Snapshot of an outpatient supportive care center at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 145-145
Author(s):  
Lindsey E Pimentel ◽  
Maxine Grace De la Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
End Of Life ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Case Manager ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Early Integration ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

145 Background: Integration of Palliative Care (PC) in oncology has been found to improve symptom distress, quality of life and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Early integration is most appropriate in the outpatient (OP) setting. However, most PC services in the U.S. do not have an OP component. Our study aims to provide a snapshot of the type of patients that are referred to this novel setting for the delivery of early PC. Methods: We reviewed a day in the SCC to illustrate the structure and process involved in the delivery of outpatient PC. We highlighted 9 patients seen that day to show the variety of patients, scope of services, and the unique roles that PC interdisciplinary team members perform. Results: 41 patients were seen that day in the SCC: 10 scheduled consults, 22 scheduled follow-ups, 9 (22%) same-day unscheduled patients: 4 follow-ups, 1 consult and 4 nurse triages. There were also 31 telephone encounters. Most patients seen were for routine follow-up and symptom assessment. However, 10 presented with worsening symptoms with one needing hospital admission. 21 patients required additional counseling: 2 for hospice transitioning, 12 for psychosocial distress, 7 for opioid education. PC was delivered predominantly by physicians and nurses with collaboration with our pharmacist, counselors, and case manager. Conclusions: Traditionally, PC has been delivered predominantly to patients with advanced disease and to aid in transition to end of life. In recent years, OP centers have dramatically changed the nature of PC work as in our snapshot. In addition to patients regarded as traditional PC patients, such as those transitioning to end of life, there are now patients who come in soon after arrival to a cancer center requiring specialized care to address a variety of symptom and educational needs, thus requiring adaptation of structure and processes to allow access for frequent follow ups and counseling and flexibility for walk-in visits. Our findings suggest that SCC needs to practice in a very different way which requires certain skills and assessment tools that are not conventionally present in traditional oncology clinic setting. More research is needed to identify the type of patients that would benefit most from a PC referral.

Referral patterns and characteristics of uninsured versus insured patients referred to the outpatient supportive care center (SCC) at a comprehensive cancer center.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Author(s):  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Sriram Yennu ◽  
Aashraya Ramu ◽  
Haibo Zhang ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Income ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Referral Patterns ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Symptom Assessment Scale ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care ◽  
Insured Patients

116 Background: Multiple barriers exist in providing quality palliative care to low-income patients with cancer. Such disparities may negatively influence effective management of symptoms including pain. Our objective was to compare referral patterns and characteristics (level of symptom distress) of uninsured vs insured patients. Methods: We reviewed randomly selected charts of 100 Indigent (IND) and 100 Medicaid (MC) patients and compared them with a random sample of 300 patients with insurance (INS) referred during the same time period (1/2010 to 12/2014) to our SCC. Data was collected for date of registration at the cancer center, diagnosis of Advanced Cancer (ACD), first visit to the SCC (PC1), symptom assessment (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-ESAS) at PC1. We excluded self-pay patients. Results: Results for IND, MC and INS (n = 481) respectively are as follows: Mean (SD) Age in yrs. was 50 (12), 48 (11) and 63 (13); p < 0.001. Percentage of non-white was 44%, 51% and 19.5%; p < 0.001. Percentage of unmarried patients was 64%, 68% and 33%; p < 0.001. Mean (SD) ESAS score at PC1 for pain was 5.6 (3.2), 6.7 (2.5), 4.9 (3.2); p < 0.001. Percentage of patients on opioids upon referral was 86%, 62%, and 54%; p < 0.001. Mean (SD) for referral time in months from ACD to PC1 was 8.7 (SD 10.4), 12.3 (SD 18.1) and 12 (SD 19.9) p = 0.31; for no. of encounters with SC per month were 0.46 (0.45), 0.41 (0.46) and 0.3 (0.55); p = 0.01; for survival in months (PC1 to last contact) was 6.4 (5.8), 5.6 (6.4) & 6 (7.22) p = 0.77. Conclusions: Uninsured patients had significantly higher levels of pain, were more frequently on opioids, younger, non-white and not married. They also required a larger number of SCC encounters. Insurance status did not impact timing of SCC referral or SCC follow ups at our cancer center.

Testing the feasibility of using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to assess caregiver symptom burden

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberson Tanco ◽  
Marieberta Vidal ◽  
Joseph Arthur ◽  
Marvin Delgado Guay ◽  
David Hui ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Financial Distress ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

ABSTRACTObjective:Caregiver symptom assessment is not part of regular clinical cancer care. The ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) is a multidimensional tool regularly used to measure symptom burden in patients but not caregivers. The objectives of the present study were to determine the feasibility of the ESAS in caregiver completion (defined as ≥ 9 of 12 items) and determine its concurrent validity with the Zarit Burden Interview–12 (ZBI–12).Method:We conducted a prospective study on 90 patient–primary caregiver dyads seen in an outpatient supportive care center in a cancer center. The 12 item ESAS–FS (financial–spiritual) was completed by the dyads along with other clinical and psychosocial measures.Results:The caregiver ESAS was found to be feasible (90/90 caregivers, 100% completed ≥ 9/12 items) and useful (66/90 caregivers, 73%) by caregivers to report their symptom burden. Some 68 of 90 (76%) caregivers had symptom distress scores ≥ 4 on at least one symptom. A significant association was found between the ESAS scores of caregivers and patients for fatigue (0.03), depression (<0.01), anxiety (<0.01), sleep (0.05), well-being (<0.01), financial distress (<0.01), spiritual pain (<0.01), and total ESAS score (<0.01). Concurrent validity with the ZBI–12 was not achieved (r = 0.53, p = 0.74). A significant correlation was found between caregiver ESAS scores and time spent feeding, housekeeping, total combined caregiver activities, and total ZBI–12 scores.Significance of results:The caregiver ESAS is a feasible tool and was found useful by our caregivers. Further research is needed to modify the ESAS based on caregivers' recommendations, and further psychometric studies need to be conducted.

Frequency of concomitant use of opioids and psychoactive medications among cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 240-240
Author(s):  
Ahsan Azhar ◽  
Ali Haider ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Maria Agustina Cerana ◽  
Madhuri Adabala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Continuous Variables ◽  
Exact Test ◽  
Psychoactive Medications

240 Background: There are potential severe effects when patients taking opioids receive other psychoactive medications. However, such combinations are sometimes necessary in palliative care. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of concomitant use of opioids + psychoactive medications in cancer patients referred to our outpatient palliative care center. Methods: Retrospective data obtained from consecutive consults was analyzed to determine the frequency of patients on opioids alone versus concomitant opioids + psychoactive medications at first presentation to our clinic. Association of type of medication with demographics and baseline characteristics was evaluated by Wilcoxon rank sum test for continuous variables and Chi-square (Fisher's exact) test for categorical variables. Results: Among 541 consecutive consult visits, 365 (67%) patients were taking opioids at the time of referral to our clinic: 209 (57%) were on opioids alone while 156 (43%) were on concomitant opioids + psychoactive medications [69 (44%) were on Opioid + Benzodiazepine, 46 (30%) were Opioid + Antidepressants, 41(26%) were on both). Patients in the concomitant groups were on higher Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (MEDD, p = 0.007), had higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS) for pain (p = 0.017), anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001) and spiritual pain (p = 0.03). Conclusions: A large proportion (156, 43%) of cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care was on concomitant opioids + psychoactive medications. These patients were on higher doses of opioids with higher levels of pain and psycho-social distress at the time of first presentation. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical implications of concomitant use of opioids + psychoactive medications in such patients.

scholarly journals P135 Snapshot of an Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2016 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. e101
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Pimentel ◽  
Maxine De la Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

Snapshot of an Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-436 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Pimentel ◽  
Maxine De La Cruz ◽  
Angelique Wong ◽  
Debra Castro ◽  
Eduardo Bruera
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

scholarly journals Navigating uncharted waters: Developing a standardized approach for evaluating and implementing biosimilar products at a comprehensive cancer center

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mara N Villanueva ◽  
Jennifer E Davis ◽  
Stacey M Sobocinski
Keyword(s):  
Transition Period ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Specific Product ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Research Protocols ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Multiple Challenges ◽  
Coordinate Changes

Abstract Purpose The processes for formulary implementation and electronic health record (EHR) integration of biosimilar products at a comprehensive cancer center are described. Implications for research protocols are also discussed. Summary The existing literature focuses on practical considerations for formulary addition of biosimilar products, but there is a lack of guidance on how to implement the change, particularly within the EHR. Before building the ordering tools for biosimilars, the clinical and informatics teams should determine the role of biosimilars at the institution, identify drug-specific product characteristics that affect medication build, and characterize implications of future formulary changes or drug shortages. Leveraging an orderable record provides the ability to include logic that maps to multiple products and also allows for future implementation of changes within the medication record rather than requiring “swaps” at the treatment protocol level. The institutional review board should coordinate changes in affected research protocols and consent forms and work with principal investigators to amend protocols when necessary. Pharmacy leaders should develop processes to oversee inventory during the transition period and minimize the risk of errors. Conclusion The development of a standardized approach for evaluating and implementing biosimilar products improves efficiency and collaboration among the various team members responsible for the products’ integration into existing workflows, including implications for clinical research. Implementing biosimilars for agents used to treat cancer will pose new challenges and require additional considerations. Partial implementation of biosimilars continues to pose multiple challenges in the provision of patient care.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to optimal supportive end-of-life palliative care in long-term care facilities: a qualitative descriptive study of community-based and specialist palliative care physicians’ experiences, perceptions and perspectives

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e037466
Author(s):  
Patricia Harasym ◽  
Sarah Brisbin ◽  
Misha Afzaal ◽  
Aynharan Sinnarajah ◽  
Lorraine Venturato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Long Term Care ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Term Care

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted ongoing challenges to optimal supportive end-of-life care for adults living in long-term care (LTC) facilities. A supportive end-of-life care approach emphasises family involvement, optimal symptom control, multidisciplinary team collaboration and death and bereavement support services for residents and families. Community-based and palliative care specialist physicians who visit residents in LTC facilities play an important role in supportive end-of-life care. Yet, perspectives, experiences and perceptions of these physicians remain unknown. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to optimal supportive end-of-life palliative care in LTC through the experiences and perceptions of community-based and palliative specialist physicians who visit LTC facilities.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interviews, basic qualitative description and directed content analysis using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation - behaviour) theoretical framework.SettingResidential long-term care.Participants23 physicians who visit LTC facilities from across Alberta, Canada, including both in urban and rural settings of whom 18 were community-based physicians and 5 were specialist palliative care physicians.ResultsMotivation barriers include families’ lack of frailty knowledge, unrealistic expectations and emotional reactions to grief and uncertainty. Capability barriers include lack of symptom assessment tools, as well as palliative care knowledge, training and mentorship. Physical and social design barriers include lack of dedicated spaces for death and bereavement, inadequate staff, and mental health and spiritual services of insufficient scope for the population.ConclusionFindings reveal that validating families’ concerns, having appropriate symptom assessment tools, providing mentorship in palliative care and adapting the physical and social environment to support dying and grieving with dignity facilitates supportive, end-of-life care within LTC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document