Explore the vast range of titles available.

There is controversy about how to manage requests by patients or surrogates for treatments that clinicians believe should not be administered. This multisociety statement provides recommendations to prevent and manage intractable disagreements about the use of such treatments in intensive care units. The recommendations were developed using an iterative consensus process, including expert committee development and peer review by designated committees of each of the participating professional societies (American Thoracic Society, American Association for Critical Care Nurses, American College of Chest Physicians, European Society for Intensive Care Medicine, and Society of Critical Care). The committee recommends: (1) Institutions should implement strategies to prevent intractable treatment conflicts, including proactive communication and early involvement of expert consultants. (2) The term \"potentially inappropriate\" should be used, rather than futile, to describe treatments that have at least some chance of accomplishing the effect sought by the patient, but clinicians believe that competing ethical considerations justify not providing them. Clinicians should explain and advocate for the treatment plan they believe is appropriate. Conflicts regarding potentially inappropriate treatments that remain intractable despite intensive communication and negotiation should be managed by a fair process of conflict resolution; this process should include hospital review, attempts to find a willing provider at another institution, and opportunity for external review of decisions. When time pressures make it infeasible to complete all steps of the conflict-resolution process and clinicians have a high degree of certainty that the requested treatment is outside accepted practice, they should seek procedural oversight to the extent allowed by the clinical situation and need not provide the requested treatment. (3) Use of the term \"futile\" should be restricted to the rare situations in which surrogates request interventions that simply cannot accomplish their intended physiologic goal. Clinicians should not provide futile interventions. (4) The medical profession should lead public engagement efforts and advocate for policies and legislation about when life-prolonging technologies should not be used. The multisociety statement on responding to requests for potentially inappropriate treatments in intensive care units provides guidance for clinicians to prevent and manage disputes in patients with advanced critical illness.

BackgroundGuidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings.ObjectiveTo characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making.DesignQualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups.ParticipantsWe enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net).ApproachUsing content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making.Key ResultsClinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making.ConclusionsDue to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening’s rationale, trade-offs, and process.

BACKGROUND Smoking cessation has been demonstrated to reduce the rate of loss of lung function and mortality among patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). There is a paucity of evidence about the effects of smoking cessation on the risk of COPD exacerbations. OBJECTIVE We sought to examine whether smoking status and the duration of abstinence from tobacco smoke is associated with a decreased risk of COPD exacerbations. DESIGN We assessed current smoking status and duration of smoking abstinence by self-report. Our primary outcome was either an inpatient or outpatient COPD exacerbation. We used Cox regression to estimate the risk of COPD exacerbation associated with smoking status and duration of smoking cessation. PARTICIPANTS We performed a cohort study of 23,971 veterans who were current and past smokers and had been seen in one of seven Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics throughout the US. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS In comparison to current smokers, ex-smokers had a significantly reduced risk of COPD exacerbation after adjusting for age, comorbidity, markers of COPD severity and socio-economic status (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.75–0.87). The magnitude of the reduced risk was dependent on the duration of smoking abstinence (adjusted HR: quit <1 year, 1.04; 95% CI 0.87–1.26; 1–5 years 0.93, 95% CI 0.79–1.08; 5–10 years 0.84, 95% CI 0.70–1.00; ≥10 years 0.65, 95% CI 0.58–0.74; linear trend <0.001). CONCLUSIONS Smoking cessation is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations, and the described reduction is dependent upon the duration of abstinence.

Despite evidence of possible patient harm and substantial costs, medication overuse is persistent. Patient reaction is one potential barrier to deprescribing, but little research has assessed this in specific instances of medication discontinuation. We sought to understand Veteran and provider experience when de-implementing guideline-discordant use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in those with mild-to-moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted a mixed-methods analysis in a provider-randomized quality improvement project testing a proactive electronic-consultation from pulmonologists recommending ICS discontinuation when appropriate. PCPs at two Veterans Health Administration healthcare systems were included. We completed interviews with 16 unexposed providers and 6 intervention-exposed providers. We interviewed 9 patients within 3 months after their PCP proposed ICS discontinuation. We conducted inductive and deductive content analysis of qualitative data to explore an emergent theme of patient reaction. Forty-eight PCPs returned surveys (24 exposed and 24 unexposed, response rate: 35%). The unexposed providers anticipated their patients might resist ICS discontinuation because it seems counterintuitive to stop something that is working, patient's fear of worsening symptoms, or if the prescription was initiated by another provider. Intervention-exposed providers reported similar experiences in post-intervention interviews. Unexposed providers anticipated that patients may accept ICS discontinuation, citing tactical use of patient-centered care strategies. This was echoed by intervention-exposed providers who had successfully discontinued an ICS. Veterans reported acceding to their providers out of trust or deference to their advanced training, even after describing an ICS as a 'security blanket'. Our survey findings supported the subthemes from our interviews. Among providers who proposed discontinuation of an ICS, 76% reported that they were able to discontinue it or switch to another more appropriate medication. While PCPs anticipated that patients would resist discontinuing an ICS, interviews with patient and intervention-exposed PCPs along with surveys suggest that patients were receptive to this change.

Background Administrative data is often used to identify patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), yet the validity of this approach is unclear. We sought to develop a predictive model utilizing administrative data to accurately identify patients with COPD. Methods Sequential logistic regression models were constructed using 9573 patients with postbronchodilator spirometry at two Veterans Affairs medical centers (2003-2007). COPD was defined as: 1) FEV1/FVC <0.70, and 2) FEV1/FVC < lower limits of normal. Model inputs included age, outpatient or inpatient COPD-related ICD-9 codes, and the number of metered does inhalers (MDI) prescribed over the one year prior to and one year post spirometry. Model performance was assessed using standard criteria. Results 4564 of 9573 patients (47.7%) had an FEV1/FVC < 0.70. The presence of ≥1 outpatient COPD visit had a sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 67%; the AUC was 0.75 (95% CI 0.74-0.76). Adding the use of albuterol MDI increased the AUC of this model to 0.76 (95% CI 0.75-0.77) while the addition of ipratropium bromide MDI increased the AUC to 0.77 (95% CI 0.76-0.78). The best performing model included: ≥6 albuterol MDI, ≥3 ipratropium MDI, ≥1 outpatient ICD-9 code, ≥1 inpatient ICD-9 code, and age, achieving an AUC of 0.79 (95% CI 0.78-0.80). Conclusion Commonly used definitions of COPD in observational studies misclassify the majority of patients as having COPD. Using multiple diagnostic codes in combination with pharmacy data improves the ability to accurately identify patients with COPD.

Background People living with chronic heart failure (CHF), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and interstitial lung disease (ILD) suffer impaired quality of life due to burdensome symptoms and depression. The Advancing Symptom Alleviation with Palliative Treatment (ADAPT) trial aims to determine the effect of a multidisciplinary, team-based intervention on quality of life in people with these common diseases. Methods/design The ADAPT trial is a two-site, patient-level randomized clinical trial that examines the effectiveness of the ADAPT intervention compared to usual care on patient-reported quality of life at 6 months in veterans with CHF, COPD or ILD with poor quality of life and increased risk for hospitalization or death. The ADAPT intervention involves a multidisciplinary team—a registered nurse, social worker, palliative care specialist, and primary care provider (with access to a pulmonologist and cardiologist)—who meet weekly to make recommendations and write orders for consideration by participants’ individual primary care providers. The nurse and social worker interact with participants over six visits to identify and manage a primary bothersome symptom and complete a structured psychosocial intervention and advance care planning. The primary outcome is change in patient-reported quality of life at 6 months as measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-General questionnaire. Secondary outcomes at 6 months include change in symptom distress, depression, anxiety, disease-specific quality of life hospitalizations, and advance care planning communication and documentation. Intervention implementation will be assessed using a mixed-methods approach including a qualitative assessment of participants’ and intervention personnel experiences and a quantitative assessment of care delivery, resources, and cost. Discussion The ADAPT trial studies an innovative intervention designed to improve quality of life for veterans with common, burdensome illnesses by targeting key underlying factors—symptoms and depression—that impair quality of life but persist despite disease-specific therapies. Leveraging the skills of affiliate health providers with physician supervision will extend the reach of palliative care and improve quality of life for those with advanced disease within routine outpatient care. The hybrid effectiveness/implementation design of the ADAPT trial will shorten the time to broader dissemination if effective and create avenues for future research. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02713347 . Registered March 19, 2016.

In October 2014, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) will expand its Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP) to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Under the new policy, hospitals with high risk-adjusted, 30-day all-cause unplanned readmission rates after an index hospitalization for a COPD exacerbation will be penalized with reduced reimbursement for the treatment of Medicare beneficiaries. In this perspective, we review the history of the HRRP, including the recent addition of COPD to the policy. We critically assess the use of 30-day all-cause COPD readmissions as an accountability measure, discussing potential benefits and then highlighting the substantial drawbacks and potential unintended consequences of the measure that could adversely affect providers, hospitals, and patients with COPD. We conclude by emphasizing the need to place the 30-day COPD readmission measure in the context of a reconceived model for postdischarge quality and review several frameworks that could help guide this process.

The inclusion criteria for patients included: (1) >18 years of age, (2) meeting the diagnostic criteria for asthma based on the Global Initiative for Asthma,[3] (3) willingness to provide informed consent, (4) patients who visited our clinic first time and had previously visited other clinics within the past month, and (5) no communication disorders. [3] The exclusion criteria included having a recorded diagnosis or self-reported pulmonary diseases other than asthma, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tuberculosis, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer, bronchiectasis, or psychological/mental health disorders. [...]it was not possible to blind patients during the educational session. Coban H, Aydemir Y. The relationship between allergy and asthma control, quality of life, and emotional status in patients with asthma: A cross-sectional study.

In this trial, long-term supplemental oxygen treatment did not result in longer survival than no use of supplemental oxygen among patients with stable COPD and moderate resting desaturation (Spo2, 89 to 93%) or moderate exercise-induced desaturation. Two trials that were conducted in the 1970s showed that long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen reduced mortality among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and severe resting hypoxemia. 1 , 2 These results led to the recommendation that supplemental oxygen be administered to patients with an oxyhemoglobin saturation, as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo 2 ), of less than 89%. 3 , 4 In the 1990s, two trials evaluated long-term treatment with supplemental oxygen in patients with COPD who had mild-to-moderate daytime hypoxemia; neither trial showed a mortality benefit, but both were underpowered to assess mortality. 5 , 6 The effects of oxygen treatment on . . .

Annual low-radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer has been shown to reduce lung cancer mortality among high-risk individuals and is now recommended by multiple organizations. However, LDCT screening is complex, and implementation requires careful planning to ensure benefits outweigh harms. Little guidance has been provided for sites wishing to develop and implement lung cancer screening programs. To promote successful implementation of comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe, effective, and sustainable. The American Thoracic Society (ATS) and American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) convened a committee with expertise in lung cancer screening, pulmonary nodule evaluation, and implementation science. The committee reviewed the evidence from systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, surveys, and the experience of early-adopting LDCT screening programs and summarized potential strategies to implement LDCT screening programs successfully. We address steps that sites should consider during the main three phases of developing an LDCT screening program: planning, implementation, and maintenance. We present multiple strategies to implement the nine core elements of comprehensive lung cancer screening programs enumerated in a recent ACCP/ATS statement, which will allow sites to select the strategy that best fits with their local context and workflow patterns. Although we do not comment on cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening, we outline the necessary costs associated with starting and sustaining a high-quality LDCT screening program. Following the strategies delineated in this policy statement may help sites to develop comprehensive LDCT screening programs that are safe and effective.