Advertise on podcast: GeriPal - A Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine Podcast

Eric and I were delighted to be invited to Brazil to give a series of presentations in Sao Paulo at their annual geriatrics meeting.  We met people doing important, interesting, and innovative work in Brazil and throughout Latin America. We got the audience to sing along, including (in another talk) the magnificent Brazilian song Sozinho by Caetano Veloso in Portuguese, with my son Renn playing guitar. For our final talk, a podcast in front of a live conference audience, we asked our 3 guests, Eduardo Ferriolli, Marlon Aliberti, & Edison Iglesias to select a recent article to discuss.  We talked about: Intrinsic capacity (selected by Eduardo).  What is it? What is it used for? How do you measure it?  (hint ICOPE).  Eduardo emphasized that intrinsic capacity is a positive aspect of aging, focused on potential rather than deficit.  We asked him to work intrinsic capacity into George Kushel's famous analogy using the golden gate bridge to describe phenotypic frailty (pillars), deficit accumulation frailty (cable supports), and resilience (withstand stress of wind and cars).  Eduardo says intrinsic capacity would be the car, and would vary by type of car and intended purpose.  I loved Eduardo's selected article, which percentiles intrinsic capacity, in order to use within individuals to assess how they're tracking over time, and at a public health level, to identify regions or groups of people with lower intrinsic capacity.  He draws the analogy to growth curves in pediatrics - if you're consistently at 80% - then drop off - your primary care provider should take notice and investigate/intervene. Geriatric syndromes in hospitalized older adults (selected by Marlon).  If intrinsic capacity is for primary care, our guests argue that the comprehensive geriatric assessment, which takes a long time to administer, should be reserved for specialist geriatrics.  And yet, this paper finds that a limited shorter version of the comprehensive geriatrics assessment can document geriatric syndromes in hospitalized older adults.  Accumulation of multiple geriatric syndromes is associated with increased mortality, and presents an opportunity for risk stratification, goals of care discussions, and intervention.  Advance care planning across Latin America (selected by Edison).  Back around 2005, when Edison first heard about advance care planning, he says, "it sounded like science fiction."  In Brazil, as with Latin America, medicine was highly hierarchical and patriarchal.  Doctors knew best.  The doctor decided.  If there was no patient choice, why would there be a system to protect the decisions of patients made in advance?  In the intervening years, Edison and others have worked to incorporate and adapt advance care planning to the Latin American context, which is much more focused on family-centered relational autonomy than individual, and incorporates spirituality to a much greater extent.  Edison has been mindful too of not repeating the mis-steps of the advance care planning and advance directive movements in the US. We took questions from our audience and sang "Imagine" in Portuguese together. Enjoy! -Alex Smith

Lynn Flint and Anne Kelly join as hosts in a reprise of last year's ask us anything format.  Thank you for sending in your terrific questions!  Lynn and Anne condensed them to about 20, and we ran through them rather rapid fire.  Also on fire? Our mouths.  As with our 300th episode, we did this Hot Ones-style. Every few questions, we had to eat a chicken wing slathered in hot sauce.  The hot sauces got progressively hotter, though as we discovered, the ordering may have been a littttttle bit off.  Still, by the time we hit the really hot ones, our mouths were on fire, we were blowing our noses, gulping down milk, and terrified of what the next hot wing would bring… We covered so much in this podcast, including: Coffee or tea? What jokes do you make with patients? Where do we see ageism? Why are we still advocating for advance care planning? Concerns about expansion of medical aid in dying Should doctors reveal that they're using AI in clinical care (thanks for the question mom!) The future of geriatrics and palliative care What we'd do differently about the podcast if we could start over, or what we could do that is new going forward. Surprises in terms of who is listening, our audience. Ideas for others to build community as we do at GeriPal Influence of our own spirituality and religion on our clinical practice Lasting practice changes from prior podcasts, or from Covid experience Why PC in the ED hasn't taken off And more!   Looking back on 10 years and 400 podcasts, Eric and I are filled with gratitude for you, dear listeners.  You sustain us.  You keep us going.  Please stay involved, send us messages about show ideas, and introduce yourself to us at national meetings. Thank you! -Alex Smith  

Rural populations in the United States face unique healthcare challenges. These communities tend to be older, have higher mortality rates, and experience higher rates of chronic conditions and physical disabilities compared to urban populations. Despite the increased need for palliative care in rural areas, access remains alarmingly limited. Even in hospital settings, where palliative care programs are more common in urban areas, only 35% of rural hospitals report having such programs, compared to 81% of urban hospitals. In this week's podcast, we explore the challenges and opportunities of delivering palliative care in rural communities with our esteemed guests Karl Bezak, Jeanie Youngwerth, Adie Goldberg, and Gregg Vandekieft. We begin by discussing what inspired each of them to focus on rural palliative care. From there, we dive into what rural palliative care looks like and examine how it differs from care provided in urban settings. Our guests also share insights into the challenges of delivering this care in resource-limited rural environments and explore innovative strategies to ensure patients and families receive the support they need (like providing remote fellowship training for docs living in rural areas!). We also tackle the role of telemedicine in rural palliative care, both the good part, connecting patients in remote areas with specialists who might otherwise be unavailable, and the bad part, the huge digital divide seen in rural areas.  Join us for what I thought were some valuable insights our guests brought on how we can better serve rural populations and create a more equitable system for palliative care delivery. And if you want to learn more, check out some of these resources: University of Colorado's Community Hospice and Palliative Medicine (CHPM) Fellowship, which allows mid-career providers to obtain training while continuing to live and work in their community supported through online and distance learning technology Master of Science in Palliative Care Program: Master of Science Degree The Rural Health Information Hub's Rural Hospice and Palliative Care Overview  Stratis Health's Rural Community-based Palliative Care resource center The Washington Rural Palliative Care Initiative website CAPC's Safety-Net and Rural Care website         The paper validating the AI Algorithm used to identify patient in rural ED for the TeleGOC Pause Model at UPMC (SafeNET)  A Google Site where Karl is hosting their most recent data related to the TeleGOC Pause Model 

Today we're delighted to talk with Anne Walling, Neil Wenger, and Rebecca Sudore about a pragmatic implementation trial aimed at increasing advance care planning for primary care patients with serious illness in University of California clinics, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. Seriously ill primary care patients were identified using structured data fields (meaning routinely captured without needing to read the chart or use natural language processing). This study focused on patients without a completed advance directive or POLST form. This was a 3 arm trial that tested a nudge in the patient portal and a mailed advanced directive vs. the nudge plus a link to PrepareForYourCare vs. the nudge plus PrepareForYourCare plus a navigator reminding patients to talk with their doctor and bring any completed advance directives or POLST forms to the PCP visit. In brief, the study found that at 2 years there were higher rates of advance directive or POLST in the electronic health record (about 20%) in the arm with the nudge plus PrepareForYourCare plus the navigator compared to the other 2 arms (around 13%). Rates of advance care planning discussions with primary care providers were similarly higher in the 3rd arm. Health care utilization, however, did not differ between arms.  Please see links to articles describing the intervention in detail and incorporation of stakeholder perspectives. I'm going to cut to the pushback to this article right up front:  The study's primary outcomes were advanced directives or completion of POLST forms - haven't we moved beyond thinking completion of forms should be the primary outcome of advance care planning research? There was no control condition. Observed increases in advance directive or POLST in the electronic health record may have occurred without any intervention.  People with serious illness get sicker with time and the sicker they are the more likely they are to engage in advance care planning, without any intervention. This is particularly true as the study occurred during the hight of the Covid pandemic, when there was a global effort to increase advance care planning. How much did these interventions contribute on top of that rise that might have occurred without intervention?  Observed documentation - 13-20% - was low.  Is it worth the effort of getting buy-in to automate these EHR nudges and spend FTE to hire a navigator? Particularly as health systems, who pushed for focusing on seriously ill patients because they are the most expensive/highest utilizers, did not get what they wanted, i.e. no difference in utilization of acute healthcare services between arms? Our guests provide a strong defense and additional context, which you can and should listen to on the podcast. And I have to point out, setting aside the advance care planning aspect, the method of identifying upstream primary care patients with serious illness is a major contribution to the field in and of itself.  Pioneers in the field, led by Amy Kelley, have been working to identify the seriously ill population for over a decade. And a fun fact about All You Need is Love - the verses are in 7/4 time! -Alex Smith  

In 2025, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring hospitals participating in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) program to report on a new "Age-Friendly Hospital Measure."  The hope is that, by attesting to this measure, hospitals will develop evidence-based processes to improve care for older adults in hospital settings. On this week's podcast, we explore this new measure with Sheri Ling, CMS's Deputy Chief Medical Officer serving in the Center for Clinical Standards and Quality (CCSQ). We've also invited some returning guests from our past Age Friendly Health Systems podcast, Julia Adler-Milstein and Stephanie Rogers, to discuss how they are thinking about this new measure and how we should operationalize it. We go over everything you will want to know about the new measure, including: How does this CMS measure differ from both Age-Friendly Health Systems and the 4Ms movement we've been hearing about for years (and that we did the podcast on in 2020 here) Why is CMS finally making "Age-Friendly" a formal, structural requirement for hospitals now? What is an attestation measure vs outcome measure, and why is this one an attestation measure? A deeper dive into the 5 domains to the measure (Eliciting Patient Goals, Medication Management, Frailty Screening, Social Determinants of Health, and Leadership/Governance. Lastly, here are some great resources if you want to help get this started at your hospital: A report by JAHF, Julia and others on how to think about different dimensions of measure performance Health Affairs Scholar paper on related the 4Ms to the 5 domains Two CMS resources with detailed information on how to meet and report on the five domains of this measure: Age-Friendly Hospital Specifications (July 2025) Age-Friendly Hospital Measure Attestation Guide  

A few weeks ago, I was skimming this NEJM paper for UCSF's Division of Geriatrics Journal club on de-prescribing anti-hypertensive medications for older adults in nursing homes. Seemed to make a world of sense. The study found no difference between the deprescribing arm and the usual care arm in mortality, the primary study outcome. I thought, great! So we can deprescribe anti-hypertensives without changing mortality, that must be what the authors concluded. I was shocked, therefore, to read in the first paragraph of the discussion that the deprescribing arm did not achieve the hypothesized 25% reduction in mortality.  What?!?  Why would deprescribing be associated with reduced mortality? That's not the main reason or even the first reason I think of for deprescribing.  Reducing side effects that impair quality of life, sure. Less pill burden, of course.  But prolonged life?  Seemed a stretch. Today we hear from the first author of this study, Athanase Benetos, an esteemed geriatrician-researcher from France.  For context, we also interviewed Mike Steinman, co-chair of the Beers criteria and co-lead of the US Deprescribing Research Network. We learned about: Why the hypothesis of reduced mortality in deprescribing was justified, based on natural decreases in blood pressure with aging, and the Partridge study, an observational study that found higher risks of mortality associated with using multiple anti-hypertensive and low blood pressure. Why mortality was chosen as the primary outcome. Is a negative superiority study the same as what they might have found in a non-inferiority study? (stay with us) Variation in outcome by frailty status How to place this study in context with other research, such as the Danton study mentioned on a recent podcast about deprescribing near the end of life. Dantos was a study of deprescribing for nursing home residents with dementia that was stopped early due to safety concerns. Other studies for context include Sprint, Optimize, and an observational study by Bocheng Jing (UCSF statistician in our group). At the end, we ask our guests to put it together. With all that we know at this point, what's a clinician to do? To deprescribe or not to deprescribe? And, zoot alors! I get to sing Hymne A L'amour in French! Athanase recounts the moving story of how Edith Piaf sang this song the night she learned the man she loved, Marcel Cerdan, died in a plane crash. -Alex Smith  

It's an era of breakthroughs in Alzheimer's research, yet for many clinicians, it's also a time of profound uncertainty. We are currently navigating competing definitions of the disease, multiple new biomarkers coming on market seemingly every week, and the clinical rollout of new amyloid antibodies. How do we translate this rapid-fire science into daily practice? On this week's GeriPal podcast, we sit down with dementia experts Halima Amjad, Barak Gaster, and Heather Whitson. We dive deep into: The evolving definitions of Alzheimer's disease.  Does someone have Alzheimer's disease if you have only an abnormal biomarker as defined by the Alzheimer's Association, or is amyloid pathology necessary but not sufficient to define Alzheimer's as per the International Working Group (IWG) recommendations? Where do blood-based biomarkers for Alzheimer's fit into the diagnostic workup, and should they be used at all in primary care?  FYI - here is my take on that question in a recent JAMA IM article titled "The Limited Role of Alzheimer's Disease Blood-Based Biomarkers in Primary Care." What's the role of amyloid antibodies in the care of individuals with Alzheimer's disease, including who to use them on? We covered a lot and discussed some of these resources that you can do a deeper dive on: Blood-based biomarker resources JAMA article on Blood-Based Biomarkers for Alzheimer's Disease: Preventing Unintended Consequences  Alzheimer's Dementia article on Blood-based biomarkers for detecting Alzheimer's disease pathology in cognitively impaired individuals within specialized care settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA IM article on The Limited Role of Alzheimer Disease Blood-Based Biomarkers in Primary Care Appropriate use recommendations for amyloid antibodies Donanemab: Appropriate use recommendations  Lecanemab: Appropriate Use Recommendations Primary Care Resources Cognition in Primary Care program A JAGS article on "Large Health System Quality Improvement Intervention Providing Training and Tools to Improve Detection of Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care" Other resources AGS's new online curriculum for Alzheimer's Disease By Eric Widera  

Today we're doing something different. Today, dear listeners, you get two podcasts for the price of one! (OK, our podcasts are both free, but you get the idea). We're joined today by Chris Comeaux, host of TCN Talks, a podcast about leadership, strategy, innovation, and the future of serious illness care, and author of The Anatomy of Leadership. We are also joined by TCN Talks' frequent guest host Cordt Kassner, CEO of Hospice Analytics, which provides in depth data on hospice quality, utilization, and access, and publisher of Hospice and Palliative Care Today, a daily email about the hottest stories and news in the field. This is an "ask us anything" style podcast in which we get to ask each other questions.  Our discussions focus on concerning trends in hospice, Ira Byock's white paper, concerning trends in hospice, certificate of need, danger of losing a generation of junior researchers and hope in the form of ASCENT, various measures of hospice quality including Cordt's National Hospice Locator, which ranks all area hospice by quality, unlike CMS's Hospice Care Compare, which only has star ratings for about 30% of hospices. Hospice and palliative care are going through a tough growth period, and sometimes being real with your friends and colleagues in your field means tough love. Love hurts.  And no, I'm not attempting the Nazareth version! -Alex Smith  

Philippe Pinel remarked in 1800 that "It is an art of no little importance to administer medicines properly, but it is an art of much greater and more difficult acquisition to know when to suspend or altogether to omit them." This insight remains profoundly relevant today, especially in hospice care, where inappropriate prescribing is a common issue. Studies show that 20%–70% of hospice patients receive at least one unnecessary medication near the end of life, including drugs like antihypertensives, statins, and vitamins. In this episode of the GeriPal Podcast, we tackle the pressing topic of deprescribing at the end of life with expert guests Jennifer Tjia, Jon Furuno, and Simon Mooijaart. The conversation focuses on identifying medications that should almost always be discontinued—such as statins, osteoporosis meds, finasteride, and vitamins, which offer minimal benefit for patients with limited life expectancy. We also delve into more nuanced cases, such as antithrombotics, which present complex decisions that challenge clinicians, particularly when prognosis spans the many weeks to months range. Finally, we explore practical strategies for engaging patients and families in deprescribing conversations. Our guests highlight tools such as the FRAME mnemonic (Focus on the goals of care, Review current medications, Assess each medication's risk/benefit, Minimize the medication burden, and Evaluate regularly) and the Goal Concurrent Prescribing tool, which helps ensure medication decisions align with patients' values and end-of-life priorities. By: Eric Widera Other resources discussed in the podcast Prevalence and Factors Associated With Receiving a Prescription for Antithrombotic Therapy on Hospice Admission," JAGS. 2025 Discontinuation of Anticoagulants and Occurrence of Bleeding and Thromboembolic Events in Vitamin K Antagonist Users with a Life-limiting Disease. 2025 Effects of the discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment on neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in nursing home residents with dementia (DANTON): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised controlled trial. 2024 Perspectives on deprescribing in palliative care. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology. 2023 Developing a decision support tool for the continuation or deprescribing of antithrombotic therapy in patients receiving end-of-life care: Results of a European Delphi study. Thrombosis Research. 2025 Human-Centered Design Development and Acceptability Testing of a Goal Concordant Prescribing Program in Hospice. JPM 2025 Reduction of Antihypertensive Treatment in Nursing Home Residents. NEJM 2025  

Do you think your hospital should allow unilateral DNR orders? Under what circumstances? Through what process?  Do you think that when you obtain the assent of a family to not code their loved one, that assent DNR should be counted as a unilateral DNR order? Should we document unilateral DNR and the rationale? Why for DNR, when we don't document unilateral dialysis not offered, or unilateral no ECMO offered?  Is the assent of a family member to a statement that we will not code their loved one a nudge, and is the assent approach ethical? Reasonable people will disagree, as we do on this podcast. Our guests today are Gina Piscitello, Erin DeMartino, and Will Parker, authors of a terrific viewpoint in JAMA about the need to address inadequate documentation of unilateral DNR orders.  You might recall Gina was a guest on our lively podcast about slow codes, and we pick up where that podcast left off. We highlight the many clinical, practical, and ethical issues at stake, including Gina's finding that during Covid, 3% of critically ill patients receiving pressors had a unilateral DNR order. Black patients and those who spoke Spanish had higher rates of unilateral DNR.  That variation should trouble those in favor of unilateral DNR orders.  We talk about variation Gina found at the state and health system level, and what exactly is concerning, the variation itself, or the lack of thought and care that went into some of these policies. Are you a heartbreaker? Dream Maker? Love taker? Don't you mess around with me. (song hint) -Alex  

The idea of embedding various forms of non-emergency care in the emergency department makes a WORLD of sense.  If an older adult comes into the ED with a fall, the minimum the ED has to do is address the fall injury and send them out. But many emergency providers realize this is often a band aid.  They see that patient again the next time they fall.  And again.  And again.  The same could be said for the patient who is malnourished and dehydrated and admitted for "failure to thrive," again. And again. Our two guests today, Liz Goldberg and Lauren Southerland, both emergency medicine physician-researchers, have had enough.  On our podcast today they discuss how these sorts of experiences led them to argue that other services that can address the underlying causes that lead to ED visits.  Liz Goldberg developed the GAPcare model to address falls, which includes a physical therapist and pharmacist seeing patients on the spot in the ED.  Lauren Southerland got Columbus Ohio Office of Aging staff to re-locate from their desks to the emergency department, where they could sign patients up for home delivered meals, medical transportation, adult day services, home modification such as grab bars, and utility assistance for electricity, gas, and water bills. With GAPcare, Liz saw a 66% drop in ED visits for fall over 6 months from her pilot (subsequent fall outcomes of the GAPcare II study will be linked here when published).  Remarkable, particularly in the context of the primary care STRIDE intervention, which did not reduce injurious falls (e.g. the type that would result in an ED visit). Maybe the ED is just a better place to intervene? Patients are motivated to change. Get the physical therapist and pharmacist in there! In a study published in JAGS, Lauren found 50% of participants were linked to a new Office of Aging service initiated during the ED visit, with no increase in ED length of stay or hospital admission rate.  See also this terrific JAGS editorial on Lauren's paper by Liz.  Putting on my JAGS editor hat - both the study and editorial have terrific color figures. A great way to increase your odds of review and acceptance at JAGS is to include one or more high-impact color figures that convey the main findings or points of your manuscript. We talk about the potential downsides, real and perceived in embedding care in the ED.  Should everything be embedded? We talk about how these interventions relate to geriatric ED certification. Lauren talks about a remarkable model in Australia that includes a geriatric RN embedded in the ED. Most encouraging is that Liz and Lauren are finding other adopting these interventions. Word is spreading. Other emergency providers have had enough of the endless cycle. Enough. And I got to belt out Gravity, by John Mayer! -Alex  

Today we interviewed Bob Wachter about his book, "A Giant Leap: How AI Is Transforming Healthcare and What That Means for Our Future."  You may recall we interviewed Bob in April 2024 about AI, and at that time he was on the fence about AI - more promise or more peril for healthcare?  As his book's title suggests, he's come down firmly on the promise side of the equation.  On our podcast we discuss: Why Bob wrote this book, at this time, and concerns about writing a static book about AI and Healthcare, a field that is dynamic and shifting rapidly.  He's right though - we've not had a "ChatGPT"-launch type moment recently. Top 5 or so ways in which Bob uses AI for work, from clinical care to book writing Concerns about job losses in healthcare, and will we still need doctors? AI for diagnosis, and the recent NEJM Clinical Case in which recent GeriPal guest and superstar clinician-educator Gurpreet Dhaliwal beats an AI.  UpToDate vs OpenEvidence Trust issues - should we trust AI after being let down before? Clinicians felt burned by their experience with the hype and promise of EHRs - but they've been much less a game changer and much more a soul sucking chore designed to maximize billing rather than improve patient care.  Yet early returns on AI have largely been positive. Time saved from writing notes, prior authorizations, and summarizing charts…all to the good! Sadly, we didn't have Bob on piano singing the song for this one.  He was in the office, not home.  So I made do with ChatGPT's choice, Handle With Care, which has some surprisingly pertinent lyrics about AI in healthcare, including: "Been beat up and battered around Been sent up, and I've been shot down You're the best thing that I've ever found Handle me with care" Enjoy! -Alex Smith  

Recent randomized controlled trials have shown that routine perioperative palliative care does not improve outcomes for patients undergoing curative-intent cancer surgery. No, that wasn't a typo. Regardless of how the data were analyzed, the findings remained consistent: perioperative palliative care DID NOT improve outcomes in the only two randomized controlled trials conducted in this area—the SCOPE and PERIOP-PC trials. Null trials like these often receive less attention in academic and clinical settings, but they can be profoundly practice-changing. Consider the Shannon Carson study on palliative care for chronically critically ill patients. While some have argued it "wasn't a palliative care study," I've always regarded it as one of the most significant studies for understanding not what works—but what doesn't—for palliative care in specific patient populations. The same holds true for the SCOPE and PERIOP-PC trials. Both were null, but their findings are deeply relevant to clinical practice. That's why we invited the lead authors, Rebecca Aslakson (PERIOP-PC) and Myrick "Ricky" Shinall (SCOPE), to share insights into what they did in their studies and why they think they got the results that they did. One key takeaway for me from this discussion was the idea that patients undergoing curative-intent surgery might simply be too early in their cancer trajectory to derive meaningful benefits from palliative care, and maybe the focus should be more on geriatrics. I especially appreciated the closing discussion about the future of research in this area: if routine perioperative palliative care doesn't improve outcomes, what should the next generation of studies focus on? Eric Widera   Studies we talk about during the podcast Aslakson et al. Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Shinall et al. Effects of Specialist Palliative Care for Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg. 2023 Carson et al. Effect of Palliative Care–Led Meetings for Families of Patients With Chronic Critical Illness: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2016 Holdsworth et al. Patient Experiences of Specialty Palliative Care in the Perioperative Period for Cancer Surgery. JPSM. 2024 Williams et al. Patient Perceptions of Specialist Palliative Care Intervention in Surgical Oncology Care. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2025  Yefimova et al. Palliative Care and End-of-Life Outcomes Following High-risk Surgery. JAMA Surg. 2020   

"I just want to say one word to you.  One word.  Plastics… There's a great future in plastics." This iconic line from the movie The Graduate is at the top of my mind when I think about where we are heading in healthcare. I've interpreted "plastics" as symbolizing a dystopian, mass-produced future of medicine—where artificiality and inauthenticity dominate in the pursuit of efficiency and profit margins. After listening to today's podcast on the growth of community-based palliative care, I find my perspective shifting on this quote. Perhaps the advice given for a future in plastics reflects the past generation's established worldview, failing to recognize a countercultural revolution seeking transformation and meaningful change, even if it may come across as a little brash. In this thought-provoking episode of the GeriPal podcast, we are joined by Alan Chiu (Chief of Palliative Care at Monogram Health), Mindy Stewart-Coffee (National Vice President of Palliative Care at Optum Home and Community), and Ben Thompson (National Medical Director for Hospice and Palliative Care at Gentiva) to discuss this revolution happening in palliative care. The conversation centers around the rapid growth and investment in community-based palliative care, which has emerged as a key area of innovation and opportunity to meet the largely unmet needs of patients living with serious illnesses. With a focus on expanding access, improving outcomes, and addressing workforce shortages, the guests explore how value-based care models are reshaping palliative care delivery. The discussion highlights the differences between traditional fee-for-service models and newer value-based care approaches, including how they incentivize care. We take a deep dive into the risks and benefits of these models, emphasizing the importance of maintaining high standards of care while fostering innovation. We also delve into the role of for-profit organizations and private equity in driving change, acknowledging concerns about motivations while recognizing that these entities can help spur innovation and improve access when led by clinicians committed to patient-centered care. Ultimately, this podcast serves as a call to action for the palliative care community to help shape not just the "Wild West" of community-based care, but palliative care 3.0 as a whole. Do we sit back and wait for a future dominated by a plastic version of palliative care, or do we help lead this revolution to ensure it maintains the authentic heart of what brought us to this field?  As Diane Meier aptly warns, "if you are not at the table, you're on the menu." Eric Widera Of Note: the views expressed in this podcast are our guests' own opinions and not representative of their organizations.

The only certainty in medicine is uncertainty. It touches every aspect of clinical practice, from diagnosis to treatment to prognosis. Despite this, many clinicians view uncertainty as something to tolerate at best or eliminate at worst. But what if we need to rethink and reframe our relationship with uncertainty in medicine? In this episode, we sit down with Jonathan Ilgen and Gurpreet Dhaliwal, co-authors of the New England Journal of Medicine article, "Educational Strategies to Prepare Trainees for Clinical Uncertainty." Together, we explore the nature of uncertainty in clinical practice, its effects on trainees and seasoned clinicians, and strategies to embrace it as a fundamental part of medical reasoning rather than a regrettable byproduct. Jonathan and Gurpreet share insights from research and clinical experience, offering practical methods to help trainees and clinicians recognize, manage, and even embrace uncertainty. Key topics we discuss include: The paradoxical nature of uncertainty: When perceived as a threat, it can provoke anxiety or fear; yet when framed as an opportunity, it can inspire hope and optimism. Why uncertainty is inevitable in medical practice and its impact on clinicians. Is uncertainty a state or a trait? The distinction between epistemic uncertainty (knowledge gaps) and aleatoric uncertainty (randomness in outcomes). How experienced clinicians utilize strategies such as forward planning and monitoring to navigate uncertainty. Communicating uncertainty with patients: how to do it effectively without eroding trust. How to integrate uncertainty into medical education. During the conversation, we explore the emotional responses to uncertainty and how these reactions can influence clinical practice and decision-making. Importantly, Jonathan and Gurpreet emphasize the importance of openly communicating uncertainty with colleagues, supervisors, and patients—a practice that, contrary to common belief, actually strengthens trust, fosters transparency, and encourages collaboration. By normalizing and embracing uncertainty, clinicians can better manage the complexities of medicine and build confidence in their ability to care for patients in the face of the unknown.   👉 We're thrilled that Meg Wallhagen, Professor of Nursing at UCSF, has recorded an intro to this week's podcast.  Any listener who contributes $1000+ is invited to record an intro to a GeriPal podcast! You can donate here, any amount is appreciated. Also, Meg is looking for practicing or student clinicians (physicians and nurses) who are willing to participate in a study on how a simulation of hearing loss promotes a greater appreciation of the experience of hearing loss. Participation should take no more than one to one and one half hour and you will receive a gift card in acknowledgement of your time.  If interested, please contact her directly at [email protected]. For more info, click the following link to open the flyer (PDF format):  Information_Flyer_Practitioneer   ** NOTE: To claim CME credit for this episode, click here **