Impact of a Palliative Care Consultation Team on Cancer-Related Symptoms in Advanced Cancer Patients Referred to an Outpatient Supportive Care Clinic

94 Background: Data on the utilization and outcomes of urine drug tests (UDT) among advanced cancer patients is limited. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with UDT ordering and results in advanced cancer outpatients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 1058 patients seen from March 2014 to November 2015 at an outpatient supportive care clinic was conducted. Sixty-one patients on chronic opioid therapy who underwent UDT were identified. A control group of 120 patients who did not undergo UDT was selected for comparison of information on demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: 61/1058 patients (6%) underwent UDT. 33/61 patients (54%) had abnormal results. Multivariate analysis found that the odds ratio for UDT ordering was 3.9 in CAGE positive patients (p = 0.002), 4.41 in patients less than 45years (p < 0.001), 5.58 in patients with moderate to severe pain (ESAS pain score ≥ 4) (p < 0.001), 0.27 in patients with advanced cancer stage, (p = 0.008), and 0.25 in patients with moderate to severe fatigue (p = 0.001). Among 52 abnormal UDT results in 33 patients, the most common opioid findings were: prescribed opioids absent in urine (14/52, 27%) and un-prescribed opioids in urine (13/52, 25%). Conclusions: UDT was used infrequently among advanced cancer patients receiving outpatient chronic opioid therapy. Younger age, CAGE positivity, early cancer stage or NED status, higher pain intensity, and lower fatigue were significant predictors of UDT ordering. More than 50% of UDTs were abnormal. More research is necessary to better characterize aberrant opioid use in advanced cancer patients.

Download Full-text

Cost Savings Associated With Palliative Care Among Older Adults With Advanced Cancer

American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® ◽

10.1177/1049909120986800 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 104990912098680

Author(s):

Paige E. Sheridan ◽

Wendi G. LeBrett ◽

Daniel P. Triplett ◽

Eric J. Roeland ◽

Andrew R. Bruggeman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

End Of Life ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Healthcare Costs ◽

Healthcare Expenditure ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Palliative Care Consultation ◽

Care Consultation ◽

The Impact

Background: There is inconsistent evidence that palliative care intervention decreases total healthcare expenditure at end-of-life for oncology patients. This inconsistent evidence may result from small sample sizes at single institution studies and disparate characterization of costs across studies. Comprehensive studies in population-based datasets are needed to fully understand the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs. This study analyzed the impact of palliative care on total healthcare costs in a nationally representative sample of advanced cancer patients. Methods: We conducted a matched cohort study among Medicare patients with metastatic lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. We matched patients who received a palliative care consultation to similar patients who did not receive a palliative care consultation on factors related to both the receipt of palliative care and end of life costs. We compared direct costs between matched patients to determine the per-patient economic impact of a palliative care consultation. Results: Patients who received a palliative care consultation experienced an average per patient cost of $5,834 compared to $7,784 for usual care patients (25% decrease; p < 0.0001). Palliative care consultation within 7 days of death decreased healthcare costs by $451, while palliative care consultation more than 4 weeks from death decreased costs by $4,643. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that palliative care has the capacity to substantially reduce healthcare expenditure among advanced cancer patients. Earlier palliative care consultation results in greater cost reductions than consultation in the last week of life.

Download Full-text

Challenges of Managing Advanced Cancer Patients through Phone Triaging at an Outpatient Supportive Care Clinic: A Case Series of Palliative Care Patients

Palliative Care Research and Treatment ◽

10.4137/pcrt.s10733 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. PCRT.S10733

Author(s):

Lindsey E. Pimentel ◽

Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽

Elizabeth D. Brown ◽

Debra K. Castro

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Case Reports ◽

Care Center ◽

Case Series ◽

Cancer Center ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Care Clinic ◽

Outpatient Supportive Care

Palliative care strives to improve the quality of life for patients and their families by impeccable assessment and management using an interdisciplinary approach. However, patients with cancer-related pain and other symptoms tend to be undertreated because of limited follow-up visits due to late referrals and logistics. Thus, patients who present to the outpatient Supportive Care Center at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center often experience severe physical and psychological symptoms. The two case reports presented highlight the challenges of managing distressed patients with advanced cancer in the outpatient setting. These descriptions focus on addressing patient needs over the phone to enhance the care patients receive at the Supportive Care Center. Future prospective studies are needed to measure the effectiveness of using phone triaging in conjunction with standard outpatient palliative care.

Download Full-text

Economic impact of palliative care among elderly cancer patients.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.31_suppl.91 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽

pp. 91-91

Author(s):

Wendi G. Lebrett ◽

Eric Roeland ◽

Andrew Bruggeman ◽

Heidi Yeung ◽

James Don Murphy

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Economic Impact ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Healthcare Costs ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Care Intervention ◽

Palliative Care Consultation ◽

Care Consultation ◽

The Impact

91 Background: Randomized trials among advanced cancer patients demonstrate that early palliative care integration into usual oncology care reduces symptom burden, improves quality of life and caregiver outcomes, and may improve survival. The impact of palliative care on health economics remains poorly defined and reported cost savings are an unintentional consequence of providing care aligned with patient goals. This study determined the impact of palliative care on healthcare costs among elderly patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We conducted a matched case-control study among Medicare beneficiaries with metastatic lung, colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. We matched patients who received a palliative care consultation to similar patients who did not receive a palliative care consultation. To determine the economic impact of a palliative care consultation we compared costs between cases and controls before and after the palliative care intervention. Costs included inpatient, outpatient, home health care, hospice, and medical equipment, and were adjusted to 2011 dollars. Results: Among the 2,576 patients in this study the total healthcare costs per patient in the 30 days before palliative care consultation was balanced between palliative care ($12,881) and non-palliative care control patients ($12,335). Palliative care intervention reduced total healthcare costs after the intervention. The total cost of care per patient in the 120 days after palliative care exposure was $6,880 compared to $9,604 for controls (28% decrease; p < 0.001). The economic effect of palliative care depended on timing of the consult. Palliative care consultation within 7 days of death decreased healthcare costs by $975, whereas palliative care consultation more than 4 weeks from death decreased costs by $5,362. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that palliative care has the capacity to substantially reduce healthcare expenditures among advanced cancer patients. Furthermore, the cost reduction depends on timing of the palliative care consult.

Download Full-text

Advanced cancer patients' self-reported perception of timeliness of their referral to outpatient supportive/palliative care and their survival data.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.10121 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. 10121-10121 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Angelique Wong ◽

David Hui ◽

Margeaux Epner ◽

Vishidha Reddy Balankari ◽

Vera J De la Cruz ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Just In Time ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Care Clinic ◽

Disease Trajectory ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Significant Difference

10121 Background: Palliative Care referral is often thought to be delayed as judged by health professionals and caregivers. However, no studies have ever examined patients’ perception of timeliness of referral. The primary objective of this study was to determine patients’ perception of the timeliness of their own referral to an outpatient palliative care clinic. We also examined the association between perceived timeliness and actual timing of referral. Methods: In this prospective survey, patients with advanced cancer were asked to rate their perceived timeliness of referral using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from much too early to much too late within 7-35 days after their first consultation visit at Supportive Care Center. They were also asked when they felt referral to Supportive Care should occur along 4 points in their disease trajectory. Actual timing of referral was assessed based on survival from the timing of completion of the survey. Results: 200 advanced cancer patients were surveyed. Median age was 64, 111 (55%) were female, and 35 (18%), 32 (16%) and 26 (13%) had gastrointestinal, lung and breast cancer, respectively. The median overall survival was 8.5 months. 144 (72%) patients perceived their referral was “just in time,” 42 (21%) felt it was “late/much too late,” and 14 (7%) felt it was much “too early/early.” 76/193 (39%) felt the referral should occur at the time of diagnosis of cancer, 32 (17%) when they start first-line chemotherapy, 46 (24%) at diagnosis of recurrent disease, 14 (7%) when there are no further treatment options, and 4 (2%) reported never. We found no significant difference in survival among patients who reported their referral was early, just in time, and late (median 9.8 vs. 8.3 vs. 9.0 months, P=0.43). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer were referred to our outpatient Supportive Care clinic a median of 8.5 months before death. A vast majority of patients perceived the timing of referral was appropriate, and many agreed that referral should occur early in the disease trajectory. The lack of association between perceived timeliness of referral and survival may be related to the ceiling effect and the small number of patients who felt their referral was late.

Download Full-text

Consistency of symptom clusters among advanced cancer patients seen at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a tertiary cancer center

Palliative & Supportive Care ◽

10.1017/s1478951512000879 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. 473-480 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽

Jung Hye Kwon ◽

Diana L. Urbauer ◽

David Hui ◽

Cielito C Reyes-Gibby ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Symptom Clusters ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Palliative Care Teams ◽

Loss Of Appetite ◽

Outpatient Supportive Care

AbstractObjective:Advanced cancer patients often develop severe physical and psychological symptom clusters (SCs), but limited data exist on their consistency or severity after an outpatient interdisciplinary team consultation led by palliative care specialists. The primary aim of the study was to determine the consistency and severity of SCs in advanced cancer patients in this setting.Method:A total of 1373 patients with advanced cancer who were referred to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Outpatient Supportive Care Center between January 2003 and October 2008 with a complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; 0–10 scale) occurred at initial and first follow-up visit were reviewed (median 14 days, range 1–4 weeks). We used a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine whether symptoms changed over time, and a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation to determine SCs at baseline and at first follow-up. The number of factors calculated was determined based upon the number of eigenvalues.Results:The patients' ratings of the following symptoms (mean, SD) at the initial and follow-up visits, respectively, were: fatigue 6.2 (2.3) and 5.7 (2.5, p < 0.0001), pain 5.4 (2.9) and 4.6 (3, p < 0.0001), nausea 2.2 (2.8) and 2.0 (2.6, p < 0.0001), depression 3.0 (2.9) and 2.5 (2.7, p < 0.0001), anxiety 3.4 (3.0) and 2.8 (2.8, p < 0.0001), drowsiness 4.8 (3.1) and 4.4 (3.1, p < 0.0001), dyspnea 3.0 (2.9) and 2.7 (2.8), p < 0.0001), loss of appetite 4.2 (2.7) and 3.9 (2.7, p < 0.0001), sleep disturbances 4.2 (2.6) and 3.8 (2.6, P < 0.0001), and well-being 4.3 (2.5) and 3.9 (2.3, p < 0.0001). Cluster composition differentiated into physical (fatigue, pain, nausea, drowsiness, dyspnea, and loss of appetite) and psychological (anxiety and depression) components at the initial visit, and these two SCs were consistent upon follow-up.Significance of results:We conclude that SCs remain constant between baseline and near-term follow-up but that the severity of those symptoms lessened during that interval. This knowledge may allow palliative care teams to provide more targeted and higher-quality care, but further studies are needed.

Download Full-text

Differences in performance status assessments between palliative care specialists, nurses, and oncologists.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2014.32.31_suppl.19 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽

pp. 19-19

Author(s):

YuJung Kim ◽

Yi Zhang ◽

Ji Chan Park ◽

David Hui ◽

Gary B. Chisholm ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Performance Status ◽

Well Being ◽

Assessment Tools ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

Care Clinic ◽

Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽

Ecog Ps

19 Background: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) is one of the most commonly used assessment tools among oncologists and palliative care specialists caring advanced cancer patients. However, the inter-observer difference between the oncologist and palliative care specialist has never been reported. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who were first referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic in 2013 and identified 278 eligible patients. The ECOG PS assessments by palliative care specialists, nurses, and oncologists, and the symptom burden measured by Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were analyzed. Results: According to the pairwise comparisons using Sign tests, palliative care specialists rated the ECOG PS grade significantly higher than oncologists (median 0.5 grade, P<0.0001) and nurses also rated significantly higher (median 1.0 grade, P<0.0001). The assessments of palliative care specialists and nurses were not significantly different (P=0.10). Weighted kappa values for inter-observer agreement were 0.26 between palliative care specialists and oncologists, and 0.61 between palliative care specialists and nurses. Palliative care specialists’ assessments showed a moderate correlation with fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, feeling of well-being, and symptom distress score measured by ESAS. The ECOG PS assessments by all three groups were significantly associated with survival (P<0.001), but the assessments by oncologists could not distinguish survival of patients with PS 2 from 3. Independent predictors of discordance in PS assessments between palliative care specialists and oncologists were the presence of an effective treatment option (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-5.23) and poor feeling of well-being (≥4) by ESAS (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.34-4.21). Conclusions: ECOG PS assessments by the palliative care specialists and nurses were significantly different from the oncologists. Systematic efforts to increase regular interdisciplinary meetings and communications might be crucial to bridge the gap and establish a best care plan for each advanced cancer patients.

Download Full-text

Impact of a dedicated supportive care center telephone triaging program (SCCTP) for patients with advanced cancer.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2013.31.31_suppl.54 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽

pp. 54-54

Author(s):

Lindsey E Pimentel ◽

Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽

Gary B. Chisholm ◽

Tonya Edwards ◽

Maria Guerra-Sanchez ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Palliative Care ◽

Supportive Care ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Advanced Cancer ◽

Symptom Management ◽

Care Center ◽

Assessment Scale ◽

Cancer Type ◽

Advanced Cancer Patients ◽

At Home

54 Background: Due to high symptom burden in advanced cancer patients, ongoing symptom management for outpatient palliative care patients is vital. More patients are receiving outpatient care; Yet, most palliative care patients receive less than 2 follow ups. Nurse telephone care can improve quality of life in these patients. Our aim was to determine frequency and care provided by Supportive Care Center Telephone Program (SCCTP) in advanced cancer patients. Methods: 400 consecutive patients who utilized palliative care service, 200 from outpatient Supportive Care Center (SCC) and 200 from inpatient Palliative Care (IPC), were followed for 6 months starting 3/2012 to examine call frequency and reason and outcomes including pain and other symptoms [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS)] associated with utilization of SCCTP. We also examined the effect of SCCTP interventions on pain, ESAS and counseling needs. Results: 375 patients were evaluable. Median age 59 years, 53% female, 70% white. Most frequent cancer type were gastrointestinal (20%, p < 0.0001) for IPC and thoracic (23%, p <0.0001) for SCC. SCC patients had higher prevalence of CAGE positivity (28% SCC vs 11% IPC, p <0.0001), ESAS SDS(p=0.0134), depression(p=0.0009), anxiety(p=0.0097) and sleep(p=0.0015); MDAS scores were significantly higher in IPC (p<0.0001).115/400 patients (29%) utilized SCCTP. 96/115 outpatients (83%) used the SCCTP vs 19/115 IPC (17%). Common reasons for calls were pain (24%), pain medication refills (24%) and counseling (12%). Of 115 phone calls, 340 recommendations were made; 43% (145/340) were regarding care at home; 56% of these recommendations were regarding opioids. Patients who utilized SCCTP had worse pain(p=0.0059), fatigue(p=0.0448), depression(p=0.0410), FWB(p=0.0149) and better MDAS scores(p=0.0138) compared to non-utilizers. Conclusions: There was more frequent SCCTP use by outpatients than inpatients. Most common reason for utilization was pain control. Frequently, recommendations were made to continue symptom management at home. Patients who utilized SCCTP had worse pain, fatigue, depression, well-being scores and better delirium scores.

Download Full-text