OP456 Encouraging Shared Decision-Making Of Goals Of Care Discussions In Lung Cancer Patients Using A Smartphone Application

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (S1) ◽  
pp. 17-17
Author(s):  
Amanda Lovato ◽  
Nisha Almeida

IntroductionAn important reason for receiving non-beneficial treatment at end-of life is the lack of timely discussions on goals of care and end-of-life preferences. A recent randomized clinical trial demonstrated that patients primed with a questionnaire on their end-of-life preferences were more likely to initiate such conversations with their doctors. Our objective is to integrate the questionnaire into a smartphone application to facilitate early goals of care discussions. To achieve this goal, we first plan to undertake a feasibility study to understand stakeholder preferences.MethodsAs part of a quality improvement initiative at our Canadian quaternary-care hospital, we conducted focus groups with oncology and palliative care physicians and patients to understand barriers to early conversations on end-of-life preferences, and to assess feasibility of using smartphone technology in facilitating these conversations. The app would integrate a questionnaire to patients and send prompts to physicians on patient readiness and timing of conversations.ResultsWe conducted separate focus groups with lung cancer patients (n = 6) and clinicians in oncology (n = 6) and palliative care (n = 6). Clinical teams expressed enthusiasm about early conversations but raised several barriers including system (lack of electronic documentation and access to data; multiple physicians), clinician (lack of time) and patient (stigma associated with end-of-life) barriers. Clinicians agreed that an app could overcome some of these barriers such as access to patient and electronic data by making patients the repository of all their data and empowering them to initiate discussions. However, they raised concerns about universal accessibility of such technology, especially among the elderly. Patient focus groups will take place in March 2021 and inform us on feasibility in this population.ConclusionsThere is a consensus among physicians at our hospital that early end-of-life conversations have the potential to mitigate adverse events and that use of a smart phone app could facilitate such conversations.

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S1081
Author(s):  
N. Jiménez-García ◽  
L. Ronco-Dumas ◽  
F. Rivas-Ruiz ◽  
R. Quirós-López ◽  
C. Flores-Guardabrazo ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6614-6614
Author(s):  
Chebli Mrad ◽  
Marwan S Abougergi ◽  
Robert Michael Daly

6614 Background: Prior studies have demonstrated that high-intensity end-of-life care improves neither survival nor quality of life for cancer patients. The National Quality Forum endorses dying from cancer in an acute care setting, ICU admission in the last 30 days of life, and chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life as markers of poor quality care. Methods: Discharge data from the National Inpatient Sample database was analyzed for 3,030,866 acute care hospitalizations of metastatic lung cancer patients between 1998 and 2014. Longitudinal analysis was conducted to determine trends in aggressive care at the end-of-life and multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine associations with age, race, region, hospital characteristics, and aggressive care. Results: In-hospital mortality for metastatic lung cancer patients decreased from 17% to 11%. Among terminal hospitalizations, utilization of radiation therapy and chemotherapy decreased from 4.6% to 3.0% and from 4.8% to 3.0%, respectively. However, the proportion admitted to the ICU increased from 13.3% to 27.9% and invasive procedures increased from 1.2% to 2.0%. Reflecting this aggressive end-of-life care, mean total charges for a terminal hospitalization rose from $29,386 to $72,469, adjusted for inflation. Among patients who died in the inpatient setting, the ICU stay translated into higher total costs (+$16,962, CI: $15,859 to $18,064) compared to patients who avoided the ICU. Promisingly, palliative care encounters for terminal hospitalizations increased during this period from 8.7% to 53.0% and was correlated with a decrease in inpatient chemotherapy (OR = 0.56, CI: 0.47 to 0.68), radiotherapy (OR = 0.77, CI: 0.65 to 0.92), and ICU admissions (OR = 0.48, CI: 0.45 to 0.53) but had only a modest impact on terminal hospitalization cost (-$2,992, CI: -$3,710 to -$2,275). Multivariable analysis showed variation by patient and hospital characteristics in aggressive care utilization. Conclusions: Among patients with metastatic lung cancer there has been a substantial increase in ICU use during terminal hospitalizations, resulting in high cost for the health care system. Inpatient palliative care has the potential to reduce aggressive end-of-life interventions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 143-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siddharth Karanth ◽  
Suja S. Rajan ◽  
Frances L. Revere ◽  
Gulshan Sharma

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 172-175
Author(s):  
Md Harun Or Rashid ◽  
Quadrat E Elahi ◽  
Md Ashraful Alam ◽  
Fatima Sarker

Background: To compare the survival rate of paclitaxel plus cisplatin (PC arm), paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (PG arm) and gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC arm) in chemotherapy patients with non resectable lung cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study to evaluate chemotherapy response among non resectable lung cancer patients with their survival at cancer center CMH, Dhaka since 01 July 2013 to 31 March 2015. One hundred fifty-four (154) non resectable lung cancer patients were randomly divided into three groups, 50 patients in PC arm, 51 patients in PG arm and 53 patients in GC arm. In PC arm paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (day 1) with cisplatin 75mg/m2 (day 1), in PG arm Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (day 1) with gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) and in GC arm gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (days 1 and 8) with cisplatin 100mg/m2 (day 1). Results: Patients characteristics were similar between the three groups. The overall response rate was 40% in the PC arm,43.1% in the PG arm, 43.4% in the GC arm. The median survival time in PC arm was 8.5 months, in PG arm was 8.8 months, in GC arm was 9.2 months. The major side effect was myelosuppression which accounts 71% patients. The average treatment costs were 57% and 30% lower in PC arm as compared with GC and PG arm respectively. Conclusion: The median survival time, disease free survival time and 1-year survival rate in PC, PG, GC arms without significant difference. Treatment were well tolerable; quality of life parameter was mostly similar but paclitaxel with cisplatin was most cost effective than others chemotherapy regimen. J Bangladesh Coll Phys Surg 2020; 38(4): 172-175


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. S590-S591
Author(s):  
J.L. Cruz ◽  
M. Provencio ◽  
E. Menasalvas ◽  
C. Parejo ◽  
F. Martínez-Ruíz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document