In-hospital cancer care: Are we missing an opportunity for end of life care?

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9039-9039
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Betty Rocque ◽  
Anne Elizabeth Barnett ◽  
Lisa Illig ◽  
Howard Harry Bailey ◽  
Toby Christopher Campbell ◽  
...  

9039 Background: Little data exists on the estimated survival of patients with metastatic cancer after hospitalization. As part of a prospective quality improvement project, we characterized the population of patients admitted to an inpatient oncology service in an academic medical center with emphasis on the disposition at discharge and overall survival. Methods: We collected data over a 4 month period (9/1/10-12/23/10) representing 149 admissions of 119 unique patients. We measured patient characteristics, disease evaluation, procedures, consults, imaging studies performed, disposition, length of stay, and overall survival. These data were compared to a similar study conducted in our center in 2000. Results: Uncontrolled symptoms were the most common reason for admission (pain 28%, dyspnea 9%, nausea 9%). Imaging studies were more common than in 2000 (415 vs. 196 total procedures). Eighty-five percent of patients had progressive disease. Seventy percent of patients were discharged home without additional services such as home health or hospice. The overall median survival was poor in 2000 and in 2010, 100 days and 60 days from discharge, respectively. Despite an overall poor prognosis, palliative care consultation was obtained only 13 times (8% of admissions) and 18% of patients were enrolled in hospice at discharge. Conclusions: An unscheduled hospital admission portends a poor prognosis. Cancer patients in the hospital are nearing the end-of-life with a median life expectancy of approximately 3 months and could be considered hospice-eligible and appropriate for a palliative care consult. We believe that hospital admission represents a missed opportunity to provide palliative care services and end-of-life counseling to this patient population.

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauryn E Hemminger ◽  
Christine A Pittman ◽  
David N Korones ◽  
Jennifer N Serventi ◽  
Susan Ladwig ◽  
...  

Abstract Background American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) quality measures for terminal cancers recommend early advance care planning and hospice at the end of life. We sought to evaluate adherence to 5 palliative care quality measures and explore associations with patient outcomes in glioblastoma. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of 117 deceased glioblastoma patients over 5 years. Records were reviewed to describe adherence to palliative care quality measures and patient outcomes. Data regarding emotional assessments, advance directives, palliative care consultation, chemotherapy administration, hospice, location of death, and overall survival were collected. Results Median overall survival was 12.9 months. By the second oncology visit, 22.2% (26/117) had an emotional assessment completed. Advance directives were documented for 52.1% (61/117) by the third neuro-oncology visit (30/61 health care proxy), yet 26.5% (31/117) did not have any advance directive before the last month of life. With regard to other ASCO quality measures, 36.8% (43/117) had a palliative care consult; 94.0% (110/117) did not receive chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life; 59.8% (70/117) enrolled in hospice >7 days before death; and 56.4% (66/117) died in a home setting. Patients who enrolled in hospice >7 days before death were 3.56 times more likely to die in a home setting than patients enrolled <7 days before death or with no hospice enrollment (P = .002, [OR 3.56; 95% CI, 1.57–8.04]). Conclusions Late advance directive documentation, minimal early palliative care involvement, and the association of early hospice enrollment with death in a home setting underscore the need to improve care and better define palliative care quality measures in glioblastoma.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 114-114
Author(s):  
Nirav S. Kapadia ◽  
Jennifer Snide ◽  
Daniel J Gelb ◽  
Evelyn Schlosser

114 Background: Between February and September 2013, AD documentation for oncology patients across Dartmouth-Hitchcock’s Norris Cotton Cancer Center (NCCC) increased from 36% to 48%. However, it remains unclear whether AD completion itself is associated with other indicators of quality care. Methods: Using the tumor registry and National Death Index patient data, we examined a cohort of deceased NCCC patients diagnosed with metastatic disease between April 1, 2011 and October 31, 2013. To account for unmeasured care provided outside of NCCC, only patients with at least two NCCC visits, one of which occurred within the last six months of life, were included. Individual patient electronic medical record data were then linked to the registry data and multivariable regression was performed to determine the effect of AD completion on end-of-life quality metrics. Results: The cohort consisted of 225 patients, 182 (81%) of whom had an advance directive on file and 43 (19%) who did not. There were no significant differences in the age, gender or cancer diagnosis between the two groups. Patients with an AD had shorter commutes to the medical center (mean 42 vs 58 minutes, p<0.01) and more visits with cancer center providers (median 11.5 vs. 4.0, p=0.03). Palliative Care consulted with 73% of patients with an AD, versus 28% of patients without an AD (p<0.01). Completion of an AD did not decrease the likelihood of hospital death (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.33-2.49), intensive care unit (ICU) death (OR 0.83, 0.19-3.66), hospital admission in the last 30 days of life (OR 0.94, 0.40-2.21), or ICU admission in the last 30 days of life (OR 1.30, 0.37-4.55). Patients with an AD were twice as likely to receive hospice referrals (OR 2.04, 0.73-5.68) and 70% less likely to visit the emergency department in the last 30 days of life compared with patients without an AD on file (OR 0.28, 0.06-1.40), although these trends were not statistically significant. Conclusions: For patients with metastatic cancer, an advance directive was associated with increased use of palliative care, though not with other measures of quality care. In an attempt to improve the cancer care provided at the end of life, we must expand our strategies beyond the use of an AD.


Author(s):  
Karol Quelal ◽  
Olankami Olagoke ◽  
Anoj Shahi ◽  
Andrea Torres ◽  
Olisa Ezegwu ◽  
...  

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an essential part of advanced heart failure (HF) management, either as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy. Patients with advanced HF have a poor prognosis and may benefit from palliative care consultation (PCC). However, there is scarce data regarding the trends and predictors of PCC among patients undergoing LVAD implantation. Aim: This study aims to assess the incidence, trends, and predictors of PCC in LVAD recipients using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2006 until 2014. Methods: We conducted a weighted analysis on LVAD recipients during their index hospitalization. We compared those who had PCC with those who did not. We examined the trend in palliative care utilization and calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) to identify demographic, social, and hospital characteristics associated with PCC using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We identified 20,675 admissions who had LVAD implantation, and of them 4% had PCC. PCC yearly rate increased from 0.6% to 7.2% (P < 0.001). DNR status (aOR 28.30), female sex (aOR 1.41), metastatic cancer (aOR: 3.53), Midwest location (aOR 1.33), and small-sized hospitals (aOR 2.52) were positive predictors for PCC along with in-hospital complications. Differently, Black (aOR 0.43) and Hispanic patients (aOR 0.25) were less likely to receive PCC. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend for in-hospital PCC referral in LVAD admissions while the overall rate remained low. These findings suggest that integrative models to involve PCC early in advanced HF patients are needed to increase its generalized utilization.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Lees ◽  
S. Weerasinghe ◽  
N. Lamond ◽  
T. Younis ◽  
Ravi Ramjeesingh

Background Palliative care (pc) consultation has been associated with less aggressive care at end of life in a number of malignancies, but the effect of the consultation timing has not yet been fully characterized. For patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer (upcc), aggressive and resource-intensive treatment at the end of life can be costly, but not necessarily of better quality. In the present study, we investigated the association, if any, between the timing of specialist pc consultation and indicators of aggressive care at end of life in patients with upcc.Methods This retrospective cohort study examined the potential effect of the timing of specialist pc consultation on key indicators of aggressive care at end of life in all patients diagnosed with upcc in Nova Scotia between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. Statistical analysis included univariable and multivariable logistic regression.Results In the 365 patients identified for inclusion in the study, specialist pc consultation was found to be associated with decreased odds of experiencing an indicator of aggressive care at end of life; however, the timing of the consultation was not significant. Residency in an urban area was associated with decreased odds of experiencing an indicator of aggressive care at end of life. We observed no association between experiencing an indicator of aggressive care at end of life and consultation with medical oncology or radiation oncology.Conclusions Regardless of timing, specialist pc consultation was associated with decreased odds of experiencing an indicator of aggressive care at end of life. That finding provides further evidence to support the integral role of pc in managing patients with a life-limiting malignancy.


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.


2021 ◽  
pp. 082585972110374
Author(s):  
Jee Y. You ◽  
Lie D. Ligasaputri ◽  
Adarsh Katamreddy ◽  
Kiran Para ◽  
Elizabeth Kavanagh ◽  
...  

Many patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of dying. We hypothesize that focused training sessions for ICU providers by palliative care (PC) certified experts will decrease aggressive medical interventions at the end of life. We designed and implemented a 6-session PC training program in communication skills and goals of care (GOC) meetings for ICU teams, including house staff, critical care fellows, and attendings. We then reviewed charts of ICU patients treated before and after the intervention. Forty-nine of 177 (28%) and 63 of 173 (38%) patients were identified to be at high risk of death in the pre- and postintervention periods, respectively, and were included based on the study criteria. Inpatient mortality (45% vs 33%; P = .24) and need for mechanical ventilation (59% vs 44%, P = .13) were slightly higher in the preintervention population, but the difference was not statistically significant. The proportion of patients in whom the decision not to initiate renal replacement therapy was made because of poor prognosis was significantly higher in the postintervention population (14% vs 67%, P = .05). There was a nonstatistically significant trend toward earlier GOC discussions (median time from ICU admission to GOC 4 vs 3 days) and fewer critical care interventions such as tracheostomies (17% vs 4%, P = .19). Our study demonstrates that directed PC training of ICU teams has a potential to reduce end of life critical care interventions in patients with a poor prognosis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. e814-e822 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramy Sedhom ◽  
Arjun Gupta ◽  
Mirat Shah ◽  
Melinda Hsu ◽  
Marcus Messmer ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: ASCO guidelines recommend palliative care (PC) referral for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Despite this, implementation has considerable hurdles. First-year oncology fellows at our institution identified low rates of PC utilization in their longitudinal clinic as a metric needing improvement. METHODS: A fellow-led multidisciplinary team aimed to increase PC utilization for patients with advanced cancer followed in he first-year fellows’ clinic from a baseline of 11.5% (5 of 43 patients, July to December of 2018) to 30% over a 6-month period. Utilization was defined as evaluation in the outpatient PC clinic hosted in the cancer center. The team identified the following barriers to referral: orders difficult to find in the electronic medical record (EMR), multiple consulting mechanisms (EMR, by phone, or in person), EMR request not activating formal consult, no centralized scheduler to contact or confirm appointment, and poor awareness of team structure. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were implemented based on identified opportunities. Data were obtained from the EMR. RESULTS: The first PDSA cycle included focus groups with stakeholders, standardizing referral process via single order set, identifying a single scheduler with bidirectional communication, and disseminating process changes. PDSA cycles were implemented from January to June of 2019. Rates of PC use increased from 11.5% before the intervention to 48.4% (48 of 99 patients) after the intervention. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary approach and classic quality improvement methodology improved PC use in patients with advanced cancer. The pilot succeeded given the small number of fellows, buy-in from stakeholders, and institutional and leadership support. Straightforward EMR interventions and ancillary staff use are effective in addressing underreferrals.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. e760-e769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel P. Triplett ◽  
Wendi G. LeBrett ◽  
Alex K. Bryant ◽  
Andrew R. Bruggeman ◽  
Rayna K. Matsuno ◽  
...  

Purpose: Palliative care’s role in oncology has expanded, but its effect on aggressiveness of care at the end of life has not been characterized at the population level. Methods: This matched retrospective cohort study examined the effect of an encounter with palliative care on health-care use at the end of life among 6,580 Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate, breast, lung, or colorectal cancer. We compared health-care use before and after palliative care consultation to a matched nonpalliative care cohort. Results: The palliative care cohort had higher rates of health-care use in the 30 days before palliative care consultation compared with the nonpalliative cohort, with higher rates of hospitalization (risk ratio [RR], 3.33; 95% CI, 2.87 to 3.85), invasive procedures (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.62 to 1.88), and chemotherapy administration (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.45 to 1.78). The opposite pattern emerged in the interval from palliative care consultation through death, where the palliative care cohort had lower rates of hospitalization (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65), invasive procedures (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.59), and chemotherapy administration (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.53). Patients with earlier palliative care consultation in their disease course had larger absolute reductions in health-care use compared with those with palliative care consultation closer to the end of life. Conclusion: This population-based study found that palliative care substantially decreased health-care use among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced cancer. Given the increasing number of elderly patients with advanced cancer, this study emphasizes the importance of early integration of palliative care alongside standard oncologic care.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document