Impact of palliative care clinic (PCC) referrals on pain control in genitourinary (GU) cancer patients: Retrospective analysis at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Neha Gupta ◽  
Shipra Gandhi ◽  
Sidra Anwar ◽  
Katy Wang ◽  
Yashodhara Satchidanand
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Care Clinic

57 Background: Many cancer patients (pts) with GU cancer suffer from uncontrolled pain, and may benefit from more focused palliative care. We assessed the frequency and impact of specialist PCC referrals on pain management of our GU Medical oncology clinic (GUMOC) pts. Methods: 239 consecutive pts were collected from a retrospective review of GUMOC records from 12/1/2013 to 2/28/2014. This group of pts was used to assess the frequency of PCC referral. Pts were divided into two arms- Arm A= GUMOC pts referred to PCC; Arm B: GUMOC pts not referred to PCC. To be able to detect a 15% between the two arms at 95% significance, 37 additional pts (who were already being seen at GUMOC) were collected from retrospective review of PCC records over 9/1/2013 to 2/28/2014. Total 276 pts were divided into Arm A (n=49), Arm B (n=227 pts). Data for baseline pain score and 4-week follow up pain scores were collected. A palliative care screening tool (retrieved from Center to Advance Palliative care [CAPC] website) was used to assign palliative care screening score (PCSS) to all study pts. Chi square test and T-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Out of the 239 initially collected GUMOC pts, 5% were referred to PCC. 10% (n=24) had PCSS score of ≥ 4, and 33% pts with PCSS ≥ 4 were referred to PCC. Arm A had worse baseline symptoms, ECOG status and more advanced cancer stage. 4-week pain score follow up revealed significant improvement in Arm A -2.74 vs. Arm B -0.13 (p<0.01). Conclusions: GU cancer pts who are referred to PCC from medical oncology clinic have significant decrease in pain symptoms. Frequency of PCC consultation is still low in comprehensive cancer institutes, and not in congruence with the available palliative care screening tools criteria suggested by CAPC. Standardized tools should be developed to guide PCC referrals, and routine use of these tools will significantly help in pain control by seeking specialist palliative care.

scholarly journals Analysis of Severe Pain and its Treatment in a Palliative Care Unit in a Regional Cancer Centre

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 103
Author(s):  
Kannan P ◽  
Gunaseelan K ◽  
Parthasarathy V
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Palliative Care Unit ◽  
Cancer Centre ◽  
Prevalence Of Pain ◽  
Regional Cancer Centre

<p><strong>Objective</strong>: Pain is one of the most common symptoms that troubles cancer patients and precludes satisfactory quality of life. Globally, nearly 80% of the cancer patients receive little or no pain medication and cancer pain is barely controlled. This study was done to analyse the prevalence of pain and pain treatment in patients presenting to palliative care unit in a regional cancer centre.</p><p><br /><strong>Methods</strong>: Palliative care registry and follow-up forms of 2142 patients who got registered in our palliative care unit were analysed to obtain the demographic details, treatment characteristics and to determine the prevalence of pain, its severity, and treatment in cancer patients in our regional cancer centre.</p><p><br /><strong>Results</strong>: Nearly 50% of the cancer population had head and neck and gastrointestinal tract malignancies and received only best supportive care. Stage IV disease was found in 40% of patients, and skeletal metastasis (52%) was most common. This study showed a 92.4% prevalence of cancer pain in our centre. About 40% of patients with pain had a pain score of 7-10 by Numerical rating scale on initial presentation to the palliative care unit. About 65% of the patients with severe pain had a response to treatment withmorphine during their first follow-up to palliative care unit after initial registration. The average overall pain score of the patients per visit decreased from around 7 to 4 at a median follow-up of ten months.</p><p><br /><strong>Significance of results</strong>: Thus, there is a high prevalence of pain in cancer patients and patients with severe pain receive little or no opioid medication at all probably due to the lack of adequate education and training to the primary oncologists and residents regarding prescription of strong opioids. This audit may help in the modification of existing and formulation of new policies in the delivery of palliative care.</p>

Distress management in a community oncology center.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-107
Author(s):  
Lori Watts ◽  
Nicolas Camilo ◽  
Nicole Thurston ◽  
Michele Betts ◽  
Dan Sayam Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Social Workers ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Medical Provider ◽  
Care Clinic

107 Background: NCCN and the Institute of Medicine recommend distress screening for all cancer patients. Surveys have found that 20% to 47% of newly diagnosed and recurrent cancer patients experience significant levels of distress. Less than half of distressed patients with cancer are actually identified and referred for psychosocial help. The development of screening tools, processes, appropriate timing, and systems for follow up on concerns is an ongoing challenge for many cancer programs. Mountain States Tumor Institute p,iloted a distress screen process as part of our work with NCCCP. Methods: From October 24, 2011, to April 30, 2012, 133 patients completed distress screens. Most frequently reported concerns included fatigue (50%), sleep changes (32%), and anxiety/worry (31%). 51% of patients reported three or more concerns. 90% of all patients reporting anxiety also reported fatigue or sleep problems. All patients who reported concerns were offered social work and other supports. Screens were reviewed by social workers and discussed at weekly multidisciplinary psychosocial care rounds by social workers, psychiatrist, nurse practitioners, and chaplains. A variety of interventions were used to respond to distress including symptom management, education and referrals to on-site social workers, chaplains, supportive care clinic, integrative medicine and psychiatry. Results: A task was created in Mosaiq Electronic Medical Record to cue Health Information Specialists to schedule patients for distress screening as close as possible to 45 days from first chemotherapy treatment. Patients completed screens before seeing their medical provider. The majority of patients screened received one or more interventions in follow-up. Conclusions: EMRs can be effective tools to cue scheduled screening of patient distress. The use of multidisciplinary psychosocial care rounds can effectively help clinics plan interventions to alleviate patient distress. The use of rounds can ensure staff from different disciplines are not duplicating efforts and can help determine appropriate timing of various psychosocial interventions. Project funded with Federal funds from the NCI, Contract No HHSN261200800001E.

Frequency, intensity, and correlates of spiritual pain in advanced cancer patients assessed in a supportive/palliative care clinic

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay ◽  
Gary Chisholm ◽  
Janet Williams ◽  
Susan Frisbee-Hume ◽  
Andrea O. Ferguson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Frequency Intensity

AbstractObjective:Regular assessments of spiritual distress/spiritual pain among patients in a supportive/palliative care clinic (SCPC) are limited or unavailable. We modified the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) by adding spiritual pain (SP) to the scale (0 = best, 10 = worst) to determine the frequency, intensity, and correlates of self-reported SP (≥1/10) (pain deep in your soul/being that is not physical) among these advanced cancer patients.Method:We reviewed 292 consecutive consults of advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who were evaluated at our SCPC between October of 2012 and January of 2013. Symptoms were assessed using the new instrument (termed the ESAS–FS).Results:The median age of patients was 61 (range = 22–92). Some 53% were male; 189 (65%) were white, 45 (15%) African American, and 34 (12%) Hispanic. Some 123 of 282 (44%) of ACPs had SP (mean (95% CI) = 4(3.5–4.4). Advanced cancer patients with SP had worse pain [mean (95% CI) = 5.3(4.8, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.0, 5.0)] (p = 0.02); depression [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.1(1.7, 2.6), p < 0.0001]; anxiety [4.2(3.6, 4.7) vs. 2.5(2.0, 3.0), p < 0.0001]; drowsiness [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.8(2.3, 3.2), p < 0.0001]; well-being [5.4(4.9, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.1, 4.9), p = 0.0136]; and financial distress (FD) [4.4(3.9, 5.0) vs. 2.2(1.8, 2.7), p < 0.0001]. Spiritual pain correlated (Spearman) with depression (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.34, p < 0.0001), drowsiness (r = 0.26, p < 0.0001), and FD (r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed an association with FD [OR (95% Wald CI) = 1.204(1.104–1.313), p < 0.0001] and depression [1.218(1.110–1.336), p < 0.0001]. The odds that patients who had SP at baseline would also have SP at follow-up were 182% higher (OR = 2.82) than for patients who were SP-negative at baseline (p = 0.0029). SP at follow-up correlated with depression (r = 0.35, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.25, p = 0.001), well-being (r = 0.27, p = 0.0006), nausea (r = 0.29, p = 0.0002), and financial distress (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001).Significance of results:Spiritual pain, which is correlated with physical and psychological distress, was reported in more than 40% of ACPs. Employment of the ESAS–FS allows ACPs with SP to be identified and evaluated in an SCPC. More research is needed.

A single center, retrospective analysis evaluating aberrant drug behavior stratification utilizing the opioid risk tool in patients with cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 167-167
Author(s):  
Joseph D. Ma ◽  
John M. Horton ◽  
Michael Hwang ◽  
Rabia S. Atayee ◽  
Eric Roeland
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Family History ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Alcohol Abuse ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
History Of

167 Background: Historically, it was believed that cancer patients could not have aberrant drug behaviors. However, clinical experience suggests otherwise. The prevalence of aberrant drug behaviors of cancer patients is unknown as screening is uncommon. Consequently, the UCSD Moores Cancer Center outpatient palliative care clinic initiated screening of aberrant drug behaviors utilizing the opioid risk tool (ORT) on new consultations. The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to identify key risk factors of aberrant behaviors of cancer patients and formulate a routine approach to follow-up and medications quantities. Methods: The treating oncologist referred new consultations to the outpatient palliative care clinic. A cohort of 93 cancer patients was evaluated from July 2012 to February 2013. Patients completed a 10-item, provider-administered, ORT during the consultation visit. Based on the ORT, patients were stratified into high-, moderate-, or low-risk for abarrent drug behavior and follow-up appointments and opioid quantities were adjusted accordingly. Results: Of the 93 patients, 48% were men and 52% women. Most patients had metastatic cancer (n=50; 54%) of gastrointestinal primary (n=27; 29%). Fifty-six (60%) patients were stratified as low-, 15 (16%) moderate-, and 22 (24%) high-risk based on ORT score. The most common risk factors for aberrant behaviors were a history of depression (women=25; men=17) and family history of alcohol abuse (women=22; men=18). There was no difference in the prevalence of depression (p=0.17) or family history of alcohol abuse (p=0.57). The least common risk factor was a personal history of prescription drug abuse (n=1) in women and history of preadolescent sexual abuse in men (n=0). Conclusions: Screening of cancer patients suggests risk factors for aberrant drug behavior exist. Stratifying patients based on a standard, routine tool can help identify cancer patients at risk for aberrant drug behaviors. Moderate and high-risk patients can then be followed closely with limited quantities of opioids until trust is established.

scholarly journals PALLIATIVE CARE

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1910-1914
Author(s):  
Ramsha Nadeem ◽  
Samina Qamar ◽  
M. Abbas Khokhar ◽  
Maryam Abid ◽  
Remisha Zahid
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
World Health ◽  
Advanced Malignancy

Pain is a devastating symptom of advanced cancers. Inadequate assessment and failure in following WHO (World health organization) guidelines for pain management are barriers to pain control in cancer patients. Objectives: To determine frequency of inadequate pain assessment leading to inadequate pain control in advanced stage cancer patients receiving palliative care. Subjects and Methods: 180 patients, within age 18 to 70 years of both genders, of cancer with stage 3 and 4 disease receiving palliative treatment for pain due to primary or metastatic disease requiring opioidanalgesics presenting to inpatient department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Hospital Lahore were selected using non probability, consecutive sampling. Study Design: Cross sectional descriptive study. Setting: Department of Medical Oncology, Mayo Hospital Lahore. Period: 6 months after approval of synopsis from 01.06.2017 to 01.01.2018. The Pain scales used were Numerical Rating Scale- NRS, followed by Visual Analogue Scale-VAS. All patients were evaluated whether or not their pain was assessed by a standard pain scale, the type of malignancy, and the stage of cancer. Results: A total of 180 patients with mean age of 49.68 years, with 62.2% females and 37.8% males were selected. Out of these 124 (68.89%) patientsreceived inadequate assessment for their pain intensity as no documented pain scale was being used to assess them. Out of them 50(49.02%) were males and 52 (50.98%) were females. 56 patients (31.11%) were receiving inadequate pain assessment. 17 (30.35%) of them were assessed using VAS and 39 (69.65%) were assessed using NRS. The median pain score was 7.8/10 with the stage 4 patients mainly presenting with a score of >7/10 (69.94%) and stage 3 patients making up majority of pain with <7/10 score (58.82%). Conclusion: This study showed that pain is poorly managed in patients with advanced malignancy as majority of patients are not assessed according to standard methods for cancer pain. There is a strong need of physicians’ education, development of proper palliative care services and implementation of WHO guidelines to achieve effective pain management for oncology patients. 

scholarly journals Chronic Non-Malignant Pain in Patients with Cancer Seen at a Timely Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic

Cancers ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 214
Author(s):  
David Hui ◽  
Eman Abdelghani ◽  
Joseph Chen ◽  
Shiva Dibaj ◽  
Donna Zhukovsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Task Force ◽  
International Association ◽  
Brief Pain Inventory ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Disease Trajectory ◽  
Palliative Care Setting ◽  
Attending Physician

Palliative care is seeing cancer patients earlier in the disease trajectory with a multitude of chronic issues. Chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP) in cancer patients is under-studied. In this prospective study, we examined the prevalence and management of CNMP in cancer patients seen at our supportive care clinic for consultation. We systematically characterized each pain type with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and documented current treatments. The attending physician made the pain diagnoses according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) task force classification. Among 200 patients (mean age 60 years, 69% metastatic disease, 1-year survival of 77%), the median number of pain diagnosis was 2 (IQR 1–2); 67 (34%, 95% CI 28–41%) had a diagnosis of CNMP; 133 (67%) had cancer-related pain; and 52 (26%) had treatment-related pain. In total, 12/31 (39%) patients with only CNMP and 21/36 (58%) patients with CNMP and other pain diagnoses were on opioids. There was a total of 94 CNMP diagnoses among 67 patients, including 37 (39%) osteoarthritis and 20 (21%) lower back pain; 30 (32%) were treated with opioids. In summary, CNMP was common in the timely palliative care setting and many patients were on opioids. Our findings highlight the need to develop clinical guidelines for CNMP in cancer patients to standardize its management.

Impact of palliative care on end-of-life management of cancer patients dying in the hospital.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20613-e20613
Author(s):  
Syed Mustafa Karim ◽  
Jamal M Zekri ◽  
Ehab Mosaad Abdelghany ◽  
Azhar Rizvi ◽  
Aboelkhair Al-Gahmi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Time Of Death ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Palliative Care Teams ◽  
Palliative Care Services ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Eol Care

e20613 Background: A substantial number of cancer patients receive inpatient care at the end-of-life (EoL). Involvement of palliative care teams during the course of cancer treatment has been shown to improve quality of life (QoL) in cancer patients. In this study, we compare the EoL care of cancer patients dying in the hospital under medical oncology (MO) and palliative care (PC) services. Methods: A retrospective review of medical records of adult cancer patients who received chemotherapy during their illness and died in our hospital between January 2010 and January 2012 was conducted. The quality metrics measured as endpoints were: chemotherapy given within 21 days of death, death in the ICU, CPR at time of death, and time from last chemotherapy to death (TLCD). These endpoints were compared between patients who died under the MO service (cohort A) and those dying under PC service (cohort B). Chi-square test and T-test were used to compare the endpoints between the two cohorts. Results: Of the 106 cancer patients who died in the hospital, 40 and 66 were in cohorts A and B respectively. 30% of all patients were 65 years of age or older, and were equally distributed between the two cohorts. Patients in cohort A were more likely to receive chemotherapy within last 3 weeks of life (27.5% versus 7.5%, p=0.012, 95% CI 4.16-37.15), to have CPR at time of death (15% versus 0%, p=0.005, 95% CI 4.2-29.8) and to die in the ICU (52.5% versus 1.5%, p=<0.001, 95% CI 33.3-67.1) as compared to patients in cohort B. The average time from last chemotherapy to death was significantly longer (221 days) for cohort B patients as compared to cohort A patients (96 days), p=0.01. Patients in cohort A who had PC consultation during their hospitalization had no differences in the measured endpoints when compared to patients in cohort B. Conclusions: Cancer patients who die in the hospital while under MO service without PC involvement tend to have more aggressive EoL care. This may impact negatively on some QoL features. Early referral to palliative care services may facilitate better understanding and fulfillment of the needs of cancer patients and their caregivers by the healthcare-providers.

Differences in performance status assessments between palliative care specialists, nurses, and oncologists.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
YuJung Kim ◽  
Yi Zhang ◽  
Ji Chan Park ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Gary B. Chisholm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Ecog Ps

19 Background: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) is one of the most commonly used assessment tools among oncologists and palliative care specialists caring advanced cancer patients. However, the inter-observer difference between the oncologist and palliative care specialist has never been reported. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who were first referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic in 2013 and identified 278 eligible patients. The ECOG PS assessments by palliative care specialists, nurses, and oncologists, and the symptom burden measured by Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were analyzed. Results: According to the pairwise comparisons using Sign tests, palliative care specialists rated the ECOG PS grade significantly higher than oncologists (median 0.5 grade, P<0.0001) and nurses also rated significantly higher (median 1.0 grade, P<0.0001). The assessments of palliative care specialists and nurses were not significantly different (P=0.10). Weighted kappa values for inter-observer agreement were 0.26 between palliative care specialists and oncologists, and 0.61 between palliative care specialists and nurses. Palliative care specialists’ assessments showed a moderate correlation with fatigue, dyspnea, anorexia, feeling of well-being, and symptom distress score measured by ESAS. The ECOG PS assessments by all three groups were significantly associated with survival (P<0.001), but the assessments by oncologists could not distinguish survival of patients with PS 2 from 3. Independent predictors of discordance in PS assessments between palliative care specialists and oncologists were the presence of an effective treatment option (odds ratio [OR] 2.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-5.23) and poor feeling of well-being (≥4) by ESAS (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.34-4.21). Conclusions: ECOG PS assessments by the palliative care specialists and nurses were significantly different from the oncologists. Systematic efforts to increase regular interdisciplinary meetings and communications might be crucial to bridge the gap and establish a best care plan for each advanced cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document