PathWell: The development of a triage center and access hub for comprehensive palliative care in oncology.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 162-162
Author(s):  
Kavitha Ramchandran ◽  
Erika Lauren Tribett ◽  
Marcy Winget ◽  
LaTisha Webster ◽  
Dorothy Valmayor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Needs ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Oncology Nurse ◽  
Early Access ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Tumor Boards

162 Background: Routine screening to identify palliative care (PC) needs, followed by assessment and management of needs is critical for high-quality cancer care. Our current healthcare system there is poor screening for PC needs, low referral rates to PC services, and unmet needs. In response to these gaps, we developed a dedicated triage center to streamline the assessment of PC needs and better connect patients with appropriate supportive care services. Methods: We identified 24 services at our academic cancer center that provide PC and supportive services. Examples include PC, psycho-oncology, survivorship, nutrition, and social work. Representatives from these groups convened to map service overlap and develop referral structures based on patient need and acuity. A triage hub (PathWell) was established to complete uniform assessments of patient needs and determine appropriate referrals. The hub utilized a centralized scheduling platform, new patient coordinators, and an oncology nurse for assessment and triage. Referrals to the hub were made via EHR, direct patient contact, or prompted by routine distress screening. Results: PathWell launched on February 1, 2016. Referral volume to the hub was 54 in February, 91 in March and 74 in April. Referrals from PathWell were distributed amongst the 24 services, the majority of referrals going to PC, psycho-oncology and nutrition. All programs that were part of the triage center experienced growth in volume; PC 41%, psycho-oncology 14%, nutrition 16%. Conclusions: Partnerships between specialist services and dedicated triage staff can improve early access to resources for PC needs. Early data from PathWell reveals improved assessment and management of patient needs via referrals to appropriate services. The hub has also unveiled important resource gaps (e.g. physical therapy, integrative medicine). These gaps were not previously quantified, and thus not prioritized by leadership. Future state for PathWell includes reporting operational and health-related outcomes, optimizing distress screening, establishing care pathways for patient subtypes (e.g., metastatic disease), and hosting interdisciplinary tumor boards for complex distress management.

Distress screening through PROMIS at an academic cancer center and network site: Implementation of a hybrid model.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2021-2021
Author(s):  
Mohana Roy ◽  
Joel W. Neal ◽  
Kelly Bugos ◽  
Christopher Sharp ◽  
Patricia Falconer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Positive Screen ◽  
Network Site ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Patient Reported

2021 Background: The NCCN guidelines recommend routine distress screening of patients with cancer, but the implementation of such programs is inconsistent. Up to one in three such patients experience distress, however fewer than half of them are identified and referred for supportive services. Methods: We implemented a hybrid (electronic and paper) distress screening tool, using a modified version of the PROMIS-Global Health questionnaire. Patients received either an electronic or in-clinic paper questionnaire to assess overall health and distress at the Stanford Cancer Center and its associated integrated network site. Iterative changes were made including integration with the electronic health record (EHR) to trigger questionnaires for appointments every 60 days. A consensus “positive screen” threshold was defined, with data collected on responses and subsequent referrals placed to a supportive care services platform. Results: Between June 2015 and December 2017, 53,954 unique questionnaires representing 12,744 distinct patients were collected, with an average completion rate of 58%. Approximately 30% of the questionnaires were completed prior to the visit electronically through a patient portal. The number of patients meeting the positive screen threshold remained ~ 40% throughout this period. Following assessment by the clinical team, there were 3763 referrals to cancer supportive services. Among the six most common referral categories, those with a positive screen were more likely to have a referral placed (OR 6.4, 95% CI 5.8-6.9 p- < 0.0001), with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 61%. However, 89% of responses with a positive screen did not have a referral to supportive care services. Conclusions: The hybrid electronic and paper use of a commonly available patient reported outcome tool, as a high throughput distress screening tool, is feasible at a multi-site academic cancer center. Our positive screen rate for referrals was sensitive and consistent, but with a low positive predictive value. This screening also resulted in variable clinical response and overall increased clinical burden. Future directions for our group have included refining the threshold for a positive screen and implementation of a real-time response system, especially to address acute concerns.

Reducing patient suffering and preventing readmissions via supportive care screening: The James Cancer Hospital supportive-care screening model.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 33-33
Author(s):  
Sharla Wells-Di Gregorio ◽  
Alexandra Zaleta ◽  
Emily Porensky ◽  
Lisa Graham ◽  
Kelly McDowell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Screening Model ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Cancer Hospital

33 Background: Hospital admissions create physical, financial and emotional stress for oncology patients. Hospital avoidable readmissions are considered a marker of poorer quality patient care. To reduce readmissions, cancer hospitals must understand modifiable readmission risk factors AND establish screening systems to triage at-risk patients to outpatient palliative/supportive care services. The James Cancer Hospital is in Phase II development of a model to reduce patient suffering and readmission via the James Supportive Care Screening (JSCS), a 48-item validated clinical-research instrument. Methods: In 2013, the James Cancer Hospital began implementation of Supportive Care Screening to meet Standard 3.2 (Psychosocial Distress Screening) of the Commission on Cancer. The JSCS asks patients to rate distress in six palliative care domains including emotional concerns, physical symptoms, social/practical problems, spiritual problems, cognitive concerns, and healthcare decision-making/communication issues. Between January 2011 and December 2013, one-thousand and one patients completed the JSCS in the Outpatient Palliative Care clinic. During this period, 57 patients had at least one readmission. Hierarchical linear regression was used to predict the number of future readmissions with JSCS subscales as independent variables. Results: The overall model predicting readmissions was significant, F(7,959) = 37.074, p<.001. Time to readmission, physical symptoms, emotional concerns, spiritual concerns, and social concerns were significant predictors of patient readmission. We are currently examining palliative care outcomes in these domains and have found that outpatient palliative care significantly reduces suffering related to physical and emotional distress. Conclusions: Supportive care screening, can serve to reduce oncology readmissions and prevent patient suffering in six key palliative domains. During Phase II of the James Supportive Care Screening Model, we have identified several problem areas targeted to reduce readmissions and improve patient self-reported outcomes.

Pilot study assessing distressors affecting patients with cancer using the distress screening tool.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 68-68
Author(s):  
Antoine Nafez Finianos ◽  
Jeanny B. Aragon-Ching ◽  
Ehab El Bahesh ◽  
Richard Amdur ◽  
Jenifer Bires ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Univariate Analysis ◽  
Emotional Problems ◽  
Problem Area ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Sample Mean ◽  
Family Problems ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Global Distress

68 Background: Distress is a non-stigmatic description of emotional, physical, spiritual or psychiatric stressors experienced by patients (pts) diagnosed with cancer. We sought to determine the prevalence of distress in different cancer population of pts seen in our cancer center as they are commencing chemotherapy. Methods: We retrospectively examined data using the Distress Thermometer (DT) based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and assessed a single encounter on 240 consecutive patients undergoing their first chemotherapy session. Univariate associations were examined between specific problems and overall distress levels with a 2-tailed between-group t-test. Problem area scores were computed for each subject by taking the mean number of problems rated positive within each area, and associations between each problem area score and distress was examined using Spearman correlations. Results: Among the 240 patients in the sample, mean age was 60 ± 14, 61% were female, and 82% had solid tumors. The overall mean distress, based on the DT reading, was 3.6 ± 3.0. Specific problems reported by the largest number of patients included worry (n = 85), nervousness (n = 79), fatigue (n = 70), sleep (n = 66), and fears (n = 57). Of these, all but fatigue were significantly associated with global distress in univariate analysis. When mean problems per area were calculated, and correlated with global distress, each problem area (practical, emotional, family, physical) had a significant univariate association with global distress, with emotional problems having the highest correlation (r = .52, p < .0001). The only predictors with significant independent associations to predict global distress in the general linear model were emotional problems (p = .0001) and family problems (p = .0062), independent of age, sex and tumor types. Conclusions: In cancer patients undergoing distress screening as they receive their first chemotherapy, emotional and family problems appear to have the highest correlation with distress. Improvement of supportive care services geared towards the betterment of these symptoms is of paramount importance in improving outcomes.

Interdisciplinary care rounds in the community: Changing the paradigm of supportive service involvement in cancer care.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 83-83
Author(s):  
Robert D. Siegel ◽  
Hal E. Crosswell ◽  
Terra Dillard ◽  
Jennifer Bayne ◽  
Tina Redenz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Room ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adult ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Interdisciplinary Care ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Tumor Boards

83 Background: Although cancer centers have focused on optimizing seamless Multidisciplinary Care (MDC) at tumor boards and/or clinics, there has been little published on effective ways to involve supportive services into the management of cancer patients. Historically, supportive services have been initiated when there is an active need rather than in anticipation of that need. As an alternative to pursuing such "crisis management" in our patients, Bon Secours St. Francis Cancer Center (BSSF) initiated Interdisciplinary Care (IDC) Rounds in an effort to anticipate patient needs, enhance quality of life (QoL), and potentially limit avoidable emergency room and hospital admissions. Methods: We initiated IDC Rounds with participants from the following disciplines: medical oncology, navigation, clinic nursing, palliative medicine, financial counseling, psychology, nutrition, clinical research, adolescent and young adult, and oncology rehabilitation/survivorship (ORS). A database was created to track new patients with malignancies within three weeks of presentation and the subsequent recommendations made by the IDC team. Those recommendations are then forwarded to the primary medical oncologist who has the ability to agree to those recommendations in full or in part before they are actuated. Results: BSSF is a non-academic, community-based cancer program and receives over 1,300 referrals annually from a referral population of 1.32 million in 10 counties. Short term metrics demonstrate a 57% and 100% increase in referrals to ORS and palliative care, respectively. Successes and challenges including sustainability, cost and measurable impact will be discussed. Conclusions: We have shown that it is feasible in the community setting to create a process that will allow early integration of supportive services into the full service care of cancer patients. Results demonstrate an increase in short-term metrics such as referrals to supportive services. Our ultimate goal is that formalized IDC results not only in earlier involvement by needed services but enhanced QoL for our patients with fewer emergency room and hospital admissions. Those data will be compiled as the program matures.

The availability versus accessibility gap in supportive care services at 40 NCI-designated cancer centers.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 283-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Hutchins ◽  
Geoffrey Hamlyn ◽  
Abby Johnston ◽  
Rishonda Thomas ◽  
James Tian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Education ◽  
Private Insurance ◽  
Quantitative Measure ◽  
Complete Information ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Team Approach ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services

283 Background: Many cancer centers have developed and fostered several supportive care services to ease the stress of a cancer diagnosis. The availability of such services is key to Commission on Cancer (CoC) for accreditation, which many cancer centers pursue and patients seek as a measure of quality. Despite the stated availability of supportive care services, we wondered how easily new patients could access these services when first contacting a major cancer center. Methods: We used a ‘mystery shopper’ format to simulate calls made by a family member of a recently diagnosed patient to 40 NCI-designated cancer centers. We called each center four times on different days, twice with the caller reporting Medicaid insurance, twice with private insurance. We evaluated quantitative and qualitative components of the call, including time to next available appointment and reported availability of the 7 supportive services reported to the CoC. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each quantitative measure. Results: We placed 160 calls to 40 NCI-designated cancer centers. 38.2% of callers were unable to receive complete information about the number of supportive care services offered, whether because they were unable to reach a person or because the person they reached did not know whether one or more of the services was offered. Overall, only 37.6% of callers (60.8% of those who reached a person who could answer their questions) were told that all seven supportive care services were offered. Call recipients responded with an answer other than yes to whether the cancer center offered a multidisciplinary team approach (14.6%), patient navigation services (12.1%), genetic assessment/counseling (9.5%), palliative care (9.5%), counseling/psychological services (7.6%), or cancer education services (6.4%). Conclusions: Despite the stated availability of seven key supportive care services, we were unable to access all services during a call to establish an appointment about one-third of the time. For individual services, about 10% of the time we were told such services did not exist at the cancer center. Further research is needed to close the availability vs. accessibility gap in oncology supportive care.

Comprehensive distress screening and referral at a tertiary cancer center.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 134-134
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Trice Loggers ◽  
Stephen Duane Watkins King ◽  
Jesse R Fann ◽  
Kerry K McMillin ◽  
Jodie HN David ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Existential Crisis ◽  
Patient Health ◽  
English Speaking

134 Background: Addressing distress in cancer patients is now broadly recognized as critical to well-being and associated with increased survival. Cancer centers are developing innovative distress screening methods; we describe our novel process and results. Methods: New patients from 9/2015 to 3/2017 received an email requesting completion of a 44-item web-based survey assessing depression (2-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder), quality of life (QOL, 28-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment-General), malnutrition (3-item Malnutrition Screening Tool), and 9 items addressing existential crisis, physical function, symptoms, tangible needs and concerns for dependent children. Results were computer scored, with positive screens resulting in direct, automated referrals to supportive care services (SCR). Analysis includes descriptive statistics and logistic regression using SAS 9.4. Results: 71% (n = 2629 of 3724) of those approached provided an email and completed the survey; 73% reporting no survey burden. Non-responders were more likely to be minority, non-English speaking, with non-commercial insurance (all p < 0.001). 59% (n = 1543) of responders screened positive for one or more SCR, including 6% to palliative care for poor QOL or symptoms. Receipt of SCR was more likely with Medicaid insurance (1.36 odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.76, p = .0061); plan to receive care (1.27 OR, CI 1.07-1.50, p = .0061); and any report of survey burden (2.26 OR, CI 1.83-2.80, p < .0001). Conclusions: Web-based distress screening is feasible, efficient and not burdensome for the majority of cancer patients. Those who find this screening burdensome are two-fold more likely to have distress. Future efforts should address screening of vulnerable populations.

Integration and expansion of palliative care work force.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 126-126
Author(s):  
Lynn Bowlby ◽  
Robin Turner ◽  
David Casarett ◽  
Fred Johnson ◽  
Ebony Boulware ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Faculty Member ◽  
Training Program ◽  
Fellowship Training ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Severe Illness ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Intensive Training ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

126 Background: The specialty of Hospice and Palliative Medicine has grown out of the need for care of patients who are living longer with cancer and other serious illness and struggle with symptoms, decisions and care. Cancer patients and others often do not have access to Palliative Care services due to availability or accessibility of PC services. Since 2012, fellowship training is required for board eligibility but available programs do not meet the workforce need. As described by Weissman and Meier, viewing Palliative care services in the context of a primary, secondary or tertiary focus , allows for the expansion of these services outside of the traditional fellowship training. With additional intensive training, it is possible that experienced physicians can fill workforce gaps by providing primary palliative care in the providers practice area such as a clinic. Methods: The faculty member who will participate in a yearlong training program based in the Palliative Care Clinic is the Director of the Outpatient Clinic. This clinic is the center of the Duke resident ambulatory experience for the duration of their training. The complexity of these patients is high and often the DOC is the only place that these patients receive care. The Palliative Care training program will provide the faculty member the opportunity to see patients in the cancer center with board certified palliative care physicians. There will be 3 areas of focus for the trainee: clinical experience, didactic information and mentorship from a board certified palliative care provider around faculty identified cases from her own practice. Results: We have developed a yearlong intensive training program for experienced faculty to gain skills in Palliative Care. Conclusions: 1. It is hoped that this will allow for integration of primary palliative care into patient care areas where there is no formal palliative care program. 2. Integration of Palliative Care principles in the clinic to address symptoms of chronic severe illness as well as difficult conversations with more confidence and skill. 3. Earlier palliative care management–develop a systematic approach to assessing needs in high risk populations ie. Hospital Discharge reviews, now commonly done at the clinic.

Palliative care referrals in patients with advanced cancer on early-phase cancer clinical trials (EP-CTs).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 29-29
Author(s):  
Megan Healy ◽  
Rachel Jimenez ◽  
Ryan David Nipp ◽  
Jennifer Adrienne Shin ◽  
Andrew Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Median Time ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Hospice Referral ◽  
Pain Symptoms ◽  
Future Work

29 Background: EP-CTs investigate novel therapeutic approaches for patients with cancer, but little is known about the utilization of supportive care services, specifically palliative care (PC), in this population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive patients enrolled on EP-CTs at the MGH Cancer Center from 2017-2019. Sociodemographic and clinical variables, including utilization of PC services, were obtained via chart review. Details of the PC evaluation were compared between patients who received first referral to PC while enrolled on an EP-CT versus those who received a PC referral at any point after diagnosis. Results: Among 426 patients enrolled on EP-CTs (median age 63 years; 44% male), 249 (59%) received a PC referral at any time following a diagnosis of cancer (median age 57 years, 58% male). Eighty-six (35%) were referred prior to enrollment on EP-CT, 44 (18%) were referred while on EP-CT, and 119 (48%) were referred post-EP-CT. Patients referred on EP-CT were younger (median 56 vs 63 years, p < 0.0001) than those enrolled on EP-CTs. For patients referred while on EP-CT, 48% had a PC consult within 30 days of enrollment (range: 0-530 days); median number of PC visits was 3 (range: 0-37); median time from first PC consult to death or termination of EP-CT was 32 days (range: 1-213). Of 44 patients referred on EP-CT, 2 (5%) died while on EP-CT. Of the remaining patients, median time from first PC consult to date of death was 79 days (IQR: 45-178 days). Most common reasons for referral included pain (22, 50%), non-pain symptoms (21, 48%), and goals of care/advanced care planning (20, 45%). Of these referrals, 13 (30%) were initiated as inpatients versus 31 (70%) as outpatients. Pain was most commonly cited for outpatient referral (35%), followed by non-pain symptoms (25%) and goals of care (23%). Non-pain symptoms (40%) and goals of care (36%) were most commonly cited reasons for inpatient referral, followed by pain (24%). Of referrals while on EP-CT, 23 (52%) were made by EP-CT staff, including MD and APP, 7 (16%) from the primary oncologist, and 1 (2%) was self-referral. 26 (57%) of patients referred to PC during trial were also referred to hospice, with a median time from last PC consult to hospice referral of 24 days (range: -2-322). Conclusions: A majority of patients with advanced cancer enrolled on EP-CTs received a PC referral. The timeline and method of referral varied, but most patients did not receive a referral until or following enrollment on an EP-CT. Future work will focus on developing a standard referral protocol for patients enrolled on EP-CTs.

Palliative Care Services in the NeuroICU: Opportunities and Persisting Barriers

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912098721
Author(s):  
Michael Morris ◽  
Emily L. Mroz ◽  
Cristina Popescu ◽  
Jacqueline Baron-Lee ◽  
Katharina M. Busl
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

Background: End-of-life (EOL) supportive care, including palliative and hospice services, is an area of increasing importance in critical care. Neurointensivists face unique challenges in providing timely supportive care to terminally ill patients expected to expire in the NeuroICU. Objective: This study explored the extent of effective utilization of, and recorded barriers to, palliative and hospice services in a dedicated 30-bed NeuroICU at a large academic medical center. Design: A retrospective chart review of patients who expired in the NeuroICU was conducted. The timeline from patient admission to arrival of palliative care services was traced. Qualitative review of chart notes was used to identify barriers to provision of palliative services. Setting: A total of 330 patients expired in the NeuroICU during the study period, including 176 from the neurology and 154 from the neurosurgical service. Results: Across services, 146 expired patients were never referred to palliative care or hospice services. Of those referred, over one-third were referred more than 4 days past admission to the NeuroICU. On average, patients were referred with less than 1 day before expiration. Common barriers to referral for supportive services were documented (e.g., patient expected to expire, family declined service). Conclusions: Despite benefits of palliative care and an in-hospital hospice opportunity, we identified lack of referral, and particularly delays in referral to services as significant barriers. Our study highlights these as missed opportunities for patients and families to receive maximum benefits from these services. Future research should solidify triggers for EOL services in this setting.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document