Variations in use and timing of hospice and palliative care: Differences across health care payers and cancer type.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 132-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Risha Gidwani ◽  
Nina Joyce ◽  
Bruce Kinosian ◽  
Cari Levy ◽  
Katherine E. Faricy-Anderson ◽  
...  

132 Background: Cancer societies recommend cancer patients receive palliative care soon after diagnosis of illness and hospice for at least 3 days before death. While studies suggest receipt of hospice in the last 3 days of life is increasing for patients, the timing of first hospice and first palliative care is currently unknown. It is also not known whether fee-for-service versus capitated healthcare systems differ in their provision of supportive care. We evaluated the timing and frequency of palliative care and hospice use across the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare for dually-eligible Veterans, to understand variations in the use and timing of these services across healthcare systems for the same patient population. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of all VA and Medicare administrative data for the population of Veterans aged 65 or older who died with advanced cancer in 2012. Results: The majority of Veterans received supportive care before death: 67% received hospice and 69% received palliative care. On average, patients had 2 encounters with palliative care before death. Patients with melanoma were most likely to receive palliative care (82%); patients with hematologic malignancies were least likely to receive palliative care (58%). Veterans received VA-based hospice on average 35 days before death (SD = 42), while Veterans receiving Medicare-based hospice did so an average of 25 days before death (SD = 24). However, across both systems, 50% of Veterans were receiving hospice 16 days before death. There were substantial variations in timing of hospice enrollment by cancer type. Of Veterans receiving VA- or Medicare-based hospice, 22% cycled in and out of hospice, meaning they dis-enrolled and re-enrolled in such care. 16% of patients were discharged from hospice before death, with VA more likely to discharge Veterans before death compared with Medicare. Conclusions: There are large variations in healthcare system approaches to timing and use of hospice and palliative care, as well variations by cancer type. VA provides hospice to patients earlier in the disease trajectory, while Medicare is more likely to have patients die while enrolled in hospice.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 1140-1148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire F. Snyder ◽  
Kevin D. Frick ◽  
Robert J. Herbert ◽  
Amanda L. Blackford ◽  
Bridget A. Neville ◽  
...  

Purpose Building on previous research documenting differences in preventive care quality between cancer survivors and noncancer controls, this study examines comorbid condition care. Methods Using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) –Medicare database, we examined comorbid condition quality of care in patients with locoregional breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer diagnosed in 2004 who were age ≥ 66 years at diagnosis, who had survived ≥ 3 years, and who were enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare. Controls were frequency matched to cases on age, sex, race, and region. Quality of care was assessed from day 366 through day 1,095 postdiagnosis using published indicators of chronic (n = 10) and acute (n = 19) condition care. The proportion of eligible cancer survivors and controls who received recommended care was compared by using Fisher's exact tests. The chronic and acute indicators, respectively, were then combined into single logistic regression models for each cancer type to compare survivors' care receipt to that of controls, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables and controlling for within-patient variation. Results The sample matched 8,661 cancer survivors to 17,322 controls (mean age, 75 years; 65% male; 85% white). Colorectal cancer survivors were less likely than controls to receive appropriate care on both the chronic (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.95) and acute (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85) indicators. Prostate cancer survivors were more likely to receive appropriate chronic care (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.38) but less likely to receive quality acute care (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.87). Breast cancer survivors received care equivalent to controls on both the chronic (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.17) and acute (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.13) indicators. Conclusion Because we found differences by cancer type, research exploring factors associated with these differences in care quality is needed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 54-54
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Pimentel ◽  
Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽  
Gary B. Chisholm ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
Maria Guerra-Sanchez ◽  
...  

54 Background: Due to high symptom burden in advanced cancer patients, ongoing symptom management for outpatient palliative care patients is vital. More patients are receiving outpatient care; Yet, most palliative care patients receive less than 2 follow ups. Nurse telephone care can improve quality of life in these patients. Our aim was to determine frequency and care provided by Supportive Care Center Telephone Program (SCCTP) in advanced cancer patients. Methods: 400 consecutive patients who utilized palliative care service, 200 from outpatient Supportive Care Center (SCC) and 200 from inpatient Palliative Care (IPC), were followed for 6 months starting 3/2012 to examine call frequency and reason and outcomes including pain and other symptoms [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS)] associated with utilization of SCCTP. We also examined the effect of SCCTP interventions on pain, ESAS and counseling needs. Results: 375 patients were evaluable. Median age 59 years, 53% female, 70% white. Most frequent cancer type were gastrointestinal (20%, p < 0.0001) for IPC and thoracic (23%, p <0.0001) for SCC. SCC patients had higher prevalence of CAGE positivity (28% SCC vs 11% IPC, p <0.0001), ESAS SDS(p=0.0134), depression(p=0.0009), anxiety(p=0.0097) and sleep(p=0.0015); MDAS scores were significantly higher in IPC (p<0.0001).115/400 patients (29%) utilized SCCTP. 96/115 outpatients (83%) used the SCCTP vs 19/115 IPC (17%). Common reasons for calls were pain (24%), pain medication refills (24%) and counseling (12%). Of 115 phone calls, 340 recommendations were made; 43% (145/340) were regarding care at home; 56% of these recommendations were regarding opioids. Patients who utilized SCCTP had worse pain(p=0.0059), fatigue(p=0.0448), depression(p=0.0410), FWB(p=0.0149) and better MDAS scores(p=0.0138) compared to non-utilizers. Conclusions: There was more frequent SCCTP use by outpatients than inpatients. Most common reason for utilization was pain control. Frequently, recommendations were made to continue symptom management at home. Patients who utilized SCCTP had worse pain, fatigue, depression, well-being scores and better delirium scores.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 53-53
Author(s):  
Lara Traeger ◽  
Emily M. Wright ◽  
Areej El-Jawahri ◽  
Emily R. Gallagher ◽  
Joseph Greer ◽  
...  

53 Background: Timely and effective patient-clinician communication about treatment options at the end of life (EOL) is considered essential to quality care. In this study we examined the timing and nature of first discussions about hospice. We hypothesized that earlier initiation of hospice discussions would be associated with longer hospice length of stay. Methods: We analyzed data from a randomized trial of early palliative care integrated with oncology care versus oncology care alone in patients with newly diagnosed incurable lung or non-colorectal gastrointestinal cancer at the Massachusetts General Hospital (n = 350, enrolled 5/11-7/15). Analysis included patients deceased at 1 year after last enrollment (n = 259). Electronic health records were reviewed to identify first documented hospice discussion with a medical oncology or palliative care clinician. Among hospice enrollees, we tested the association of first hospice discussion with hospice length of stay, adjusting for cancer type and randomized group. We used content analysis to explore the nature of first hospice discussions. Results: Prior to death, 79.9% of patients (54% male; M age = 64 yrs [SD = 11 yrs]) enrolled in hospice. Among hospice enrollees, 8.2% had no documented hospice discussion before enrollment. Range of time from first hospice discussion to hospice enrollment was ≤7 days (40.0%), 8-14 days (12.1%), 15-30 days (13.2%) or > 30 days (34.7%). Greater number of days between first hospice discussion and hospice enrollment was associated with more days on hospice (Beta = .14, SE = .04, p < .001). Almost half of first hospice discussions involved initiation of hospice referral. Discussions that occurred early ( > 30 days before enrollment) were varied, reflecting clinician’s provision of information; discussion of future hospice use; and initiation of dialog about patient/family areas of ambivalence or concern. Conclusions: Earlier initiation of hospice discussions was associated with more subsequent days on hospice and reflected attention to patient/family informational needs, perspectives and concerns about hospice and EOL care. Research is needed to help identify and address factors that facilitate earlier discussions with patients/families about EOL care options.


2021 ◽  
pp. 364-380
Author(s):  
Holly Pilewski

The Department of Veterans Affairs is a large, multilayered administration providing veterans healthcare, numerous medical and caregiver benefits, and cemetery and burial services. Veterans account for a large portion of the population and have unique physical, psychological, spiritual, and social needs that are shaped by veterans’ perceptions of military experience and injuries or medical conditions related to their service. Many veterans receive their care outside the VA. This makes it imperative for everyone to have a basic understanding of the VA, military culture, and veterans’ multifaceted needs. Hospice and palliative care in and outside the VA setting are essential in order to provide veterans with improved quality of life and high-quality end-of-life care.


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20638-e20638
Author(s):  
Amy Sexauer ◽  
M. Jennifer Cheng ◽  
W. Anthony Riley ◽  
Louise Knight ◽  
Thomas J. Smith

e20638 Background: Despite advances in treatment there are still 70,000 deaths among U.S. patients with hematologic malignancies (HM). Nationally, fewer than 2% of HM patients use hospice and there is scarce published experience about palliative care programs for HM patients. The limited hospice use has been because of perceived HM special needs including curative intent, a less predictable course and the potential use of expensive anti-neoplastics, antibiotics, and transfusions. Methods: Study design: A single center retrospective review. Study endpoint(s): 1. What proportion of HM patients at the Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center (SKCCC) were referred to and utilized hospice? 2. What are the locations of hospice services? 3. What is the median hospice length of stay (LOS)? Results: The patient characteristics were summarized using descriptive statistics. Fifty-nine HM patients were referred to hospice over this 30-month period. Only 53 patients (age 64, 26 women) utilized hospice services, representing about 20% of the estimated 250 HM decedents during this time period. Of the 53 patients, 34 received home hospice and 17 were admitted to inpatient hospice. The median home hospice LOS was 9 days (SD 12) and inpatient hospice 6 days (SD 11). Nine patients with open access hospice received only a few blood transfusions, and only one patient received radiation therapy. Conclusions: HM patients usually are referred late or not at all for hospice services. Of the patients who use “open access” hospice, there is infrequent utilization of expanded services. Studies evaluating integration of palliative care with usual HM care, triggers for hospice referral, and new open access models are needed.


2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 61-61
Author(s):  
Debra A. Wong ◽  
Tom R. Fitch ◽  
Eric Prommer ◽  
Yu-Hui Chang ◽  
Christopher A. Lipinski

61 Background: Patients with cancer often have complex symptoms and morbidity that prompt frequent Emergency Department visits. The length of stay in the ED for cancer patients exceeds that of patients without cancer. Patients with cancer are also more likely to be admitted, but are often discharged within 72h. Protracted ED visits, extensive investigations, and the burdens of even a short admission may be distressing and may not be aligned with patients’ care goals and preferences. Furthermore, the healthcare resources dedicated to these patients is considerable and has economic implications. We recently established a Supportive Care Infusion Center (SCIC), an on-campus outpatient unit where patients can receive treatments for symptom relief and comfort; they are assured integrated palliative care with routine oncologic care. We believe there is a subset of cancer patients who can be safely transferred from the ED to the SCIC for appropriate care. Methods: We are retrospectively evaluating cancer patients admitted through the ED to validate clinical parameters likely to lead to admission, and also identify any differences between patients admitted for <72h vs >72h. Patients are analyzed based on symptoms, cancer type, prior cancer therapies, performance status, comorbidities, and presence/absence of advance care planning as well as previous contact with Palliative Care. Data are also being gathered on patient outcomes, including mortality within 60d of admission. Results: Previously established indicators predictive of admission included shortness of breath and SIRS criteria, which our current review validates. We also observe that patients admitted for >72h have greater symptom burden and comorbidities and have received multiple lines of therapy. They also less frequently have advance care planning in place. Data analysis is ongoing. Conclusions: There exists a difference between cancer patients admitted >72h and those discharged within 72h. Awareness of these characteristics may lead to improved workflow in the ED. Identifying patients who may be suitable for transfer to an outpatient supportive care unit rather than short-term admission will also facilitate cost-effectiveness. Future direction includes evaluation of outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, and patient-caregiver satisfaction.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indryas Woldie ◽  
Tarek Elfiki ◽  
Swati Kulkarni ◽  
Colvin Springer ◽  
Eric McArthur ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Chemotherapy use closer to the end of life is becoming an important issue in cancer care. There are now multiple studies and local reviews addressing this issue. Understanding the practice locally will give valuable insight and opportunity for improvement.Methods: The study is a retrospective chart review of patients on chemotherapy at the Windsor Regional Cancer Center who died between April 1st, 2016 to December 31st, 2018. Information on demographics, type of cancer, type, intent and route of chemotherapy, line of chemotherapy, referral to hospice and palliative care services was collected.Results: A total of 681 patients on chemotherapy died between April 1st, 2016 to Dec 13th, 2018. Of these, 119 (17.4 %) passed away within 30 days following chemotherapy. Chemotherapy was parenteral (Intravenous and Subcutaneous) for the majority (75.2%) of the patients. Most (66.4%) of the patients died of disease progression. Intent for chemotherapy was palliative in 85% of patients, adjuvant/neoadjuvant in 6.6% and curative in 8.4% of the patients. Chemotherapy was 1st, 2nd, 3rd line or more in 67.4%, 21.3% and 11.3% of the patients respectively. The type of chemotherapy was conventional in 74.3% of patients and targeted/immunotherapy in 25.7% of patients.Of the variables studied, lack of palliative referral and having lung cancer or melanoma were significantly associated with higher risk of getting chemotherapy within the last four weeks of life. The odds of getting chemotherapy in within the last four weeks of life is 0.35, 95% CI (0.24-0.53), P <0.001 for those who were referred to palliative care. On the other hand, the odds of getting chemotherapy was 4.18, 95% CI (1.17-13.71), P = 0.037 and 2.21, 95% CI (1.24-4.01), P = 0.037 for those with melanoma and lung cancer respectively.Conclusion: Administration of chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life could cause unnecessary suffering to patients and cost to society. Early referral to palliative care was significantly associated with reduced risk of getting chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life in this study. Prospective study is recommended to further investigate the role of early palliative referral on use of chemotherapy during the last 30 days of life.


Author(s):  
Ros Scott

This chapter explores the history of volunteers in the founding and development of United Kingdom (UK) hospice services. It considers the changing role and influences of volunteering on services at different stages of development. Evidence suggests that voluntary sector hospice and palliative care services are dependent on volunteers for the range and quality of services delivered. Within such services, volunteer trustees carry significant responsibility for the strategic direction of the organiszation. Others are engaged in diverse roles ranging from the direct support of patient and families to public education and fundraising. The scope of these different roles is explored before considering the range of management models and approaches to training. This chapter also considers the direct and indirect impact on volunteering of changing palliative care, societal, political, and legislative contexts. It concludes by exploring how and why the sector is changing in the UK and considering the growing autonomy of volunteers within the sector.


Author(s):  
André den Exter ◽  
Keith Syrett

This chapter describes the main features of European healthcare systems. The chapter identifies key characteristics of these systems: the organisation, financing, and delivery of health services, and the main actors. It then questions what the systems cover, who are eligible to receive healthcare, when patients receive healthcare, and the physician’s duty to provide care. In addition to highlighting the applicable regulatory framework, this chapter also describes some general trends.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document