Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug test among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Author(s):  
Joseph Anthony Arthur ◽  
Tonya Edwards ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Jessica Marie Waletich-Flemming ◽  
Suresh K. Reddy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Cancer Stage ◽  
Chronic Opioid Therapy ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

94 Background: Data on the utilization and outcomes of urine drug tests (UDT) among advanced cancer patients is limited. The main objective of this study was to determine the factors associated with UDT ordering and results in advanced cancer outpatients. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 1058 patients seen from March 2014 to November 2015 at an outpatient supportive care clinic was conducted. Sixty-one patients on chronic opioid therapy who underwent UDT were identified. A control group of 120 patients who did not undergo UDT was selected for comparison of information on demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: 61/1058 patients (6%) underwent UDT. 33/61 patients (54%) had abnormal results. Multivariate analysis found that the odds ratio for UDT ordering was 3.9 in CAGE positive patients (p = 0.002), 4.41 in patients less than 45years (p < 0.001), 5.58 in patients with moderate to severe pain (ESAS pain score ≥ 4) (p < 0.001), 0.27 in patients with advanced cancer stage, (p = 0.008), and 0.25 in patients with moderate to severe fatigue (p = 0.001). Among 52 abnormal UDT results in 33 patients, the most common opioid findings were: prescribed opioids absent in urine (14/52, 27%) and un-prescribed opioids in urine (13/52, 25%). Conclusions: UDT was used infrequently among advanced cancer patients receiving outpatient chronic opioid therapy. Younger age, CAGE positivity, early cancer stage or NED status, higher pain intensity, and lower fatigue were significant predictors of UDT ordering. More than 50% of UDTs were abnormal. More research is necessary to better characterize aberrant opioid use in advanced cancer patients.

scholarly journals Erratum to: Characteristics and outcomes of advanced cancer patients who miss outpatient supportive care consult appointments

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 2875-2875
Author(s):  
Marvin Omar Delgado Guay ◽  
Silvia Tanzi ◽  
Maria Teresa San Miguel Arregui ◽  
Gary Chisholm ◽  
Maxine G. De la Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

scholarly journals Challenges of Managing Advanced Cancer Patients through Phone Triaging at an Outpatient Supportive Care Clinic: A Case Series of Palliative Care Patients

2012 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. PCRT.S10733
Author(s):  
Lindsey E. Pimentel ◽  
Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽  
Elizabeth D. Brown ◽  
Debra K. Castro
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Case Reports ◽  
Care Center ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

Palliative care strives to improve the quality of life for patients and their families by impeccable assessment and management using an interdisciplinary approach. However, patients with cancer-related pain and other symptoms tend to be undertreated because of limited follow-up visits due to late referrals and logistics. Thus, patients who present to the outpatient Supportive Care Center at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center often experience severe physical and psychological symptoms. The two case reports presented highlight the challenges of managing distressed patients with advanced cancer in the outpatient setting. These descriptions focus on addressing patient needs over the phone to enhance the care patients receive at the Supportive Care Center. Future prospective studies are needed to measure the effectiveness of using phone triaging in conjunction with standard outpatient palliative care.

Characteristics and outcomes of advanced cancer patients who miss outpatient supportive care consult appointments

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. 2869-2874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marvin Omar Delgado Guay ◽  
Silvia Tanzi ◽  
Maria Teresa San Miguel Arregui ◽  
Gary Chisholm ◽  
Maxine de la Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

Advanced cancer patients' self-reported perception of timeliness of their referral to outpatient supportive/palliative care and their survival data.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 10121-10121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelique Wong ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Margeaux Epner ◽  
Vishidha Reddy Balankari ◽  
Vera J De la Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Just In Time ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Care Clinic ◽  
Disease Trajectory ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Significant Difference

10121 Background: Palliative Care referral is often thought to be delayed as judged by health professionals and caregivers. However, no studies have ever examined patients’ perception of timeliness of referral. The primary objective of this study was to determine patients’ perception of the timeliness of their own referral to an outpatient palliative care clinic. We also examined the association between perceived timeliness and actual timing of referral. Methods: In this prospective survey, patients with advanced cancer were asked to rate their perceived timeliness of referral using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from much too early to much too late within 7-35 days after their first consultation visit at Supportive Care Center. They were also asked when they felt referral to Supportive Care should occur along 4 points in their disease trajectory. Actual timing of referral was assessed based on survival from the timing of completion of the survey. Results: 200 advanced cancer patients were surveyed. Median age was 64, 111 (55%) were female, and 35 (18%), 32 (16%) and 26 (13%) had gastrointestinal, lung and breast cancer, respectively. The median overall survival was 8.5 months. 144 (72%) patients perceived their referral was “just in time,” 42 (21%) felt it was “late/much too late,” and 14 (7%) felt it was much “too early/early.” 76/193 (39%) felt the referral should occur at the time of diagnosis of cancer, 32 (17%) when they start first-line chemotherapy, 46 (24%) at diagnosis of recurrent disease, 14 (7%) when there are no further treatment options, and 4 (2%) reported never. We found no significant difference in survival among patients who reported their referral was early, just in time, and late (median 9.8 vs. 8.3 vs. 9.0 months, P=0.43). Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer were referred to our outpatient Supportive Care clinic a median of 8.5 months before death. A vast majority of patients perceived the timing of referral was appropriate, and many agreed that referral should occur early in the disease trajectory. The lack of association between perceived timeliness of referral and survival may be related to the ceiling effect and the small number of patients who felt their referral was late.

Consistency of symptom clusters among advanced cancer patients seen at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a tertiary cancer center

2013 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 473-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sriram Yennurajalingam ◽  
Jung Hye Kwon ◽  
Diana L. Urbauer ◽  
David Hui ◽  
Cielito C Reyes-Gibby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Symptom Clusters ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Palliative Care Teams ◽  
Loss Of Appetite ◽  
Outpatient Supportive Care

AbstractObjective:Advanced cancer patients often develop severe physical and psychological symptom clusters (SCs), but limited data exist on their consistency or severity after an outpatient interdisciplinary team consultation led by palliative care specialists. The primary aim of the study was to determine the consistency and severity of SCs in advanced cancer patients in this setting.Method:A total of 1373 patients with advanced cancer who were referred to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center's Outpatient Supportive Care Center between January 2003 and October 2008 with a complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS; 0–10 scale) occurred at initial and first follow-up visit were reviewed (median 14 days, range 1–4 weeks). We used a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to determine whether symptoms changed over time, and a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation to determine SCs at baseline and at first follow-up. The number of factors calculated was determined based upon the number of eigenvalues.Results:The patients' ratings of the following symptoms (mean, SD) at the initial and follow-up visits, respectively, were: fatigue 6.2 (2.3) and 5.7 (2.5, p < 0.0001), pain 5.4 (2.9) and 4.6 (3, p < 0.0001), nausea 2.2 (2.8) and 2.0 (2.6, p < 0.0001), depression 3.0 (2.9) and 2.5 (2.7, p < 0.0001), anxiety 3.4 (3.0) and 2.8 (2.8, p < 0.0001), drowsiness 4.8 (3.1) and 4.4 (3.1, p < 0.0001), dyspnea 3.0 (2.9) and 2.7 (2.8), p < 0.0001), loss of appetite 4.2 (2.7) and 3.9 (2.7, p < 0.0001), sleep disturbances 4.2 (2.6) and 3.8 (2.6, P < 0.0001), and well-being 4.3 (2.5) and 3.9 (2.3, p < 0.0001). Cluster composition differentiated into physical (fatigue, pain, nausea, drowsiness, dyspnea, and loss of appetite) and psychological (anxiety and depression) components at the initial visit, and these two SCs were consistent upon follow-up.Significance of results:We conclude that SCs remain constant between baseline and near-term follow-up but that the severity of those symptoms lessened during that interval. This knowledge may allow palliative care teams to provide more targeted and higher-quality care, but further studies are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document