Results from year 1 of an embedded supportive oncology practice.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 40-40
Author(s):  
Bethann Scarborough ◽  
Emily Chai ◽  
Randall F. Holcombe ◽  
Eric Lee ◽  
Nathan Goldstein

40 Background: We present the findings from our first year of a Supportive Oncology practice embedded in a quaternary care center’s outpatient cancer practice. Methods: One palliative medicine physician saw patients 4 days per week. Oncologists made referrals for symptom management, psychosocial support, advance care planning, or by predetermined triggers for palliative care. Results: 239 patients were referred for a total of 821 visits. Palliative care referrals increased over time; 0.6% of the cancer center’s patients were referred in the first quarter and 1.5% were referred in the third quarter. Referral reasons included symptom management/support (90%), goals of care (5%), or triggers (6%). Six to 9 symptoms were addressed at 41% of visits. Sixteen percent of patients initially referred for symptoms were later seen for conversations regarding goals of care. Of these patients, 76% discussed goals of care with their oncologist, 61% were referred to hospice and 47% enrolled in hospice. Supportive oncology visits were associated with decreased health care utilization, with a downward trend in Emergency Department visits (0.82 vs. 0.72 per patient) and inpatient admissions (0.91 vs. 0.84 per patient) after the initial palliative care visit compared to use before the visit. Approximately 17% of all Supportive Oncology patients enrolled in hospice. Conclusions: Our first year of an embedded palliative care practice focused on building collaborative relationships. The steady referral growth over time indicates that oncologists increasingly accepted the program. While only a small proportion of patients were referred, the high visit complexity reflects this population’s acuity. Decreased health care utilization may be due to better symptom control or care aligned with patients’ values. Early referrals for symptom management facilitate goals of care discussions later on, and the importance of delivering a unified message on treatment options is seen in the hospice referral rate of 61% for the subset of patients who discussed goals of care with palliative care and oncology. Embedding palliative care in oncology fosters expert symptom management, seamless communication, and trusting relationships between oncologists, palliative care, and patients.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Y Wada ◽  
Christian Lee-Rodriguez ◽  
Yun-Yi Hung ◽  
Jacek Skarbinski

Abstract Active tuberculosis (TB) is preventable. To quantify the potential value of prevention, we assessed active TB burden in a large health system from 1997 to 2016. Compared with a matched non-TB cohort, patients with active TB had higher mortality (8.4% vs 1.3%), mean number of hospitalizations (0.55 vs 0.10), emergency department visits (0.78 vs 0.28), and outpatient visits (14.6 vs 5.9) in the first year. TB-associated hospital use (mean number of hospitalizations and total length of stay) increased from 1997–2000 compared with 2013–2016 despite decreasing active TB incidence. Active TB is associated with high mortality and health care utilization and has remained stable or increased over time.


2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 372-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alana Murphy ◽  
Kathryn Siebert ◽  
Darrell Owens ◽  
Ardith Doorenbos

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 134-134
Author(s):  
Colleen C. Apostol ◽  
Julie Waldfogel ◽  
Elizabeth Pfoh ◽  
Donald C. List ◽  
Lynn Billing ◽  
...  

134 Background: Communication about care preferences is vital for care of cancer patients with advanced and refractory disease, particularly when they become ill enough to be at risk for critical care interventions potentially inconsistent with their preferences. It is vital to describe the use of goals of care discussions in patients with advanced/refractory cancer at risk for critical care and evaluate associations between these discussions and outcomes. Methods: Cohort study describing patient/families’ perceptions of goals of care meetings and comparing health care utilization outcomes of patients who did and who did not have discussions. Inpatient units of an academic cancer center included patients who had metastatic solid tumors or relapsed/refractory lymphoma or leukemia and were at risk for critical care (defined as requiring supplemental oxygen and/or a cardiac monitor). Results: Of 86 patients enrolled, 34 (39%) had a reported goals of care discussion. Patients/families reported their needs and goals were addressed moderately to quite a bit during the meetings. Patients with reported discussions were less likely to receive critical care (0% vs 22%, p=0.003) and more likely to be discharged to hospice (48% vs 30%, p=0.04). Only one patient with a goals of care discussion died during the index hospitalization (on comfort care) (3%) compared with 9% among those without discussions (p=0.08). Conclusions: Goals of care meetings should be incorporated into usual care for cancer patients with advanced or refractory disease at risk for critical care during a hospitalization, in order to improve concordance between care received and patient and family preferences. Goals of care meetings for advanced/refractory cancer inpatients at risk for critical care can address patient and family goals and needs and improve health care utilization outcomes. These meetings should be part of routine care in this patient population.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 488-488
Author(s):  
Nizar Bhulani ◽  
Ang Gao ◽  
Arjun Gupta ◽  
Jenny Jing Li ◽  
Chad Guenther ◽  
...  

488 Background: Prospective trials have shown that palliative care is associated with improved survival and quality of life, with lower rate of end-of-life health care utilization and cost. We examined trends in palliative care utilization in older pancreatic cancer patients. Methods: Pancreatic cancer patients with and without palliative care consults were identified using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database between 2000 and 2009. Trend of palliative care use was studied. Emergency room and Intensive Care utilization and costs in the last 30 days of life were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Results: Of the 72205 patients with pancreatic cancer, 3383 (4.1%) received palliative care. The proportion of patients receiving palliative care increased from 1.8% in 2000 to 7.8% in 2009 (p for trend < 0.001). Patients with palliative care were more likely to be Asian and women. Of those who received palliative care, 73% received it in the last 30 days of life, and only 11% at least 12 weeks before death. The average number of visits to the ED in the last 30 days of life were significantly higher for patients who received palliative care (0.93±0.62) versus those who did not (0.79±0.61), p < 0.001, and had a significantly higher cost of care ($1317 vs $842, p < 0.001). Intensive care unit length of stay in the last 30 days of life did not differ between patients who did and did not receive palliative care (1.14 days vs 1.04 days, p 0.08). Intensive care unit cost of care was significantly higher for patients with palliative care compared to their counterparts ($5202.641 vs $3896.750, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Palliative care use for pancreatic cancer patients has increased between 2000 and 2009 in this study of Medicare patients. However, it was largely offered close to the end of life and was not associated with reduced health care utilization or cost. Early palliative care referral may be more beneficial.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 64-64
Author(s):  
Cindy Kathman ◽  
Mehmet Sitki Copur ◽  
Penny Price ◽  
Carrie Edwards ◽  
Pornchai Jonglertham ◽  
...  

64 Background: PC combined with cancer care has been shown to improve patient outcomes and caregiver satisfaction while lessening unnecessary health care utilization. 85% of cancer patients receive their oncology care in the communities they live. Establishing a viable and sustainable outpatient PC service in the community oncology setting is challenging and rare nationwide. We present our 18-month PC services since its implementation at Morrison Cancer Center, a community oncology practice. Methods: Cancer patients were referred to PC by oncologists for symptom management, psychosocial support, and Advanced Care Planning (APC). PC visits were provided at the oncology clinic, home, nursing home, or hospital by our PC team (APRN, Social Workers, Chaplain and RN's). Palliative Care Prognostic Index (PPI), time to PC consultation, proportion of patients --on chemotherapy, switching to hospice care, receiving chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life, visiting ER and/or being admitted to hospital within the last 30 days of life-- were studied. Results: Over an 18-month period 72 patients were referred for a total of 470 visits. Lung, pancreas, gastroesophageal, and head and neck cancers were topmost sites. PC referrals per quarter increased from an initial 4 to an 18 at 18 months. Mean time from diagnosis to PC referral was 5.6 months (range: 1-36). Referral reasons included symptom management/support (58%), goals of care (50%), and/or predetermined triggers (15%). Mean PPI score was 50% (range 30-70). All patients had ACP. While 83% of patients were able to continue on active cancer treatment, only 5% received chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life, and 4 % had two or more ER visits with or without a hospital admission. Eventually, 17% of PC patients transitioned to hospice care. Conclusions: A PC program fostering expert symptom management, seamless communication, and trusting relationships between oncologists, palliative care team, and patients, without prematurely stopping active cancer treatments, is feasible and can be incorporated into a community oncology practice as demonstrated by the growth and success of our program. Our model may set an example for similar practices in the community oncology setting.


2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 823-832 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kun Kim ◽  
Emma Hernlund ◽  
Zoltán Hernadi ◽  
János Révész ◽  
Imre Pete ◽  
...  

ObjectiveDespite the considerable disease burden of ovarian cancer, there were no cost studies in Central and Eastern Europe. This study aimed to describe treatment patterns, health care utilization, and costs associated with treating ovarian cancer in Hungary, Poland, Serbia, and Slovakia.MethodOverall clinical practice for management of epithelial ovarian cancer was investigated through a 3-round Delphi panel. Experts completed a survey based on the chart review (n = 1542). The survey was developed based on clinical guidelines and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Annual Report. Means, ranges, and outlier values were discussed with the experts during a telephone interview. Finally, consensus estimates were obtained in face-to-face workshops. Based on these results, overall cost of ovarian cancer was estimated using a Markov model.ResultsThe patients included in the chart review were followed up from presurgical diagnosis and in each phase of treatment, that is, surgical staging and primary surgery, chemotherapy and chemotherapy monitoring, follow-up, and palliative care. The 5-year overall cost per patient was €14,100 to €16,300 in Hungary, €14,600 to €15,800 in Poland, €7600 to €8100 in Serbia, and €12,400 to €14,500 in Slovakia. The main components were chemotherapy-associated costs (68%–74% of the total cost), followed by cost of primary treatment with surgery (15%–21%) and palliative care (3%–10%).ConclusionsPatients with ovarian cancer consume considerable health care resources and incur substantial costs in Central and Eastern Europe. These findings may prove useful for clinicians and decision makers in understanding the economic implications of managing ovarian cancer in Central and Eastern Europe and the need for innovative therapies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 443-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan M. Mollberg ◽  
Eric Howell ◽  
David I. Vanderhoff ◽  
Aaron Cheng ◽  
Michael S. Mulligan

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 420-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily M. Ray ◽  
Richard F. Riedel ◽  
Thomas W. LeBlanc ◽  
Christel N. Rushing ◽  
Anthony N. Galanos

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document