Palliative care has potential to improve quality of life and goal-concordant care for patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD). However, it is rarely employed prior to critical illness because the best methods for implementation are not well-defined. We qualitatively evaluated ACHD patients' understanding of and opinions regarding palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) to better define the needs of this population. We conducted a thematic analysis of 25 semi-structured interviews with patients with ACHD in which we assessed participants' perspectives on the need for, and barriers and facilitators to, the use of palliative care and ACP. In a group of participants with ACHD (mean age 38, 48% male) classified as simple (24%), moderate (32%), or complex (44%), we identified 4 major themes: 1) using knowledge to combat future uncertainties; 2) unfamiliarity with and limited exposure to palliative care and ACP; 3) facilitators and barriers to engaging in palliative care and ACP; and 4) importance of timing and presentation of ACP discussions. In conclusion, participants expressed a desire for knowledge about ACHD progression and treatment. They supported routine incorporation of palliative care and ACP and identified related facilitators and barriers to doing so. Importantly, timing and format of these discussions must be individualized using shared decision-making between clinicians, patients, and their families.
BACKGROUND: Communication about the end of life is especially important in the family context, as patients and their families are considered as the care unit in palliative care. Open end-of-life communication can positively affect medical, psychological and relational outcomes during the dying process for patient and family. Regardless of the benefits of end-of-life conversations, many patients and their family caregivers speak little about relevant end-of-life issues.
AIM: To identify barriers that hinder or influence the discussion of end-of-life issues in the family context.
DESIGN: A systematic mixed-method review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines.
DATA SOURCES: A systematic search of PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science was conducted and extended with a hand search. Peer-reviewed primary studies reporting on the barriers to or difficulties in end-of-life conversations experienced by terminally ill patients and/or family caregivers were included in this review.
RESULTS: 18 qualitative and two quantitative studies met the inclusion criteria. The experiences of n=205 patients and n=738 family caregivers were analysed qualitatively; n=293 patients and n=236 caregivers were surveyed in the questionnaire studies. Five overarching categories emerged from the extracted data: emotional, cognitive, communicative, relational and external processes can hinder end-of-life communication within the family. The most frequently reported barriers are emotional and cognitive processes such as protective buffering or belief in positive thinking.
CONCLUSIONS: Research on end-of-life communication barriers in the family context is scarce. Further research should enhance the development of appropriate assessment tools and interventions to support families with the challenges experienced regarding end-of-life conversations.
Background: Involving adults lacking capacity (ALC) in research on end of life care (EoLC) or serious illness is important, but often omitted. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on how best to include individuals with impaired capacity nearing the end of life in research, by identifying the challenges and solutions for processes of consent across the capacity spectrum.
Methods: Methods Of Researching End of Life Care_Capacity (MORECare_C) furthers the MORECare statement on research evaluating EoLC. We used simultaneous methods of systematic review and transparent expert consultation (TEC). The systematic review involved four electronic databases searches. The eligibility criteria identified studies involving adults with serious illness and impaired capacity, and methods for recruitment in research, implementing the research methods, and exploring public attitudes. The TEC involved stakeholder consultation to discuss and generate recommendations, and a Delphi survey and an expert ‘think-tank’ to explore consensus. We narratively synthesised the literature mapping processes of consent with recruitment outcomes, solutions, and challenges. We explored recommendation consensus using descriptive statistics. Synthesis of all the findings informed the guidance statement.
Results: Of the 5539 articles identified, 91 met eligibility. The studies encompassed people with dementia (27%) and in palliative care (18%). Seventy-five percent used observational designs. Studies on research methods (37 studies) focused on processes of proxy decision-making, advance consent, and deferred consent. Studies implementing research methods (30 studies) demonstrated the role of family members as both proxy decision-makers and supporting decision-making for the person with impaired capacity. The TEC involved 43 participants who generated 29 recommendations, with consensus that indicated. Key areas were the timeliness of the consent process and maximising an individual’s decisional capacity. The think-tank (n = 19) refined equivocal recommendations including supporting proxy decision-makers, training practitioners, and incorporating legislative frameworks.
Conclusions: The MORECare_C statement details 20 solutions to recruit ALC nearing the EoL in research. The statement provides much needed guidance to enrol individuals with serious illness in research. Key is involving family members early and designing study procedures to accommodate variable and changeable levels of capacity. The statement demonstrates the ethical imperative and processes of recruiting adults across the capacity spectrum in varying populations and settings.
OBJECTIVES: Family meetings (FMs) between clinicians, patients and family are recommended as a valuable communication and care planning method in the delivery of palliative care. However, there is a dearth of knowledge regarding FM characteristics, with few studies describing the prevalence, circumstances and content of FMs. The aims of this study were to: (1) measure the prevalence of FMs, (2) examine circumstance and timing of FMs, and (3) explore the content of FMs.
METHODS: A retrospective medical record audit was conducted of 200 patients who died in an Australian hospital of an expected death from advanced disease. Details of FMs were collected using an audit tool, along with patient demographics and admission data.
RESULTS: 33 patients (16.5%) had at least one FM during their inpatient stay. The majority of FMs occurred for patients admitted to an inpatient palliative care unit (59.5%) and were most commonly facilitated by doctors (81.0%). Patient attendance was frequent (40.5%). FM content fell into six categories: medical information, supportive communication behaviours of clinicians, psychosocial support for patients and families, end-of-life discussions, discharge planning and administrative arrangements.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the benefits FMs confer, FMs appear to be infrequently used at the end of life. When FMs are used, there is a strong medical focus on both facilitation and content. Available FM documentation tools also appear to be underused. Clinicians are encouraged to have a greater understanding of FMs to optimise their use and adopt a proactive and structured approach to the conduct and documentation of FMs.
BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have been done focusing on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) as well as their family members. The aim of our research was to determine the factors that influence the QoL of MS patients in advanced stage of disease and their caregivers.
METHODS: The sample of the cross-sectional study included 153 patients with MS and 74 caregivers. QoL was measured using the PNDQoL questionnaire (Progressive Neurological Diseases Quality of Life), and the severity of illness was assessed through the following scales: EDSS (Expanded Disability Status scale), PPS (Palliative Performance Scale), and ADL (Activity Daily Living).
RESULTS: The following predictors of the global QoL of the MS patients were identified - age, EDSS, symptom burden, daily care, emotional functioning, and spiritual_nonreligion functioning (R2 = 0.569; F = 32.900; p < 0.001). The following predictors of the global QoL of caregivers were identified - age, emotional functioning, spiritual_nonreligion functioning, patient's QoL, and feeling of care (R2 = 0.431; F = 18.690; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Appropriate intervention should be directed particularly at older patients and caregivers who have faced the disease for longer time and at patients without any partner. Supporting the emotional and social well-being and mitigating the burden caused by symptoms of the patients as well as caregivers can improve the QoL of both groups.
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with an uncertain trajectory, which challenges prognostication and means that most patients are not involved in advance care planning and do not receive palliative and end-of-life care.
AIM: To understand the preferences of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for discussions about palliative and advance care planning with clinicians.
DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Data analysis was guided by principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis, of which symbolic interactionism and interpretation principles were employed throughout.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33 British patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at different stages of their disease trajectory were recruited.
RESULTS: Patients preferred to discuss palliative care with clinicians they perceived had greater levels of competency and authority in care and with whom they had an established relationship, usually a specialist. Patients favoured large amounts of information about treatments and care, but reported a lack of illness-related information and problems accessing appointments with clinicians. Consequently, patients deferred discussions to the future, usually once their condition had deteriorated significantly or planned to wait for clinicians to initiate conversations. This was not rooted in patient preferences, but related to clinicians' lack of time, absence of an established relationship and belief that appointments were for managing current symptoms, exacerbations and disease factors rather than future care and preferences.
CONCLUSION: Different perceptions, competing priorities and service rationing inhibit patients from initiating early discussions with clinicians, so palliative care conversations should be initiated by respiratory-expert clinicians who know the patient well. After a sudden deterioration in the patient's condition may be a suitable time.
Few studies have explored the inter-relationships of sources of social support and caregiving self-efficacy with caregiver burden and patient's quality of life among patients with palliative care needs and their caregivers. This study tested the associations of two sources of social support (family and friends) and the mediating role of caregiving self-efficacy on caregiver burden and patient's quality of life. A convenience sample of 225 patient-caregiver dyads recruited between September 2016 and May 2017 from three hospitals in Hong Kong was included in the current analysis. Results showed that the final model provided a satisfactory fit (SRMR = 0.070, R-RMSEA = 0.055 and R-CFI = 0.926) with the data, as good as the hypothesized model did (p = 0.326). Significant associations were detected. Family support had a significant negative indirect effect on caregiver burden and a significant positive indirect effect on patient's quality of life through caregiving self-efficacy, whereas friend support had a significant positive direct effect on caregiver burden but a minimal effect, if any, on patient's quality of life. These findings emphasized (1) the importance of caregiving self-efficacy in improving caregiver burden and patient's quality of life and that (2) sources of social support may be an important dimension moderating the associations of caregiving self-efficacy with caregiver burden and patient's quality of life.
Objectives: To examine palliative care needs of advanced cancer patients and their informal caregivers and correlates of their needs within Chinese context.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey conducted in two study sites in Mainland China. Patients and caregivers were recruited in dyads. Patients completed the following questionnaires: Problems and Needs in Palliative Care-short version, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS), Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Scale (Brief-COPE), and Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Core 15-Palliative Care Scale. Questionnaires for caregivers were as follows: Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool in Cancer for Caregivers, HADS, ESAS, MOS-SSS, Brief-COPE, and Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer. All of the outcome variables were selected based on a conceptual framework of palliative care needs assessment.
Results: Four hundred nineteen patient-caregiver dyads completed this survey. Patients’ unmet palliative care needs were mainly related to financial (85.2%), informational (82.3%), physical (pain) (69.7%), and psychological (64.9%) domains. Caregivers’ commonly reported unmet needs mainly focused on the domains of healthcare staff (95.0%), information (92.1%), and hospital facilities and services (90.5%). Patients’ greater severity of symptom distress, presence of anxiety and/or depression, use of coping strategies particularly the less use of problem-focused coping, and caregivers’ poorer quality of life were identified as key negative predictors of the needs of both patients and caregivers (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Both patients and caregivers had context-bounded palliative care needs. In addition to increasing the amount of external asistance, more emphasis should be placed on screening for physical and psychological distress, the use of coping strategies, and the well-being of caregivers to help identify those in need for more clinical attention and specific interventions.
OBJECTIVES: To explore perceptions, experiences and expectations with respect to palliative care of patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and an incurable, life-limiting chronic illness.
METHODS: Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted with 12 patients (10 of them living in a mental healthcare institution) with severe mental and physical health issues in the Netherlands. A semistructured interview guide was used to elicit perceptions of, experiences with and expectations regarding palliative care. Data were analysed using inductive content analysis.
RESULTS: Analysis of the data revealed eight categories: perceptions on health and health issues, coping with illness and symptoms, experiences with and wishes for current healthcare, contact with relatives and coresidents, experiences with end of life of relatives and coresidents, willingness to discuss end of life and death, wishes and expectations regarding one's own end of life and practical aspects relating to matters after death. These categories were clustered into two separate themes: current situation and anticipation of end of life. Interviewees with SMI appeared not accustomed to communicate about end-of-life issues, death and dying due to their life-threatening illness. They tended to discuss only their current situation and, after further exploration of the researcher, the terminal phase of life. They seemed not engaged in their future palliative care planning.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study highlight inadequacies in advance care planning for patients with SMI. Results suggest using values, current and near wishes, and needs as a starting point for establishing a gradual discussion concerning goals and preferences for future medical and mental treatment and care.
COVID-19 has highlighted the reality of an impending serious illness for many, particularly for older persons. Those faced with severe COVID-19 infection or other serious illness will be faced with decisions regarding admission to intensive care and use of mechanical ventilation. Past research has documented substantial medical errors regarding the use or non-use of life-sustaining treatments in older persons. While some experts advocate that advance care planning may be a solution to the problem, I argue that the prevailing understanding and current practice of advance care planning perpetuates the problem and results in patients not receiving optimal patient-centered care. Much of the problem centers on the framing of advance care planning around end of life care, the lack of use of decision support tools, and inadequate language that does not support shared decision-making. I posit that a new approach and new terminology is needed. Advance Serious Illness Preparations and Planning (ASIPP) consists of discrete steps using evidence-based tools to prepare people for future clinical decision-making in the context of shared decision-making and informed consent. Existing tools to support this approach have been developed and validated. Further dissemination of these tools is warranted.
Shared decision-making in cancer care, where we move away from the paternalistic "the doctor knows best" attitude to involving the patient in decisions regarding her or his health, is now universally accepted in western societies. However, in many situations this is easier said than done. For instance, if the interaction with the patient is not performed in a skillful manner, shared decision-making can make the patient feel unsafe - shouldn't the specialist know how to treat a serious disease such as cancer? Why would the doctor ask the patient about this? In other cases, what the patient wants in unrealistic, for example a severely frail patient aged 85 years with more than one life-limiting comorbidity who is diagnosed with an advanced cancer and has a goal of living to be at least 100 years. And what does a patient with advanced dementia want in the context of a cancer disease? In this perspectives piece, we will describe different scenarios that may arise within geriatric oncology and shared decision-making, make recommendations about how to handle such situations, and provide some food for thought.
BACKGROUND: While the majority of research assesses the impact of end-of-life dreams and visions (ELDVs) on patients, more recent research has begun to explore their impact on family caregivers (FCG).
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the relationship between general attitudes about dreams, perspectives of ELDV and their role the bereaved FCG experience.
DESIGN: Mixed-methods using a cross-sectional survey and five focus groups.
SETTINGS/SUBJECTS: A total of 500 FCGs of patients who died under hospice care were recruited for the survey. Focus group members were self-selected through identified interest from the survey.
MEASUREMENTS: In addition to demographics and ELDV prevalence, general attitude toward dreams, ELDV perspectives, and impact on grief were assessed using ad hoc surveys.
RESULTS: Participants reporting ELDVs were significantly more validating of everyday dreams (p < .001). Positive attitudes toward dreams strongly correlated with comfort from ELDVs for both patients and FCGs. Openness correlated positively with comfort from the ELDV for both the patient (r = .149, p = .038) and FCG (r = .217, p = 0.002) and negatively with fear/anxiety (r = -.141, p = 0.050). Negative ELDV perceptions (ex. ELDVs were caused by medications) affected grief in areas such as accepting the loss (r = -.235, p = .010) or maintaining connection (r = -.255, p = .010) with the deceased. Focus group discussions were thematically analyzed resulting in 4 themes: ELDV narrative, Connection, Reflection, and Other Experiences.
CONCLUSIONS: Positive general attitudes toward dreams and positive ELDV perceptions are correlated with better bereavement outcomes. Therefore, patient and family education on ELDVs that focuses on awareness and understanding of ELDVs may enhance clinical outcomes for both family and patients.
BACKGROUND: Improvement in quality of life (QoL) of patients is one of the most important goals of palliative care, but evaluation of QoL of patients is difficult.
AIM: To evaluate QoL of patients who died at home or in a hospital.
METHODS: We administered the Good Death Inventory (10 core and 8 optional domains) to the bereaved families of patients who died at home or in a hospital. A total of 107 bereaved families undertook a survey.
FINDINGS: If a bereaved family chose 'somewhat agree', 'agree' or 'absolutely agree', the answer was regarded as a 'satisfactory answer'. Regarding the 10 core domains, of patients who died in a hospital, <50% respondents gave a 'satisfactory answer' to three questions, whereas of patients who died at home, >60% of respondents gave a 'satisfactory answer' to seven questions. Regarding the eight optional domains, of patients who died in a hospital, <50% respondents gave a 'satisfactory answer' to five questions, whereas of patients who died at home, >60% of respondents gave a 'satisfactory answer' to four questions.
CONCLUSIONS: QoL of patients who died at home appeared higher than that of those who died in a hospital. Patients prefer to remain at home rather than in a hospital, probably because at home they are surrounded by familiar things and can live according to their usual habits.
Background: To provide a better quality of death for patients at the end of life who choose to die at home and their families, the hospice care team at Taipei Veterans General Hospital has promoted an personalized discharged end-of-life care plan since the initial of 2018.
Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis of administrative data. All incoming calls of the 24-hour specialist palliative care emergency telephone advice service records were analyzed. Personal information of any callers or consultants was not registered in the content.
Results: A total of 728 telephone consultations was registered during the study period. The content of the consultation of different callers was significantly different (p < 0.001). The decrease in the number of calls from the patients who were discharged from the hospice ward had the largest reduction in proportion, from 80 (19.0%) to 32 (10.5%), There was a significant difference in the identity of the callers between 2017 and 2018 (p = 0.025). The proportion of consultation calls for the management of near-death symptoms significantly reduced from 15.6% to 10.5% (p = 0.027).
Conclusions: Though the evidence from this study is not enough to support that the personalized discharged end-of-life care plan might reduce the frequency of dialing 24-hour hotlines by the family members of discharged terminally ill patients. For patients who choose to die at home and their families, the hotlines provide a 24-hour humane support. Thus, we need to conduct relevant research to determine whether the service of this dedicated line meets the needs of patients and their families in the terminal stage.
BACKGROUND: Failure to deliver care near the end of life that reflects the needs, values and preferences of patients with advanced cancer remains a major shortcoming of our cancer care delivery system.
METHODS: A mixed-methods comparative effectiveness trial of in-person advance care planning (ACP) discussions versus web-based ACP is currently underway at oncology practices in Western Pennsylvania. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers are invited to enroll. Participants are randomized to either (1) in-person ACP discussions via face-to-face visits with a nurse facilitator following the Respecting Choices® Conversation Guide or (2) web-based ACP using the PREPARE for your care™ web-based ACP tool. The trial compares the effect of these two interventions on patient and family caregiver outcomes (engagement in ACP, primary outcome; ACP discussions; advance directive (AD) completion; quality of end-of-life (EOL) care; EOL goal attainment; caregiver psychological symptoms; healthcare utilization at EOL) and assesses implementation costs. Factors influencing ACP effectiveness are assessed via in-depth interviews with patients, caregivers and clinicians.
DISCUSSION: This trial will provide new and much-needed empirical evidence about two patient-facing ACP approaches that successfully overcome limitations of traditional written advance directives but entail very different investments of time and resources. It is innovative in using mixed methods to evaluate not only the comparative effectiveness of these approaches, but also the contexts and mechanisms influencing effectiveness. Data from this study will inform clinicians, payers and health systems seeking to adopt and scale the most effective and efficient ACP strategy in real-world oncology settings.
BACKGROUND: Palliative care is increasingly becoming an accepted treatment choice for many individuals diagnosed with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Yet, its utilisation is non-existent in many lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study explored the perceptions of individuals with ESKD and their informal caregivers on palliative care as a treatment option for the disease in Ghana.
METHODS: This was a phenomenological study, with an in-depth analysis of data collected from nine individuals with ESKD and six informal caregivers through individual, face-to-face semi-structured interviews. The study was conducted in two renal centres within the Kumasi metropolis, Ghana among individuals with ESKD seeking care from both renal centres and their informal caregivers.
RESULTS: Three main themes were derived from this study - motivation for initiating haemodialysis, facing realities of haemodialysis, and considering palliative care. Participants felt that haemodialysis (HD) was not meeting their health expectations and demonstrated a general willingness to utilise palliative care if it would reduce suffering.
CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that individuals with ESKD or their informal caregivers would consider palliative care services, if available. It paves the way for discussions about palliative care for ESKD to begin across renal centres within Ghana and other similar settings. Exploring perspectives of clinicians in such settings could inform strategies on how to implement palliative care for ESKD management in such settings.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine site of death and hospice use, identifying potential disparities among veterans dying in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home Based Primary Care (VA-HBPC).
METHODS: Administrative data (2008, 2012, and 2016) were compiled using the VA Residential-History-File which tracks health care service location, daily. Outcomes were site of death [home, nursing home (NH), hospital, inpatient hospice]; and hospice use on the day of death. We compared VA-HBPC rates to rates of 2 decedent benchmarks: VA patients and 5% Traditional Medicare non-veteran males. Potential age, race, urban/rural residence and living alone status disparities in rates among veterans dying in VA-HBPC in 2016 were examined by multinomial logistic regression.
RESULTS: In 2016, 7796 veterans died in VA-HBPC of whom 62.1% died at home, 11.8% in NHs, 14.7% in hospitals and 11.4% in inpatient hospice. Hospice was provided to 60.9% of veterans dying at home and 63.9% of veterans dying in NH. Over the 2008-2012-2016 period, rates of VA-HBPC veterans who died at home and rates of home death with hospice increased and were higher than both benchmarks. Among VA-HBPC decedents, younger/older veterans were more/less likely to die at home and less/more likely to die with hospice. Race/ethnicity and urban/rural residence were unrelated to death at home but veterans living alone were less likely to die at home.
CONCLUSIONS: Results reflect VA-HBPC's primary goal of supporting its veterans at home, including at the end-of-life, surpassing other population benchmarks with some potential disparities remaining.
BACKGROUND: Increasing age is accompanied by a greater need for medical decisions, due in part to age-related increases in chronic disease and disability. In later life, medical decisions about end-of-life care in particular are likely. However, a significant percentage of these decisions are made by surrogate decision-makers. "Surrogates" are most often instructed to use the substituted judgment standard and make decisions that patients would choose if they were able. Whether surrogates make decisions that adequately match patients' preferences is a concern. Surrogates are generally poor predictors of patient preferences (Shalowitz et al., 2006). However, no critical review of this literature has yet been published.
METHOD: A critical review was conducted to summarise and provide a methodological critique of 25 studies.
RESULTS: These studies generally concur that patient-surrogate agreement on medical decisions is poor. However, this conclusion is qualified by inconsistencies in methodological quality and the potentially limited generalisability of these findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical research incorporating standardised hypothetical decision-making protocols, as well as triangulated data collection methods, would bolster confidence in future findings. Investigations prioritising the surrogate decision-making process, rather than solely the decisional outcome, could better identify ways to improve the decision-making process for incapacitated patients.
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has introduced further challenges into Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions. Existing evidence suggests success rates for CPR in COVID-19 patients is low and the risk to healthcare professionals from this aerosol-generating procedure complicates the benefit/harm balance of CPR.
Methods: The study is based at a large teaching hospital in the United Kingdom where all DNACPR decisions are documented on an electronic healthcare record (EHR). Data from all DNACPR/TEAL status forms between 1st January 2017 and 30th April 2020 were collected and analysed. We compared patterns of decision making and rates of form completion during the 2-month peak pandemic phase to an analogous period during 2019.
Results: A total of 16,007 forms were completed during the study period with a marked increase in form completion during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients with a form completed were on average younger and had fewer co-morbidities during the COVID-19 period than in March-April 2019. Several questions on the DNACPR/TEAL forms were answered significantly differently with increases in patients being identified as suitable for CPR (23.8% versus 9.05%; p < 0.001) and full active treatment (30.5% versus 26.1%; p = 0.028). Whilst proportions of discussions that involved the patient remained similar during COVID-19 (95.8% versus 95.6%; p = 0.871), fewer discussions took place with relatives (50.6% versus 75.4%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on senior decision making and conversations around ceilings of treatment appears to have changed practice, with a higher proportion of patients having DNACPR/TEAL status documented. Understanding patient preferences around life-sustaining treatment versus comfort care is part of holistic practice and supports shared decision making. It is unclear whether these attitudinal changes will be sustained after COVID-19 admissions decrease.