scholarly journals Timing of Referral and Characteristics of Uninsured, Medicaid, and Insured Patients Referred to the Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 973-978 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽  
Aashraya Ramu ◽  
Haibo Zhang ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care ◽  
Insured Patients

Referral patterns and characteristics of uninsured versus insured patients referred to the outpatient supportive care center (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Author(s):  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Aashraya Ramu ◽  
Haibo Zhang ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Referral Patterns ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care ◽  
Insured Patients

116 Background: Multiple barriers exist in providing quality palliative care to low-income patients with cancer. Such disparities may negatively influence effective management of symptoms including pain. Our objective was to compare referral patterns and characteristics (level of symptom distress) of uninsured vs insured patients. Methods: We reviewed randomly selected charts of 100 Indigent (IND) and 100 Medicaid (MC) patients and compared them with a random sample of 300 patients with insurance (INS) referred during the same time period (1/2010 to 12/2014) to our SCC. Data was collected for date of registration at the cancer center, diagnosis of Advanced Cancer (ACD), first visit to the SCC (PC1), symptom assessment (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-ESAS) at PC1. We excluded self-pay patients. Results: Results for IND, MC and INS (n = 481) respectively are as follows: Mean (SD) Age in yrs. was 50 (12), 48 (11) and 63 (13); p < 0.001. Percentage of non-white was 44%, 51% and 19.5%; p < 0.001. Percentage of unmarried patients was 64%, 68% and 33%; p < 0.001. Mean (SD) ESAS score at PC1 for pain was 5.6 (3.2), 6.7 (2.5), 4.9 (3.2); p < 0.001. Percentage of patients on opioids upon referral was 86%, 62%, and 54%; p < 0.001. Mean (SD) for referral time in months from ACD to PC1 was 8.7 (SD 10.4), 12.3 (SD 18.1) and 12 (SD 19.9) p = 0.31; for no. of encounters with SC per month were 0.46 (0.45), 0.41 (0.46) and 0.3 (0.55); p = 0.01; for survival in months (PC1 to last contact) was 6.4 (5.8), 5.6 (6.4) & 6 (7.22) p = 0.77. Conclusions: Uninsured patients had significantly higher levels of pain, were more frequently on opioids, younger, non-white and not married. They also required a larger number of SCC encounters. Insurance status did not impact timing of SCC referral or SCC follow ups at our cancer center.

scholarly journals P135 Snapshot of an Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. e101
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Pimentel ◽  
Maxine De la Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

Snapshot of an Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Pimentel ◽  
Maxine De La Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

Snapshot of an outpatient supportive care center at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 145-145
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Pimentel ◽  
Maxine Grace De la Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Case Manager ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Early Integration ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

145 Background: Integration of Palliative Care (PC) in oncology has been found to improve symptom distress, quality of life and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Early integration is most appropriate in the outpatient (OP) setting. However, most PC services in the U.S. do not have an OP component. Our study aims to provide a snapshot of the type of patients that are referred to this novel setting for the delivery of early PC. Methods: We reviewed a day in the SCC to illustrate the structure and process involved in the delivery of outpatient PC. We highlighted 9 patients seen that day to show the variety of patients, scope of services, and the unique roles that PC interdisciplinary team members perform. Results: 41 patients were seen that day in the SCC: 10 scheduled consults, 22 scheduled follow-ups, 9 (22%) same-day unscheduled patients: 4 follow-ups, 1 consult and 4 nurse triages. There were also 31 telephone encounters. Most patients seen were for routine follow-up and symptom assessment. However, 10 presented with worsening symptoms with one needing hospital admission. 21 patients required additional counseling: 2 for hospice transitioning, 12 for psychosocial distress, 7 for opioid education. PC was delivered predominantly by physicians and nurses with collaboration with our pharmacist, counselors, and case manager. Conclusions: Traditionally, PC has been delivered predominantly to patients with advanced disease and to aid in transition to end of life. In recent years, OP centers have dramatically changed the nature of PC work as in our snapshot. In addition to patients regarded as traditional PC patients, such as those transitioning to end of life, there are now patients who come in soon after arrival to a cancer center requiring specialized care to address a variety of symptom and educational needs, thus requiring adaptation of structure and processes to allow access for frequent follow ups and counseling and flexibility for walk-in visits. Our findings suggest that SCC needs to practice in a very different way which requires certain skills and assessment tools that are not conventionally present in traditional oncology clinic setting. More research is needed to identify the type of patients that would benefit most from a PC referral.

Advanced cancer patients' (CP) attitudes and perceptions regarding reasons for outpatient supportive care (SC) referral at a comprehensive cancer center: A randomized controlled study.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e24135-e24135
Author(s):  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Frank V. Fossella ◽  
George R. Simon ◽  
Rama Maddi ◽  
Zhanni Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Attitudes And Perceptions ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

e24135 Background: Current ASCO guidelines propose early access to SC in all CP to improve quality of care, quality of life, and symptoms. Very few studies have evaluated patients’ perceived criteria for referral to outpatient SC and perceptions of patients who are referred early in their disease trajectory. Methods: In this study we evaluated CP attitudes and perceptions regarding the role of and access to outpatient Supportive Care clinic (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center. CP with life expectancy of greater than 6 months (as determined by the oncologist) and who are newly registered at MD Anderson Cancer Center were randomized to either obtain an educational brochure that explained the role of the SCC or no brochure. Both groups then completed a survey regarding the role and access to of outpatient SCC. After completion of the survey, patients were asked if they would like to be seen by the SC team. If so, they were scheduled by their oncologist for a SC consult. Results: 288 patients were evaluable: median age was 63, 43% were female, 84% were Caucasian, and the most common cancer type was lung cancer (39%). Median survival was 15 months. Patients who received a brochure reported more understanding of the role of SC vs those who did not receive a brochure (63% vs 37%, p = 0.04). Both groups felt that SC could help to address physical (47% vs 54%) and psychosocial (50% vs 50%) symptoms. Both groups felt SC could help to address questions regarding prognosis (50% vs 50%) and future care (53% vs 47%). Both groups did not feel that time (50% vs 50%) nor financial concerns (49% vs 51%) would be barriers to access SC. Both groups did not feel that receiving SC would impede their cancer care (60% vs 40%) nor change their oncologists’ perspective of them (25% vs 75%). Both groups felt they could receive SC and cancer care simultaneously (50% vs 50%). Approximately half of the patients in both groups perceived it was not too early for a referral to SC. There were no statistical differences in these groups for these findings. Conclusions: Patients who received a brochure had a better understanding of the role of SC. A very significant proportion in both groups had limited awareness of the value of SC. Oncologist driven referral and education of SC may facilitate better understanding of the value of SC. Further studies are needed.

Frequency and factors predictive of aberrant drug behavior in patients presenting to outpatient supportive care center at a comprehensive cancer center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10118-10118
Author(s):  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
Joseph Anthony Arthur ◽  
Janet L. Williams ◽  
Zhanni Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Predictive Value ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Male Gender ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

10118 Background: Opioid misuse is a growing crisis in cancer patients. Cancer patients at risk of aberrant drug behaviors (ADB) are frequently underdiagnosed in routine cancer care. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with ADB using the “Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients tool” (SOAPP-14) in cancer patients seen at the outpatient supportive care center. We also examined the screening performance of Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener (CAGE-AID) as compared to The SOAPP-14 as a gold standard. Methods: In this retrospective study, 1108 consecutive patients referred to supportive care clinic were reviewed. Patients were eligible if they were ≥18 yrs, have a diagnosis of cancer, and were on opioids for pain for atleast a week. Patients’ demographics, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), SOAPP-14, and CAGE-AID scores were analyzed. ADB+ was defined as SOAPP-14 score ≥7. Descriptive statistics, spearman correlation coefficient, multivariate, and ROC analysis were performed. Results: 703/1108 consults were eligible. A total of 153/703 (22%) were ADB +ve. SOAPP-14 scores were positively correlated with CAGE-AID r = .38, p < 0.001; male gender r = 0.11, p = 0.003; ESAS pain r = 0.11, p = 0.005; ESAS depression r = 0.22, p < 0.001; ESAS anxiety r = 0.22, p < 0.001, and ESAS financial distress r = 0.23, p < 0.001. Multivariate analysis indicated that the odds ratio for ADB +ve was 6.18 in patients with CAGE-AID+ (p < 0.001), 1.8 for male gender (p = 0.007), 1.1/pt. for ESAS anxiety (p = 0.044), and 1.1/pt. for ESAS financial distress (p = 0.007). A CAGE-AID score of 1/4 has a sensitivity of 47%, specificity of 89% positive predictive value 63.6% and negative predictive value 69.2%. Conclusions: Our study suggests that 22% of cancer patients on opioids presenting to supportive care center are at risk of aberrant drug behavior (ADB). Male patients with anxiety, financial distress, and prior alcoholism/illicit drug use are significant predictors of ADB’s. A cut off score of ≥1 out 4 on CAGE-AID questionnaire allows better screening of ADB in outpatient advanced cancer patients. Further research to effectively manage these patients is needed.

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

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document