scholarly journals Standards, Guidelines, and Quality Measures for Successful Specialty Palliative Care Integration Into Oncology: Current Approaches and Future Directions

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 987-994 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arif H. Kamal ◽  
Claudia Bausewein ◽  
David J. Casarett ◽  
David C. Currow ◽  
Deborah J. Dudgeon ◽  
...  

Although robust evidence demonstrates that specialty palliative care integrated into oncology care improves patient and health system outcomes, few clinicians are familiar with the standards, guidelines, and quality measures related to integration. These types of guidance outline principles of best practice and provide a framework for assessing the fidelity of their implementation. Significant advances in the understanding of effective methods and procedures to guide integration of specialty palliative care into oncology have led to a proliferation of guidance documents around the world, with several areas of commonality but also some key differences. Commonalities originate from a shared vision for integration; differences arise from diverse roles of palliative care specialists within cancer care globally. In this review we discuss three of the most cited standards/guidelines, as well as quality measures related to integrated palliative and oncology care. We also recommend changes to the quality measurement framework for palliative care and a new way to match palliative care services to patients with advanced cancer on the basis of care complexity and patient needs, irrespective of prognosis.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 880-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Sarah Temin ◽  
Erin R. Alesi ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
Tracy A. Balboni ◽  
...  

Purpose An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. Clinical Context Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. Recent Data Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. Provisional Clinical Opinion Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care—when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care—leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE. ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-258
Author(s):  
Mark Howard ◽  
Christina Ramsenthaler

BackgroundDriving is a complex activity that requires physical abilities and adequate executive and cognitive functioning. There is concern among specialist palliative care services about patients continuing to drive despite having progressive incurable illnesses, comorbidities and medications to manage their symptoms.ObjectivesTo determine the quality of literature available about driving that would apply to palliative care patients, specifically in relation to road test or simulated driving scores and neurocognitive testing.MethodA literature search based on systematic principles was conducted on the Ovid Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL database up to 14 October 2018. Patient populations with life-limiting illness such as cancer, cardiorespiratory and neurological diagnoses were included.Results37,546 articles were screened. 14 articles satisfied the search criteria. Six studies focused on patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Four studies investigated driving ability in patients with Huntington’s disease. The remaining four articles studied heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interstitial lung disease and patients with cancer. In the road test studies, 19%–47% of patients with MS and Huntington’s failed the behind-the-wheel assessment. The simulated driving scores in seven studies demonstrated statistically significant differences in errors made between study participants and controls. Divided attention was found in seven studies to be associated with poorer road-test or simulated driving ability.ConclusionsThis review highlights the scarcity of studies available for patients who would be known to palliative care services. For most patient groups, a battery of neurocognitive tests combined with a road-test or simulated driving assessment is still considered the best practice in determining driving safety.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. e712-e720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casey M. Hay ◽  
Carolyn Lefkowits ◽  
Megan Crowley-Matoka ◽  
Marie A. Bakitas ◽  
Leslie H. Clark ◽  
...  

Purpose: Concern that patients will react negatively to the idea of palliative care is cited as a barrier to timely referral. Strategies to successfully introduce specialty palliative care to patients have not been well described. We sought to understand how gynecologic oncologists introduce outpatient specialty palliative care. Methods: We conducted a national qualitative interview study at six geographically diverse academic cancer centers with well-established palliative care clinics between September 2015 and March 2016. Thirty-four gynecologic oncologists participated in semistructured telephone interviews focusing on attitudes, experiences, and practices related to outpatient palliative care. A multidisciplinary team analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop and refine a coding framework. This analysis focuses on practices for introducing palliative care. Results: Mean participant age was 47 years (standard deviation, 10 years). Mean interview length was 25 minutes (standard deviation, 7 minutes). Gynecologic oncologists described the following three main strategies for introducing outpatient specialty palliative care: focus initial palliative care referral on symptom management to dissociate palliative care from end-of-life care and facilitate early relationship building with palliative care clinicians; use a strong physician-patient relationship and patient trust to increase acceptance of referral; and explain and normalize palliative care referral to address negative associations and decrease patient fear of abandonment. These strategies aim to decrease negative patient associations and encourage acceptance of early referral to palliative care specialists. Conclusion: Gynecologic oncologists have developed strategies for introducing palliative care services to alleviate patient concerns. These strategies provide groundwork for developing system-wide best practice approaches to the presentation of palliative care referral.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 70-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey B. Smerage ◽  
Katie Abstoss ◽  
Jane Severson ◽  
J. Cameron Muir ◽  
Claudia Jane Martin ◽  
...  

70 Background: Michigan oncology practice groups that participated in MOQC [JOP 5(6):281, 2009] used the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) tool. Adherence to processes of disease specific care was high, but poor in domains associated with palliative care. These measures did not change over time [Health Affairs. 31(4):718, 2012]. These findings prompted us to test interventions to improve quality in palliative care domains. Methods: MOQC created a process, based on the IHI Framework for Spread, to assist oncology practice groups in establishing their own primary Palliative Care services, including the implementation of Edmonton Symptom Management Scale. 8 practice groups formed teams of local change agents to participate in the Palliative Care Demonstration (PC Demo) project. The teams participated in 3 in-person and 4 online learning sessions over 8 months, led by palliative care and quality experts. Teams were provided tools, training materials, and necessary support to implement the improvements and measure their success. The learning network facilitated the sharing of best practices and lessons learned throughout the process. The teams presented their results broadly to other MOQC participants at project conclusion. Results: Success was measured using palliative care-focused ASCO QOPI results. PC Demo sites consecutively improved their scores in many of the QOPI measures, and their rate of improvement from Fall 2011 to Spring 2012 was greater than that of their peers. Conclusions: We observed that collecting and distributing data in our consortium was insufficient to improve palliative oncology care. Providing practice groups with the appropriate infrastructure improved their capacity and capability to make the necessary changes to improve performance. [Table: see text]


Healthcare ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianlorenzo Scaccabarozzi ◽  
Pietro Giorgio Lovaglio ◽  
Fabrizio Limonta ◽  
Carlo Peruselli ◽  
Mariadonata Bellentani ◽  
...  

Background: In Italy, there currently is a lack of reliable and consistent data on home palliative care provided to people near death. Objectives: Monitoring the activities of the Italian Home Palliative Care Services, according to the 2014 national data collection program entitled “Observatory of Best Practices in Palliative Care” and providing process/outcome measures on a subsample (Best Practice Panel), on regulatory standards and on complete/reliable activity data. Design: A data collection web portal using two voluntary internet-based questionnaires in order to retrospectively identify the main care activity data provided within the year 2013 by Home care units. In the Best Practice Panel and International best practices, eligibility and quality measures refer to the national standards of the NL 38/2010. Setting/Subject: Home Palliative Care Services (HPCSs) that provided care from January to December 2013. Results: 118 Home care units were monitored, globally accounting for 40,955 assisted patients within the year 2013 (38,384 cancer patients); 56 (47.5% of 118) were admitted in the Best Practice Panel. Non-cancer (5%) and pediatric (0.4%) patients represented negligible percentages of frail care patients, and a majority of patients died at home (respectively nearly 75% and 80% of cancer and non-cancer patients). Conclusion: The study demonstrated the feasibility of the collection of certified data from Home care services through a web-based system. Only 80% of the facilities met the requirements provided by the Italian NL 38/2010. Moreover, the extension of the palliative care services provided to frail non-cancer and pediatric patients, affected by complex and advanced chronic conditions, is still inadequate in Italy.


Pharmacy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 192
Author(s):  
Joseph Elyan ◽  
Sally-Anne Francis ◽  
Sarah Yardley

Potentially avoidable medication-related harm is an inherent risk in palliative care; medication management accounts for approximately 20% of reported serious incidents in England and Wales. Despite their expertise benefiting patient care, the routine contribution of pharmacists in addressing medication management failures is overlooked. Internationally, specialist pharmacist support for palliative care services remains under-resourced. By understanding experienced practices (‘what happens in the real world’) in palliative care medication management, compared with intended processes (‘what happens on paper’), patient safety issues can be identified and addressed. This commentary demonstrates the value of stakeholder engagement and consultation work carried out to inform a scoping review and empirical study. Our overall goal is to improve medication safety in palliative care. Informal conversations were undertaken with carers and various specialist and non-specialist professionals, including pharmacists. Themes were mapped to five steps: decision-making, prescribing, monitoring and supply, use (administration), and stopping and disposal. A visual representation of stakeholders’ understanding of intended medicines processes was produced. This work has implications for our own and others’ research by highlighting where pharmacy expertise could have a significant additional impact. Evidence is needed to support best practice and implementation, particularly with regard to supporting carers in monitoring and accessing medication, and communication between health professionals across settings.


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002835
Author(s):  
Joseph Chen ◽  
Allison de la Rosa ◽  
Dejian Lai ◽  
Rony Dev ◽  
Frances Lee Revere ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo compare cancer centre (CC) executives’ attitudes towards palliative care between National Cancer Institute-designated CCs (NCI-CCs) and non-NCI-designated CCs (non-NCI-CCs) in 2018 and to examine the changes in attitudes and beliefs between 2009 and 2018.MethodsCC chief executives at all NCI-CCs and a random sample of non-NCI-CCs were surveyed from April to August 2018. Twelve questions examined the executives’ attitudes towards palliative care integration, perceived barriers and self-assessments. The primary outcome was agreement on the statement ‘a stronger integration of palliative care services into oncology practice will benefit patients at my institution.’ Survey findings from 2018 were compared with data from 2009 to examine changes in attitudes.Results52 of 77 (68%) NCI-CCs and 88 of 126 (70%) non-NCI-CCs responded to the survey. A vast majority of executives at NCI-CCs and non-NCI-CCs endorsed palliative care integration (89.7% vs 90.0%; p>0.999). NCI-CCs were more likely to endorse increasing funding for palliative care (52.5% vs 23.1%; p=0.01) and hiring physician specialists (70.0% vs 37.5%; p=0.004) than non-NCI-CCs. The top three perceived barriers among NCI-CCs and non-NCI-CCs were limited institutional budgets (57.9% vs 59.0%; p=0.92), poor reimbursements (55.3% vs 43.6%; p=0.31), and lack of adequately trained palliative care physicians and nurses (52.6% vs 43.6%; p=0.43). Both NCI-CCs and non-NCI-CCs favourably rated their palliative care services (89.7% vs 71.8%; p=0.04) with no major changes since 2009.ConclusionCC executives endorse integration of palliative care, with greater willingness to invest in palliative care among NCI-CCs. Resource limitation continues to be a major barrier.


2013 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 349-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. Greer ◽  
Vicki A. Jackson ◽  
Diane E. Meier ◽  
Jennifer S. Temel

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 96-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Betty R. Ferrell ◽  
Jennifer S. Temel ◽  
Sarah Temin ◽  
Erin R. Alesi ◽  
Tracy A. Balboni ◽  
...  

Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncology clinicians, patients, family and friend caregivers, and palliative care specialists to update the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care for all patients diagnosed with cancer. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel of members of the ASCO Ad Hoc Palliative Care Expert Panel to develop an update. The 2012 PCO was based on a review of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by the National Cancer Institute Physicians Data Query and additional trials. The panel conducted an updated systematic review seeking randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, as well as secondary analyses of RCTs in the 2012 PCO, published from March 2010 to January 2016. Results The guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline. Nine RCTs, one quasiexperimental trial, and five secondary analyses from RCTs in the 2012 PCO on providing palliative care services to patients with cancer and/or their caregivers, including family caregivers, were found to inform the update. Recommendations Inpatients and outpatients with advanced cancer should receive dedicated palliative care services, early in the disease course, concurrent with active treatment. Referral of patients to interdisciplinary palliative care teams is optimal, and services may complement existing programs. Providers may refer family and friend caregivers of patients with early or advanced cancer to palliative care services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document