How AAHPM relates to other organizations such as ACP, ACS, AAFP, AAN and AAP is something our members and leadership will further address over time. AAHPM staff have created a grid for the External Awareness Task Force of the external relationships that already exist and the nature of those relationships. Again, our members and leadership will decide how these relationships should be prioritized over time and what the nature of these relationships should be. Should there be liaison representation on the boards of some of the large organizations? Is that an appropriate way for hospice and palliative medicine to become more entrenched in the firmament of organized medicine? What will be the most efficient and effective way for AHHPM to utilize its limited resources in developing these relationships? Where do we get the most bang for the buck so to speak?
Four Seasons Hospice has taken the plunge and begun to participate in the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) of Medicare. Since fall 2010, we have successfully been submitting data on three PQRI measures: #47 (Advance Care Plan), #154 (Falls risk assessment), and #155 (Falls plan of care). Our palliative care program extends across the inpatient … Read moreDiving into the Alphabet Soup of PQRI
Hospice and Palliative Care Coalition Leaders Commit to Collaboration; Aim to Speak with “One Voice”
The organizational members of the Hospice & Palliative Care Coalition met in Washington DC in December 2010 to discuss recent, current and future opportunities for collaboration including ways to develop consistent and supportive messages on behalf of the entire field of hospice and palliative care whenever possible.
AAHPM and HPNA members and staff are getting excited for the 2011 Annual Assembly in beautiful Vancouver. As you may remember, last year, we posted our favorite dining out spots in Boston. Now we would like to know, those of you from or who have visited Vancouver, what do you recommend? Leave a comment and … Read moreEating Out and Activities in Vancouver
This is Part 2 of a multi-part series.
Approximately 1 week into her ICU stay, when my mom wasn’t making any progress on ventilator weaning, I was called by the palliative care team asking if they should “formally” consult. They had been visiting daily but not officially consulting – introducing themselves as “Jean’s friends” – who happened to be from palliative care. The ICU attending had tacitly agreed to the consult, telling the palliative care team, “whatever Jean wants”. My initial reaction was no, we didn’t need that, we knew that she potentially could have a poor outcome and were talking openly about it. If anything, I told the palliative care team, my dad needed a ray of hope, not a discussion about the “what if’s”. It was an eye-opening moment for me – to consider the “meaning” of requesting an official palliative care consult and to confront my own perceptions and biases, despite intellectually knowing better. Was I falling into the same “it’s not time yet” mindset that frustrates us so frequently as palliative care professionals? Why would making it “official” be any different from the daily visits that the team was already doing? How would my dad and my siblings perceive my request for an “official” palliative care consult? Would they think that I had “given up” by recommending a palliative care consult? Why didn’t I trust what we do so well in palliative care – starting with assessing the patient (if able) and family understanding of the current situation and addressing identified needs? Why couldn’t palliative care be as much about “hoping for the best” as it is about “planning for the worst”? I told the palliative care team that they needed to “hit me over the head” if I was in denial or not thinking rationally about this clearly reasonable request.