How to Manage Hospital-Based Palliative Care Teams Without Full-Time Palliative Care Physicians in Designated Cancer Care Hospitals

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 520-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihiro Sakashita ◽  
Megumi Kishino ◽  
Yoko Nakazawa ◽  
Nobuyuki Yotani ◽  
Takashi Yamaguchi ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 234-234
Author(s):  
Brian Cassel ◽  
Nevena Skoro ◽  
Kathleen Kerr ◽  
Lisa Shickle ◽  
Patrick J. Coyne ◽  
...  

234 Background: National organizations such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Quality Forum (NQF) have developed metrics that assess the quality of cancer care. These metrics include consensus standards by the NQF for management of symptoms and end-of-life-care. Cancer centers need feasible methods for self-evaluating their performance on such metrics. Methods: Claims for our cancer patients were matched to Social Security Death Index data to determine date of death.3,128 adult cancer patients died between January 2009 and July 2011 and had at least 1 contact with our center in their last six month of life. All inpatient and outpatient claims data generated in the last six months of life at our hospital were analyzed. Results: 32% of patients had an admission in their last 30 days of life, with 15% dying in the hospital. 19% had at least one 30-day readmission in their last six months of life. 6.7% had chemotherapy in the 2 weeks prior to death, and 11.4% in the last month. 27.5% had some contact with the specialist palliative care (SPC) team. Solid tumor patients with SPC earlier than 1 month until death had fewer in-hospital deaths (15.6%) versus those with later or no SPC (19.5%), p=.041. There was no SPC difference for 30-day mortality, or 14- or 30-day chemotherapy metrics. Conclusions: Hospitals can self-evaluate their own performance on NQF endorsed measures, and CMS outcome measures. These data provide additional impetus for earlier integration of specialist palliative care teams. SPC in the last 1-3 weeks of life did not improve most utilization metrics.[Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Ramy Sedhom ◽  
Lindsey MacNabb ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
K. Robin Yabroff

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002455
Author(s):  
Guillaume Economos ◽  
Alice Bonneville-Levard ◽  
Ines Djebari ◽  
Kevin Van Thuynes ◽  
Colombe Tricou ◽  
...  

ObjectiveIntegrated palliative care for populations with cancer is now highly recommended. However, numerous physicians working in cancer care are still reluctant to refer patients to specialist palliative care teams. This study explores their perceptions of palliative care and factors influencing reasons to refer to specialist palliative care.MethodsWe used a qualitative methodology based on semistructured interviews with physicians working in cancer care, in two tertiary hospitals and one comprehensive cancer centre with access to a specialist palliative care team. Forty-six physicians were invited and 18 interviews were performed until data saturation. Participants were mainly men, licensed in cancer care, 37.9 years old on average and had 13 years of professional experience. The length of interviews was on average 34 min (SD=3). Analysis was performed accordingly with the thematic analysis.ResultsThe data analysis found four themes: symptom management as a trigger, psychosocial support, mediation provided by interventions, and the association with terminal care or death. Palliative care integrated interventions were mainly perceived as holistic approaches that offered symptom management expertise and time. They were valued for helping in consolidating decision-making from a different or external perspective, or an ‘outside look’. Several barriers were identified, often due to the confusion between terminal care and palliative care. This was further highlighted by the avoidance of the words ‘palliative care’, which were associated with death.ConclusionsNational policies for promoting palliative care seemed to have failed in switching oncologists' perception of palliative care, which they still consider as terminal care.


2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
PATRICE WENDLING

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Chika R. Nwachukwu ◽  
Omobola Mudasiru ◽  
Lynn Million ◽  
Shruti Sheth ◽  
Hope Qamoos ◽  
...  

Purpose Despite recognition of both the growing cancer burden in low- and middle-income countries and the disproportionately high mortality rates in these settings, delivery of high-quality cancer care remains a challenge. The disparities in cancer care outcomes for many geographic regions result from barriers that are likely complex and understudied. This study describes the development and use of a streamlined needs assessment questionnaire (NAQ) to understand the barriers to providing quality cancer care, identifies areas for improvement, and formulates recommendations for implementation. Methods Using a comprehensive NAQ, in-depth interviews were conducted with 17 hospital staff involved in cancer care at two teaching hospitals in Nigeria. Data were analyzed using content analysis and organized into a framework with preset codes and emergent codes, where applicable. Results Data from the interviews were organized into six broad themes: staff, stuff, system, space, lack of palliative care, and provider bias, with key barriers within themes including: financial, infrastructural, lack of awareness, limited human capacity resources, lack of palliative care, and provider perspective on patient-related barriers to cancer care. Specific solutions based on ability to reasonably implement were subcategorized into short-, medium-, and long-term goals. Conclusion This study provides a framework for a streamlined initial needs assessment and a unique discussion on the barriers to high-quality oncology care that are prevalent in resource-constrained settings. We report the feasibility of collecting and organizing data using a streamlined NAQ and provide a thorough and in-depth understanding of the challenges in this setting. Knowledge gained from the assessments will inform steps to improve oncology cancer in these settings.


Author(s):  
Ebru Kaya ◽  
Warren Lewin ◽  
David Frost ◽  
Breffni Hannon ◽  
Camilla Zimmermann

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals worldwide have reported large volumes of patients with refractory symptoms and a large number of deaths attributable to COVID-19. This has led to an increase in the demand for palliative care beyond what can be provided by most existing programs. We developed a scalable model to enable continued provision of high-quality palliative care during a pandemic for hospitals without a palliative care unit or existing dedicated palliative care beds. Methods: A COVID-19 consultation service working group (CWG) was convened with stakeholders from palliative care, emergency medicine, critical care, and general internal medicine. The CWG connected with local palliative care teams to ensure a coordinated response, and developed a model to ensure high-quality palliative care provision. Results: Our 3-step scalable model included: (1) consultant model enhanced by virtual care; (2) embedded model; and (3) cohorted end-of-life unit for COVID-19 positive patients. This approach was enabled through tools and resources to ensure specialist palliative care capacity and rapid upskilling of all clinicians to deliver basic palliative care. Enabling tools and resources included a triage tool for in-person versus virtual care, new medication order sets and guidelines to facilitate prescribing for common symptoms, and lead advance care planning and goals of care discussions. A redeployment plan of generalist physicians and psychiatrists was created to ensure seamless provision of serious illness care. Conclusion: This 3-step, scalable approach enables rapid upscaling of palliative care in collaboration with generalist physicians, and may be adapted for future pandemics or natural disasters.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
In Gyu Song ◽  
Seung Yeon Kwon ◽  
Yoon Jung Chang ◽  
Min Sun Kim ◽  
Sung Hoon Jeong ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although the importance of palliative care in pediatric patients has been emphasized, many health care providers have difficulty determining when patients should be referred to the palliative care team. The Paediatric Palliative Screening Scale (PaPaS) was developed as a tool for screening pediatric patients for palliative care needs. The study aimed to evaluate the PaPaS as a reliable tool for primary care clinicians unfamiliar with palliative care. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of patients referred to the pediatric palliative care teams in two tertiary hospitals in the Republic of Korea between July 2018 and October 2019. Results The primary clinical and pediatric palliative care teams assessed the PaPaS scores of 109 patients, and both teams reported a good agreement for the sum of the PaPaS score. Furthermore, the PaPaS scores correlated with those obtained using the Lansky performance scale. Although the mean PaPaS score was higher in the pediatric palliative care team, the scores were higher than the cut-off score for referral in both groups. Conclusion The PaPaS can be a useful tool for primary care clinicians to assess the palliative care needs of patients and their families.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document