); “DNR/do-not-intubate (DNI), continue medical treatment” (pursue all LSTs excluding intubation and CPR); and “comfort-directed care” (forgo LSTs, deliver symptom-focused treatment only). The GOC were presumed to be full code if no advance directives or medical orders for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST) were found on presentation to the ED.
Six patients were still hospitalized at the time of data review; they were excluded from the analysis for clinical course.
Results: The 110 patients were aged a median (range) of 81.5 (46-101) years and 61 (55.4%) were women. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics are reported in Table 1. Most patients were community-dwelling elderly persons (aged >75 years) with at least 2 comorbidities and lacked decision-making capacity at the time of presentation. Very few patients presented with documented advance directives or MOLST and therefore were presumed to be full code.
The primary outcomes are summarized in Table 2. After initial palliative care intervention, the number of full code decreased from 91 patients (82.7%) to 20 patients (18.2%). Among these 71 patients (64.5%) in whom CPR was declined, mechanical ventilation was also declined in 61 patients (55.5%) (ie, 32 patients in DNR/DNI, continue medical treatment, 29 patients in comfort-directed care). On discharge, the number of full code further decreased to 9 patients (8.6%), whereas comfort-directed care increased to 54 patients (51.9%). The median (range) length of stay was 4 (0-28) days and 71 patients (68.2%) died in the hospital. Among 33 patients (31.7%) who were discharged alive, 6 patients (5.8%) were discharged with hospice care.
Discussion: The included patients’ demographic characteristics were consistent with those of critically ill patients with COVID-19 previously reported and with those of patients reported to be at highest risk of death from COVID-19. Patients without advance care planning conversations are known to be at risk of receiving unwanted, high-intensity, lower-quality care,5 even though many seriously ill patients do not prefer LSTs at the end of life.6
The most important finding in this study was, after palliative care intervention in the ED, most patients and their surrogates opted to forgo mechanical ventilation and/or CPR, and that tendency further increased on discharge. We believe timely GOC conversations by the palliative care team helped avoid unwanted LSTs for patients with a poor prognosis. Study limitations include potentially limited generalizability given the retrospective design at a single institution. Also, palliative care consultation was initiated by ED clinicians, which may have led to selection bias, though a high rate of altered GOC after intervention suggests significant, unaddressed need in the outlying population.
The coronavirus disease 2019 surge in New York City created an increased demand for palliative care (PC) services. In staff-limited settings such as safety net systems, and amid growing reports of health care worker illness, leveraging help from less-affected areas around the country may provide an untapped source of support. A national social media outreach effort recruited 413 telepalliative medicine volunteers (TPMVs). After expedited credentialing and onboarding of 67 TPMVs, a two-week pilot was initiated in partnership with five public health hospitals without any previous existing telehealth structure. The volunteers completed 109 PC consults in the pilot period. Survey feedback from TPMVs and on-site PC providers was largely positive, with areas of improvement identified around electronic health record navigation and continuity of care. This was a successful, proof of concept, and quality improvement initiative leveraging TPMVs from across the nation for a PC pandemic response in a safety net system.
The spread of pandemic COVID-19 has created unprecedented need for information. The pandemic is the cause of significant mortality and with this the need for rapidly disseminated information for palliative care professionals regarding the prevalence of symptoms, their intensity, their resistance or susceptibility to symptom control and the mode of death for patients.
Methods: we undertook a systematic review of published evidence for symptoms in patients with COVID-19 (with a specific emphasis on symptoms at end of life) and on modes of death. Inclusion: prospective or retrospective studies detailing symptom presence and/or cause or mode of death from COVID-19.
Results: 12 papers met the inclusion criteria and gave details of symptom burden: four of these specifically in the dying and two detailed the cause or mode of death. Cough, breathlessness, fatigue and myalgia are significant symptoms in people hospitalised with COVID-19. Dyspnoea is the most significant symptom in the dying. The mode of death was described in two papers and is predominantly through respiratory or heart failure.
Conclusions: There remains a dearth of information regarding symptom burden and mode of death to inform decisions regarding end-of-life care in patients dying with COVID-19. Rapid data gathering on the mode of death and the profile of symptoms in the dying and their prevalence and severity in areas where COVID-19 is prevalent will provide important intelligence for clinicians. This should be done urgently, within ethical norms and the practicalities of a public health, clinical and logistical emergency.
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare systems are experiencing an increased demand for palliative care (PC). To meet this challenge, the PC team at Cleveland Clinic designed an enterprise-wide response plan organized around 4 domains: staff (educational resources and tools), stuff (medications and supplies), space (recommendations for optimizing physical space and facilities), and systems to facilitate high-quality PC delivery to patients. To mitigate isolation during end-of-life care, the Clinic offers “compassionate exceptions” to strict visitation policies, provides personal protective equipment to visitors of these patients, and facilitates virtual visitation via electronic devices.
Background: Anticipatory prescribing (AP) of injectable medications in advance of clinical need is established practice in community end-of-life care. Changes to prescribing guidelines and practice have been reported during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Aims and objectives: To investigate UK and Ireland clinicians’ experiences concerning changes in AP during the COVID-19 pandemic and their recommendations for change.
Methods: Online survey of participants at previous AP national workshops, members of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland and other professional organisations, with snowball sampling.
Results: Two hundred and sixty-one replies were received between 9 and 19 April 2020 from clinicians in community, hospice and hospital settings across all areas of the UK and Ireland. Changes to AP local guidance and practice were reported: route of administration (47%), drugs prescribed (38%), total quantities prescribed (35%), doses and ranges (29%). Concerns over shortages of nurses and doctors to administer subcutaneous injections led 37% to consider drug administration by family or social caregivers, often by buccal, sublingual and transdermal routes. Clinical contact and patient assessment were more often remote via telephone or video (63%). Recommendations for regulatory changes to permit drug repurposing and easier community access were made.
Conclusions: The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for UK community palliative care has stimulated rapid innovation in AP. The extent to which these are implemented and their clinical efficacy need further examination.
Background: Humanitarian crises and emergencies, events often marked by high mortality, have until recently excluded palliative care—a specialty focusing on supporting people with serious or terminal illness or those nearing death. In the COVID-19 pandemic, palliative care has received unprecedented levels of societal attention. Unfortunately, this has not been enough to prevent patients dying alone, relatives not being able to say goodbye and palliative care being used instead of intensive care due to resource limitations. Yet global guidance was available. In 2018, the WHO released a guide on ‘Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into the response to humanitarian emergencies and crises’—the first guidance on the topic by an international body.
Aims: This paper argues that while a landmark document, the WHO guide took a narrowly clinical bioethics perspective and missed crucial moral dilemmas. We argue for adding a population-level bioethics lens, which draws forth complex moral dilemmas arising from the fact that groups having differential innate and acquired resources in the context of social and historical determinants of health. We discuss dilemmas concerning: limitations of material and human resources; patient prioritisation; euthanasia; and legacy inequalities, discrimination and power imbalances.
Implications: In parts of the world where opportunity for preparation still exists, and as countries emerge from COVID-19, planners must consider care for the dying. Immediate steps to support better resolutions to ethical dilemmas of the provision of palliative care in humanitarian and emergency contexts will require honest debate; concerted research effort; and international, national and local ethical guidance.