Difference in strong opioid prescription among different cancer and care providers in advanced cancer patients in Taiwan: Analysis using national health insurance database.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 55-55
Author(s):  
Ruey Kuen Hsieh ◽  
Yu-Lin Lin ◽  
Chao-Hsiun Tang
Keyword(s):  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
National Health Insurance ◽  
National Health ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Strong Opioid ◽  
Strong Opioids

55 Background: Pain assessment and management had been adopted as an important criteria in hospital accreditation in Taiwan. National health insurance database may help to determine factors influencing patterns of strong opioid use in advanced cancer patients in their final 12 months of life. Methods: Cancer patients who died from cancer during 2008-2011 were included in the analysis. Data in prescription of strong opioids during their last 12 months of life were collected and analyzed using National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD). Patient’s characteristics, such as cancer types, birthdate and gender, as well as information on the provider’s characteristics, such as specialty, gender and age of the physician, the ownership and level of accreditation of the hospital, and the level of urbanization of the hospital where it is located, were also retrieved and included as the controlled variables in the analysis. Results: Of the 162,679 cancer deaths, 57,578 were prescribed strong opioids in their last year of life (35.4 percent). Strong opioid prescription steadily decreased with the corresponding increase in patient age. Besides there are difference in different cancer types. Association with prescription prevalence has also been noted among physician characteristics such as subspecialty, gender and age, as well among hospital characteristics, such as public vs private and accreditation level. Conclusions: There are significant difference in strong opioids prescription among different care providers for advanced cancer patients. Information from this study can guide further efforts in improving supportive care and education for advanced cancer care providers.

scholarly journals Impact of comorbidity assessment methods to predict non-cancer mortality risk in cancer patients: a retrospective observational study using the National Health Insurance Service claims-based data in Korea

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanghee Lee ◽  
Yoon Jung Chang ◽  
Hyunsoon Cho
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
National Health Insurance ◽  
National Health ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
Mortality Risks

Abstract Background Cancer patients’ prognoses are complicated by comorbidities. Prognostic prediction models with inappropriate comorbidity adjustments yield biased survival estimates. However, an appropriate claims-based comorbidity risk assessment method remains unclear. This study aimed to compare methods used to capture comorbidities from claims data and predict non-cancer mortality risks among cancer patients. Methods Data were obtained from the National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort database in Korea; 2979 cancer patients diagnosed in 2006 were considered. Claims-based Charlson Comorbidity Index was evaluated according to the various assessment methods: different periods in washout window, lookback, and claim types. The prevalence of comorbidities and associated non-cancer mortality risks were compared. The Cox proportional hazards models considering left-truncation were used to estimate the non-cancer mortality risks. Results The prevalence of peptic ulcer, the most common comorbidity, ranged from 1.5 to 31.0%, and the proportion of patients with ≥1 comorbidity ranged from 4.5 to 58.4%, depending on the assessment methods. Outpatient claims captured 96.9% of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; however, they captured only 65.2% of patients with myocardial infarction. The different assessment methods affected non-cancer mortality risks; for example, the hazard ratios for patients with moderate comorbidity (CCI 3–4) varied from 1.0 (95% CI: 0.6–1.6) to 5.0 (95% CI: 2.7–9.3). Inpatient claims resulted in relatively higher estimates reflective of disease severity. Conclusions The prevalence of comorbidities and associated non-cancer mortality risks varied considerably by the assessment methods. Researchers should understand the complexity of comorbidity assessments in claims-based risk assessment and select an optimal approach.

scholarly journals Is early integration of palliative home care in oncology treatment feasible and acceptable for advanced cancer patients and their health care providers? A phase 2 mixed-methods study.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi Dhollander ◽  
Tinne Smets ◽  
Aline De Vleminck ◽  
Lore Lapeire ◽  
Koen Pardon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Home Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Family Caregivers ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Palliative Home Care ◽  
Early Integration

Abstract Background: To support the early integration of palliative home care (PHC) in cancer treatment, we developed the EPHECT intervention and pilot tested it with 30 advanced cancer patients in Belgium using a pre post design with no control group. We aim to determine the feasibility, acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the EPHECT intervention.Methods: Interviews with patients (n=16 of which 11 dyadic with family caregivers), oncologists and GPs (n=11) and a focus group with the PHC team. We further analyzed the study materials and logbooks of the PHC team (n=8). Preliminary effectiveness was assessed with questionnaires EORTC QLQ C-30, HADS and FAMCARE and were filled in at baseline and 12, 18 and 24 weeks.Results: In the interviews after the intervention period, patients reported feelings of safety and control and an optimized quality of life. The PHC team could focus on more than symptom management because they were introduced earlier in the trajectory of the patient. Telephone-based contact appeared to be insufficient to support interprofessional collaboration. Furthermore, some family caregivers reported that the nurse of the PHC team was focused little on them.Conclusion: Nurses of PHC teams are able to deliver early palliative care to advanced cancer patients. However, more attention needs to be given to family caregivers as caregiver and client. Furthermore, the home visits by the PHC team have to be further evaluated and adapted. Lastly, professionals have to find a more efficient way to discuss future care.

Coping with uncertainty: A qualitative study of 33 palliative care consultations among patients with advanced cancer.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 92-92
Author(s):  
Mohamedtaki Abdulaziz Tejani ◽  
Charles Stewart Kamen ◽  
Supriya Gupta Mohile ◽  
Robert E. Gramling
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
The Future ◽  
Research Working Group

92 Background: Despite scientific advances, uncertainty remains an inherent and significant issue in clinical practice. Among patients with advanced cancer, uncertainty about the future can lead to distress, loss of sense of control and lower quality of life. Helping patients manage uncertainty is a core domain of patient-centered care. Little is known about how palliative care providers work with cancer patients to accomplish this goal. Methods: We performed descriptive analysis of transcripts from audio recorded inpatient palliative care consultations among adult cancer patients referred for ‘goals of care’ or ‘end of life decision making.’ Each transcript was read as a whole and then again line by line to code verbal expressions of uncertainty. Excerpted segments dealing with uncertainty about the future were grouped and analyzed by an experienced qualitative research working group. Results: 33 consultations were analyzed: 53% men, median age 62 and median survival 3.6 weeks. Multiple expressions of uncertainty were identified – 106 by patients/families and 56 by providers. A majority (63%) were centered on the inevitable uncertainty in predicting clinical course at the end of life. Palliative care providers managed this type of uncertainty in three main ways: (a) pairing expressions of unpredictability with reiteration of what was certain/known at time of consultation (e.g. ‘we will not let you suffer’); (b) utilizing inherent uncertainty of future to promote hope and faith (e.g. ‘nobody knows how long you are going to live’) and (c) reassurance that multi-disciplinary providers would convene to provide consensus and clarity for next visit (e.g. ‘we will all put our heads together and come up with exactly which options are available.’). Conclusions: Uncertainty is highly prevalent during end of life consultations with advanced cancer patients. Palliative care providers use validating strategies to help patients acknowledge and cope with what is inherently uncertain about their future. These methods can be used to develop communication training and guidelines for use with advanced cancer patients at the end of life.

The ESCAPADE Study: Early supportive care for advanced cancer patients, assessing care delivery and provider engagement.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23142-e23142
Author(s):  
Oren Hannun Levine ◽  
Daryl Bainbridge ◽  
Gregory Russell Pond ◽  
Marissa Slaven ◽  
Sukhbinder K. Dhesy-Thind ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Disease Management ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Newly Diagnosed ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Gi Cancer

e23142 Background: Advanced cancer patients benefit from early integration of palliative care (EIPC) with usual care. A proposed model of EIPC reserves specialized palliative care (SPC) for complex patients, while primary care providers (PCP) and oncologists oversee basic palliative care (PC). We studied the attitudes among patients and their healthcare providers regarding delivery of EIPC. Methods: A cross-sectional study at a tertiary cancer centre in Ontario. Patients with newly diagnosed incurable gastrointestinal (GI) cancer were surveyed using a study specific instrument for the outcomes of interest: importance of and preferences for accessing support across 8 domains of PC (disease management, physical, psychological, social, spiritual, practical, end of life care, loss and grief). Healthcare providers within the circle of care completed a parallel survey for each recruited patient. Primary analysis involved use of descriptive statistics to summarize survey results and concordance between patient and provider responses. Results: From Oct 2017 - Nov 2018, 67 patients were surveyed (median age 69, 34% female). 90% had an identified medical oncologist, and 19% had SPC. 97% had a PCP, but only 42% listed a PCP as part of the care team. Median time from first oncology assessment for advanced cancer to patient survey completion was 52.5 days. 85 providers responded (oncologist = 59, PCP = 20, SPC = 6; response rate 92%; 1-3 physician responses per patient). Disease management and physical concerns were most important to patients. In these domains, 67% and 81% of patients endorsed receiving care from the preferred provider, but concordance between patient and physician responses regarding most responsible provider was only 58% and 38%. For all other domains, 87 – 100% of patients attributed primary responsibility to self or family rather than any healthcare provider. Conclusions: Respondents did not assign responsibility to physicians early in the disease trajectory for many domains of PC. Our findings suggest that incorporating patient activation and empowerment into EIPC requires further study. PCPs appeared to have limited involvement in PC for newly diagnosed advanced GI cancer patients.

scholarly journals The Experience of Family Caregivers Living with Advanced Cancer Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-63
Author(s):  
Wanda Kiyah George Albert ◽  
Zulkarnain Ahmed Hatta ◽  
Adi Fahrudin
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Family Quality Of Life ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Moderator Variable ◽  
Stress Burden

This article is based on literature review regarding family experiences in taking care of advanced cancer patients. Four aspect of the family cancer experience were identified from the literature: stress, burden, self-efficacy and self-esteem. The most developed body of literature documents due to family responses towards burden and stressful experience in caregiving was caused by their unprepared and inability to provide care and lack of support from other family members and health care providers. Caregiver’s burden and stressful experiences reporting would be the strongest relationship for lower levels of self-efficacy and self-esteem. The results of this review suggest that more research is needed on family experience and consider interpersonal support as a potential source or moderator variable in enhance family quality of life.

scholarly journals Resilience for family carers of advanced cancer patients—how can health care providers contribute? A qualitative interview study with carers

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (8) ◽  
pp. 1410-1418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingebrigt Røen ◽  
Hans Stifoss-Hanssen ◽  
Gunn Grande ◽  
Anne-Tove Brenne ◽  
Stein Kaasa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Family Carers ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study

Background: Caring for advanced cancer patients affects carers’ psychological and physical health. Resilience has been defined as “the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats or even significant sources of threat.” Aim: The aim of this study was to explore factors promoting carer resilience, based on carers’ experiences with and preferences for health care provider support. Design: Qualitative, semi-structured, individual interviews with family carers of advanced cancer patients were performed until data saturation. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using systematic text condensation. Setting/participants: Carers ( n = 14) of advanced cancer patients, not receiving curative treatment, admitted to an integrated curative and palliative care cancer outpatient clinic or to a university hospital cancer clinic, were included. Results: 14 carers of advanced cancer patients were included; 7 men, 7 women, and mean age of 59 years; 3 were bereaved; 12 were partners; 5 had young and teenage children. Four main resilience factors were identified: (1) being seen and known by health care providers—a personal relation; (2) availability of palliative care; (3) information and communication about illness, prognosis, and death; and (4) facilitating a good carer–patient relation. Conclusion: Health care providers may enhance carers’ resilience by a series of simple interventions. Education should address carers’ support needs and resilience. Systematic assessment of carers’ support needs is recommended. Further investigation is needed into how health care providers can help carers and patients communicate about death.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document