To identify factors that hinder or facilitate the palliative care consultation team’s (PCCT) successful collaboration with other providers from the perspectives of both PCCT and nonpalliative specialists. Qualitative study, including semistructured interviews with PCCT and nonpalliative care providers from various specialties at 4 Midwestern hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed into written text documents for thematic analysis. Palliative care consultation team (n = 19) and nonpalliative care providers (n = 29) were interviewed at their respective hospital sites or via telephone. Palliative care consultation team providers included physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, social workers, and one chaplain. Specialists included critical care physicians, surgeons, hospitalists, nephrologists, oncologists, and cardiologists. Six themes emerged reflecting barriers to and facilitators of successful collaboration between the PCCT and other providers. Primary barriers included attitudes about palliative care, lack of knowledge about the role of the PCCT, and patient and family resistance. Facilitators included marketing of the palliative care service and education about the expertise of the PCCT. In order to engage in more effective collaboration with other specialty providers, the PCCT may consider strategies including structured educational interventions, increased visibility in the hospital, and active marketing of the utility of palliative care across disciplines.

Objectives: To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of Mindfulness Coach, an mHealth Mindfulness Therapy intervention. Methods: We recruited 58 informal caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment for this pilot feasibility trial. Participants completed measures of caregiver burden, stress, anxiety, and depression at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks as well as acceptability and usability data at 8-weeks. The mobile app collected in-app use data including minutes spent using the app and number of unique visits to the app. Results: Users found the app acceptable to use and were satisfied with its design and usability. Over the course of the study period, depression, anxiety, caregiver burden and perceived stress improved. These outcome variables also improved more as caregivers spent more time using the Mindfulness Therapy mHealth intervention. Conclusions: Our results suggest that mHealth mindfulness therapy with caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment is both feasible and acceptable to users, and that it successfully reduces psychological symptoms. Future work should focus on determining the appropriate doses of the mHealth therapy for particular outcomes and strategies to integrate it into routine care. Mindfulness Therapy delivered in an mHealth format may increase access to psychological treatment for caregivers.

This study examined grandparent-grandchild contact during the COVID-19 pandemic using principles of Intergenerational Solidarity Theory as a framework. Young adults (N= 165) completed an online survey about contact with grandparents before and during the pandemic. Participants also provided ratings of affectual solidarity toward grandparents and grandparents’ physical and mental health. A subsample of participants (n= 31) explained reasons for increased telephone contact with grandparents. Median frequency of grandchild-initiated contact with grandparents increased marginally during the pandemic, and higher ratings of affectual solidarity toward grandparents were significantly associated with increases in frequency of contact. Ratings of grandparents’ physical and mental health were not significantly associated with changes in frequency of contact from before the pandemic to during the pandemic. The most common explanation for increased contact with grandparents during the pandemic reported by study participants was concern about COVID-19. Findings support Intergenerational Solidarity Theory and underscore its interaction with historical moments, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mobile applications that facilitate each stage of the advance care planning process (i.e., obtaining knowledge, contemplating options, and acting on decisions) may be one effective way to support patient-centered care and patient autonomy. The purpose of the current review was to identify and evaluate advance care planning mobile applications for patients. Our specific aim was to examine app features, design quality, content, and readability. We searched the Apple iOS and Google Play stores using keywords developed in conjunction with an academic librarian. Two coders with expertise in palliative care applied guidelines from a previous review and used a consensus coding procedure. We also calculated a Flesh Reading Ease score for each app. Nine apps met criteria and could be evaluated. Overall, apps are limited in features and poor in terms of design quality, layout, and functionality. Regarding content, most apps emphasize making decisions or taking action about advance care planning: 6 apps permit users to document a preferred decision maker, and 6 apps offer a mechanism to distribute and share advance care planning documentation. Three apps focus on knowledge about advance care planning, and only 4 support contemplation about advance care planning. Apps range in terms of readability, from very difficult to fairly easy. This review identifies limitations in features, design quality, and content of existing advance care planning mobile apps. We present recommendations based on the results of this review for the development of future advance care planning apps.

Background: Although empathic responding is considered a core competency in specialty palliative care (PC), patterns of empathic communication in PC encounters are not well understood. Objectives: In this secondary analysis, we delineate types and frequency of empathic communication and examine relationships between patient empathic opportunities and clinician responses. Design: We used the Empathic Communication Coding System to analyze empathic opportunities across three types: emotion (i.e., negative affective state), progress (i.e., stated recent positive life event or development), and challenge (i.e., stated problem or recent, negative life-changing event) and clinician responses. Setting/Subjects: Transcripts from a pilot randomized trial of communication coaching in specialty PC encounters ( N = 71) audio-recorded by 22 PC clinicians at two sites in the United States: an academic health system and a community-based hospice and PC organization. Results: Empathic opportunities were frequent across encounters; clinicians often responded empathically to those opportunities (e.g., confirming or acknowledging patients' emotions or experiences). Even though challenge empathic opportunities occurred most frequently, clinicians responded empathically more often to progress opportunities (i.e., 93% of the time) than challenge opportunities (i.e., 75% of the time). One in 12 opportunities was impeded by the patient or a family member changing the topic before the clinician could respond. Conclusions: PC patients frequently express emotions, share progress, or divulge challenges as empathic opportunities. Clinicians often convey empathy in response and can differentiate their empathic responses based on the type of empathic opportunity. PC communication research and training should explore which empathic responses promote desired patient outcomes.