scholarly journals Making My Course Better: Using Patient Reported Outcomes to Integrate Palliative Care Acrossthe Spectrum of Care for Patients with Advanced Cancer (FR417)

2014 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 425-426
Author(s):  
Leslie Blackhall ◽  
Paul Read ◽  
MaryAnn Davis ◽  
George Stukenborg
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Phase II Trial of Symptom Screening With Targeted Early Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Cancer

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Camilla Zimmermann ◽  
Ashley Pope ◽  
Breffni Hannon ◽  
Monika K. Krzyzanowska ◽  
Gary Rodin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Phase Ii Trial ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Satisfaction With Care ◽  
Early Palliative Care ◽  
Symptom Screening ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Over Time

Background: Routine early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QoL) for patients with advanced cancer, but it may not be necessary for all patients. We assessed the feasibility of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) in a phase II trial. Methods: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited from medical oncology clinics. Symptoms were screened at each visit using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r); moderate to severe scores (screen-positive) triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who called the patient and offered EPC. Patient-reported outcomes of QoL, depression, symptom control, and satisfaction with care were measured at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months. The primary aim was to determine feasibility, according to predefined criteria. Secondary aims were to assess whether STEP identified patients with worse patient-reported outcomes and whether screen-positive patients who accepted and received EPC had better outcomes over time than those who did not receive EPC. Results: In total, 116 patients were enrolled, of which 89 (77%) completed screening for ≥70% of visits. Of the 70 screen-positive patients, 39 (56%) received EPC during the 6-month study and 4 (6%) received EPC after the study end. Measure completion was 76% at 2 months, 68% at 4 months, and 63% at 6 months. Among screen-negative patients, QoL, depression, and symptom control were substantially better than for screen-positive patients at baseline (all P<.0001) and remained stable over time. Among screen-positive patients, mood and symptom control improved over time for those who accepted and received EPC and worsened for those who did not receive EPC (P<.01 for trend over time), with no difference in QoL or satisfaction with care. Conclusions: STEP is feasible in ambulatory patients with advanced cancer and distinguishes between patients who remain stable without EPC and those who benefit from targeted EPC. Acceptance of the triggered EPC visit should be encouraged. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04044040.

Individualized cancer follow-up supported by electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: Development and evaluation (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sissel Ravn ◽  
Henriette Vind Thaysen ◽  
Lene Seibaek ◽  
Victor Jilbert Verwaal ◽  
Lene Hjerrild Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Ct Scan ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cost Benefit Analysis ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Individualized Care ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Cancer survivors experience unmet needs during follow-up. Besides recurrence, a follow-up includes detection of late side effects, rehabilitation, palliation and individualized care. OBJECTIVE We aimed to describe the development and evaluate the feasibility of an intervention providing individualized cancer follow-up supported by electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PRO). METHODS The study was carried out as an interventional study at a Surgical and a Gynecological Department offering complex cancer surgery and follow-up for advanced cancer. The e-PRO screened for a priori defined clinical important symptoms and needs providing individualized follow-up. We included following questionnaires in the e-PRO; the general European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 and the EORTC validated for colorectal and ovarian cancer patients. To support individualization, we included three prioritized issues of the patient’s preference in each e-PRO. The response-algorithm was aggregated based on the severity of the patient’s response. To ensure the sensitivity of the e-PRO, we performed semi-structured interviews with five patients. All clinicians (surgeons and gynecologists) performing the consultations reviewed the e-PRO. The evaluation was divided in two, 1)The feasibility was assessed by a)Patients’ response rate of the e-PRO, b)Number of follow-up visits documenting the use of e-PRO and c)Patients’ prioritized issues prior to the consultation(‘yes’ / ‘no’), and after the follow-up 2)Patients assessment of a)The need and purpose of the follow-up visit and b)the support provided during the follow-up visit. RESULTS In total, 187 patients were included in the study, of which 73%(n=136/187) patients responded to the e-PRO and were subjected to an individualized follow-up. The e-PRO was documented as applied in 79% of the follow-up visits. In total, 23% of the prioritized issues did not include a response. Stratified by time since surgery, significantly more patients did not fill out a prioritized issue had a follow-up >6 months since surgery. In total, 72 % follow-up visits were evaluated to be necessary in order to discuss the outcome of the CT scan, symptoms, and/or prioritized issues. Contrary, 19% of the follow-up visits were evaluated to be necessary only to discuss the result of the CT scan. A range from 19.3–56.3% of patients assessed the follow-up visit to provide support with respect to physical (42% of patients), mental (56%), sexual (19%) or dietary (27%) issues. Further, a range from 34–60% of the patients reported that they did not need support regarding physical (43% of patients), mental (34%), sexual (63%) or dietary (57%) issues. CONCLUSIONS An individualized follow-up based on e-PRO is feasible, and support most patients surgically treated for advanced cancer. However, results indicate that follow-up based on e-PRO may not be beneficial for all patients and circumstances. A thorough cost-benefit analysis may be warranted before implementation in routine clinic.

The Support, Education, and Advocacy (SEA) Program of Care for Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Nurse-Led Palliative Care Demonstration Program

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (10) ◽  
pp. 864-870 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Reiser ◽  
Margaret Rosenzweig ◽  
Ann Welsh ◽  
Dianxu Ren ◽  
Barbara Usher
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Social Service ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Generalized Anxiety ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) experience unique symptom management and psychosocial needs due to aggressive, yet palliative treatment with a progressive, chronic illness. Objective: This article describes the effect of a quality improvement project for coordination of supportive care in MBC. Program evaluations included referral rates for supportive services, patient-reported outcomes of symptom distress, generalized anxiety, and overall well-being. Design: An interdisciplinary Support, Education and Advocacy Program (MBC-SEA) was developed. The 1-hour, weekly, patient review included collaborative assessments to determine needs for social service, psychological counseling, and palliative care. A prospective pre- and postexperimental cohort design with convenience sampling was used. Analysis was conducted with paired t test analysis of pre- and postimplementation outcomes. Setting/Participants: Program outcomes of 118 women with MBC visiting an urban outpatient breast cancer clinic during September 2016 to November 2016 (pre) and January 2017 to March 2017 (post) were evaluated. Measurements: Referral rates to social work and palliative care, symptom, anxiety, and overall well-being scores. Results: Following program implementation, referrals to palliative care and social work supportive services increased significantly including patient-reported outcomes symptom distress scores mean difference 1.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4306-2.6428), P = .004; generalized anxiety scores mean difference 1.5 (95% CI: 0.5406-2.5781), P = .003; and overall well-being mean difference of −0.7 (95% CI: −1.3498 to −0.0570), P = .03. Conclusions: Purposeful nurse-led assessment for social service and palliative care needs increases referrals with improvement in patient-reported outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes for determining prognostic groups in veterans with advanced cancer.

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9040-9040
Author(s):  
V. T. Chang ◽  
C. B. Scott ◽  
H. Yan ◽  
M. L. Gonzalez ◽  
J. Einhorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Prognostic Groups

Predictive value of the patient reported outcome “living with cancer” instrument on overall survival in advanced cancer patients: A tool for guiding timing of palliative care consultations.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10025-10025
Author(s):  
Stuart L. Goldberg ◽  
Dhakshila Paramanathan ◽  
Srikesh Arunajadai ◽  
Victoria DeVincenzo ◽  
Ruth Pe Benito ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Cox Model ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Living With Cancer

10025 Background: The Living with Cancer (LWC) patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument evaluates distress from the point of view of the advanced cancer pt. The 7-item Likert survey measures 4 personhood domains (performance status, pain, burden [financial and family], depression) with scores ranging 0-112. In a pilot study of 433 cancer pts at a single center a score of >28 was associated with an increased likelihood of physician’s (blinded) opinion of need for end-of-life care discussions ( J Palliative Med 2016). Methods: The LWC instrument is a statistically validated PRO (ASCO Palliative Care Symposium 2016). LWC was administered to 1024 cancer pts receiving non-curative therapy at 7 centers (Regional Cancer Care Associates, NJ) from Sept 2015 - Oct 2016. LWC surveys were linked to the Cota database, which extracts and enriches data from EHRs. Date of survey was used as the start point in time-to-event analysis. Results: 290 (28%) pts expired during the study (median f/u 9.9 months). 267 (26%) pts exceeded the threshold score of 28 defined in the pilot set (28 was also independently this study’s optimal cut point). Pts with an LWC score >28 had inferior 6 and 12 mo overall survival (69% and 54%) vs pts with scores <29 (88% and 73%) (log rank p<0.001). A Cox model demonstrated that LWC score and cancer type were significant (LWC: p<0.001, cancer types (compared to B): GI p<0.001, GU: p=0.013, T: p<0.001, M: p=0.334) A one point score increase in LWC resulted in a 1.8% increase in expected hazard. Among solid tumor pts with LWC >28, 20% died within the next 3 mo and 35% died within the next 6 mo, indicating appropriate timing for hospice and palliative care consults, respectively. Conclusions: Pt responses to the LWC instrument predict survival among advanced cancer pts and may be useful in guiding timing of palliative care consultations. [Table: see text]

Next steps: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into palliative care referral for people with advanced breast cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 133-133
Author(s):  
Yun Rose Li ◽  
Celine Denise Marquez ◽  
Hope S. Rugo ◽  
Michael W. Rabow ◽  
Laura Esserman
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Breast Cancer ◽  
Severity Score ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
Advanced Breast ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Patient Reported

133 Background: Specialty palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve quality of life, reduce unnecessary health care utilization, reduce overall costs, and decrease mortality in some settings for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, however only a small proportion are being promptly referred. As interventions that respond to patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve symptoms and decrease mortality, we hypothesized that the rates of SPC referral would be increased by documenting, tracking, and presenting PROs for oncology visits to referring oncologists. Methods: Over a period of 2 months, 74 English-speaking established patients seen in an advanced breast cancer clinic with an embedded SPC service were approached and completed the study. All patients filled out the electronic, validated PROMIS and PRO-CTCAE PRO questionnaires in the waiting room using a touch screen tablet. Results were presented to the oncologist during the encounter if the CTCAE severity score exceeded 3 in at least 1 domain. Patient demographics, clinical features and PC referrals or appointments were assessed via chart review. Results: At baseline, 9 (12.2%) patients scored a minimum of “severe” (4/5 or 5/5) in at least 1 of the 3 anxiety domains; 17 (23.0%) had moderate-severe pain; and 27 (32.1%) reported fatigue. At study entry, 25 patients (33.8%) had been referred previously to the SPC service; 19 had actually been seen (76% of referred). Of the 63 (85.1%) patients with sufficient follow-up, 13 (20.6%) reported at least “severe” in >1 CTCAE domains, 6 (46.2%) of whom were previously referred to SPC. For the remaining 7 patients, median PROMIS T-score and PRO-CTCAE maximum severity score were 58.3 and 3.2, respectively; none were referred to SPC during the follow up period. Conclusions: The choice to refer (or not to refer) a patient to SPC is complex and tied to patient specific factors such as coordinating additional visits and fear of end of life conversations. To enable greater access to SPC, alternative referral mechanisms, such as group-based or personalized patient education, or automatic referrals triggered by evidence of need, may be required. #YRL/CDM contributed equally.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document