scholarly journals Impact of High-Quality Goals-of-Care Discussions on Oncologist Productivity

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. e290-e297
Author(s):  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Ryan Leibrandt ◽  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason P. Gonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Community Hospital ◽  
Rural Setting ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Coaching Model ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE: To study factors that have an impact on the conduct of high-quality goals of care (GoC) discussions and productivity of oncologists among four different practice settings in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Solid-tumor oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to help them facilitate a GoC discussion with newly diagnosed patients with advanced cancer who had a less-than-2-year prognosis. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0 to 10 (0, worst; 10, best) with a score of 8 or better indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Productivity was measured by work revenue value units (wRVUs) per hour for the day each oncologist saw the study patient after imaging. RESULTS: The four sites differed significantly in the socioeconomic patient populations they served and in the characteristics of the oncologists who cared for the patients. Overall median productivity across the four sites was 3.6 wRVU/hour, with the highest observed in the community hospital (4.3 wRVU/hour) and the lowest in the rural setting (2.9 wRVU/hour; P < .001). There was no significant difference in productivity observed when high-quality GOC discussion occurred versus when it did not (3.6 v 3.7 wRVU/hour; P = .86). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in patient populations and oncologists’ characteristics between the four practice settings, the conduct of high-quality GoC discussions did not affect productivity.

Conducting Goals-of-Care Discussions Takes Less Time Than Imagined

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e1499-e1506
Author(s):  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Ryan Leibrandt ◽  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Gonsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Progression ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Coaching Model ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Encounter Time ◽  
Face Time ◽  
To Receive

PURPOSE: To describe the length of encounter during visits where goals-of-care (GoC) discussions were expected to take place. METHODS: Oncologists from community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals were randomly assigned to receive a coaching model of communication skills to facilitate GoC discussions with patients with newly diagnosed advanced solid-tumor cancer with a prognosis of < 2 years. Patients were surveyed after the first restaging visit regarding the quality of the GoC discussion on a scale of 0-10 (0 = worst; 10 = best), with ≥ 8 indicating a high-quality GoC discussion. Visits were audiotaped, and total encounter time was measured. RESULTS: The median face-to-face time oncologists spent during a GoC discussion was 15 minutes (range, 10-20 minutes). Among the different hospital types, there was no significant difference in encounter time. There was no difference in the length of the encounter whether a high-quality GoC discussion took place or not (15 v 14 minutes; P = .9). If there was imaging evidence of cancer progression, the median encounter time was 18 minutes compared with 13 minutes for no progression ( P = .03). In a multivariate model, oncologist productivity, patient age, and Medicare coverage affected duration of the encounter. CONCLUSION: Oncologists can complete high-quality GoC discussions in 15 minutes. These data refute the common misperception that discussing such matters with patients with advanced cancer requires significant time.

Does oncologist productivity impact goals of care discussions?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21675-e21675
Author(s):  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Natalia Egorova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Imaging Results ◽  
Time Required ◽  
The Impact

e21675 Background: Oncologists are pressed to care for higher volumes of advanced cancer patients. Interviews with oncologists revealed their concern that goals of care (GoC) discussions take time. We studied the impact of oncologists’ productivity on their conduct of meaningful GOC discussions with patients. Methods: At academic, municipal and rural hospitals, we recruited & randomized solid tumor oncologists & their newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients with <2 year prognosis to participate in a RCT testing a coaching model of communication skills training. All oncologists were encouraged to have GoC discussions at the visit after imaging to restage. Patients are surveyed after that post-imaging visit. We define GoC discussions as patient report that their doctor talked about preferences for cancer treatment and clarified things most important to them given their illness. We measure quality of GoC discussions by patients’ rating. Productivity was measured by work revenue value units (wRVUs) per hour for the day each oncologist saw the study patient post-imaging. Results: We enrolled 22/25 oncologists (88%); to date 77 patients completed surveys. Productivity did not vary significantly by hospital though oncologists generated greater wRVUs at the municipal hospital (p=0.2203). Overall, 36% of patients report having a high quality GoC discussion. There was no significant relationship between level of productivity and conduct of high quality GoC discussion. Multivariate model controlling for hospital and intervention found no relationship between productivity and conduct of high quality GoC discussion. Conclusions: Despite concerns about the time required to conduct GoC discussions, we found that productivity did not affect oncologists’ ability to conduct high quality GoC discussions nor did conduct of a GoC reduce productivity. The prevalence of high quality GoC discussions was low. [Table: see text]

Disparities in length of goals of care conversations between oncologists and patients with advanced cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 19-19
Author(s):  
Cardinale B. Smith ◽  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Natalia Egorova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Coaching Model ◽  
Quality Cancer Care ◽  
Progression Of Disease ◽  
Encounter Time

19 Background: Studies show minority patients have inadequate discussions about treatment, prognosis, and goals of care (GoC) which translate into substandard treatment, worse quality of life, and poorer survival than whites. However, there is a paucity of data on the quality of communication among minority patients with advanced cancer. We studied factors impacting the oncologists’ time spent during GoC discussion visits with their minority and non-minority patients. Methods: At community, academic, municipal, and rural hospitals, we recruited and randomized solid tumor oncologists and their newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients with <2-year prognosis to participate in a RCT, testing a coaching model of communication skills training. Patients were surveyed after post-imaging visits. These visits were audiotaped and median encounter time recorded. We define GoC discussions as patients report that their doctor talked about preferences for cancer treatment and clarified things most important to them given their illness. Comparisons were made using non-parametric tests. We used mix-effect models for risk adjustment. Results: For 22 randomized oncologists in the study,142 post-imaging encounters were audiotaped. Of these, 38% were non-Hispanic White, 32% non-Hispanic Black and 19% Hispanic. The median face to face time oncologists spent during a GoC encounter with an advanced cancer minority patient was 12 minutes compared to 17 minutes for non-minorities (p=0.002). Median encounter times varied between the four sites, ranging from 10 minutes to 18 minutes, p=0.009. For visits that took place after progression of disease, duration of visit was 18 minutes versus 13 minutes if there were no progression, p=0.007. After controlling for clustering of the patients within the hospitals and progression of disease, time spent with minority patients remained less than with non-minority patients (15 min vs. 18 min, p=0.02). Conclusions: Oncologists' time spent conducting GoC conversations with minority cancer patients is significantly less than with non-minority patients. Evaluating factors that contribute to this disparity is critically important to ensure minority patients receive high-quality cancer care. Clinical trial information: NCT02374255.

Medical visit time and predictors in health facilities: a mega systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 373-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sakineh Hajebrahimi ◽  
Ali Janati ◽  
Morteza Arab-Zozani ◽  
Mobin Sokhanvar ◽  
Elaheh Haghgoshayie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Visit Time ◽  
Medical Visit ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Purpose Visit time is a crucial aspect of patient–physician interaction; its inadequacy can negatively impact the efficiency of treatment and diagnosis. In addition, visit time is a fundamental demand of patients, and it is one of the rights of every patient. The purpose of this paper is to determine factors influencing the consultation length of physicians and to compare consultation length in different countries. Design/methodology/approach MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched. In addition, references of references were checked, and publication lists of individual scholars in the field were examined. We used data sources up to June 2018, without language restriction. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Version (CMA) 3.0. Findings Of 16,911 identified studies, 189 studies were assessed of which 125 cases (67 percent) have been conducted in the USA. A total of 189 studies, 164 (86.77 percent) involved face-to face-consultations. The effects of three variables, physician gender, patient gender, and type of consultation were analyzed. According to moderate and strong evidence studies, no significant difference was found in the consultation lengths of female and male doctors (Q=42.72, df=8, I2=81.27, p=0.891) and patients’ gender (Q=55.98, df=11, I2=80.35, p=0.314). In addition, no significant difference was found in the telemedicine or face-to-face visits (Q=41.25, df=5, I2=87.88, p=0.170). Originality/value In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all of physicians’ visits in 34 countries were surveyed. The evidence suggests that specified variables do not influence the length of consultations. Good relationship is essential to a safe and high-quality consultation and referral process. A high-quality consultation can improve decisions and quality of visits, treatment effectiveness, efficiency of service, quality of care, patient safety and physician and patient satisfaction.

scholarly journals DISCORDANCE IN GOALS OF CARE BETWEEN PATIENTS WITH ADVANCED CANCER AND THEIR CAREGIVERS: DOES AGE PLAY A ROLE?

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S54-S54
Author(s):  
Amy R Lipson ◽  
Sara Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Cancer is considered a family disease as the caregivers (CG’s) role extends beyond providing care as they can also help facilitate treatment decisions. While much has been reported in the literature about patient (PT) goals of care (GoC), little is known about discordance between PT and CG GoC and the impact of PT age. The variables of interest were PT and CG identified GoC using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS) with anchors of quality of life (0) and survival (100). Discordance was defined as a &gt; 40 point difference on the VAS. The GoC data reported here were those obtained at enrollment and prior to subject’s death. A sample of 235 PTs and CGs of PTs diagnosed with advanced cancers were included in the study. Mean age for the PTs was 64.7 (SD=10.5, range =21-88) with 54% being &gt; 65. At enrollment, 28.7% of the PT-CG pairs of those PTs 65 years (X2 (1)=1.06, p=.304). At death, 61.8% (X2 (1)=31.04 &lt;.001, Φ=.49) with discord at enrollment had discord at death. For patients who were older, 66.7% who had discord at enrollment also had discord at death and for patients

Parenteral Hydration in Patients with Advanced Cancer (DRAFT)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Eduardo Paiva ◽  
Bianca Sakamoto Ribeiro Paiva
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Clinical Case ◽  
Fluid Intake ◽  
Hospice Care ◽  
Important Study ◽  
The Common ◽  
To Receive

There has been much debate about the role of parenteral hydration in the last weeks and days of life. In this important study, 129 patients with advanced cancer receiving hospice care with mild to moderate dehydration who were no longer able to maintain adequate fluid intake were randomized to receive parenteral hydration of either 1 L or 100 ml of normal saline per day subcutaneously. Parenteral hydration did not significantly improve the symptoms related to dehydration, the occurrence of delirium, fatigue, quality of life, and overall survival. At the end of the chapter, a clinical case leads readers to consider the common practice of parenteral hydration.

scholarly journals Influence of lucerne and meadow hay quality on the digestibility of nutrients in the roe deer

2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (No. 2) ◽  
pp. 74-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Sommer ◽  
M. Vodňanský ◽  
P. Petrikovič ◽  
R. Požgaj
Keyword(s):  
Organic Matter ◽  
Crude Protein ◽  
Roe Deer ◽  
Live Weight ◽  
Nutrient Digestibility ◽  
Crude Fibre ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Nitrogen Free Extract ◽  
Significant Difference

It was confirmed in metabolic experiments with 4 individuals of roe deer (2 males and 2 females with the live weight of 20.8 and 17.9 kg, respectively) that due to the animals&rsquo; selective choice of a part of feeds there was no significant difference in the intake of lucerne hay of different quality and high-quality meadow hay (515.86 &plusmn; 66.97 and 597.82 &plusmn; 94.87 g, respectively). However, different quality of lucerne hay influenced the animals&rsquo; intake of crude protein and crude fibre. When the animals were fed meadow hay, they took in significantly less crude protein and fibre and significantly more nitrogen-free extract, fat and ash. Digestibility of crude protein was observed to be significantly decreased in hay of lower quality (by 10.1%). Digestibility coefficients for crude protein, crude fibre, organic matter and fat were significantly lower in grass hay compared to lucerne hay. Based on the coefficients of nutrient digestibility it can be stated that meadow hay, even if of excellent quality, is not a suitable supplement for the roe deer. &nbsp;

scholarly journals Effects of a Communication Intervention Randomized Controlled Trial to Enable Goals-of-Care Discussions

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (9) ◽  
pp. e1015-e1028
Author(s):  
Nina A. Bickell ◽  
Anthony L. Back ◽  
Kerin Adelson ◽  
Jason P. Gonsky ◽  
Natalia Egorova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
High Care ◽  
Patient Values ◽  
Aggressive Care

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced cancer often have a poor understanding of cancer incurability, which correlates with more aggressive treatment near the end of life (EOL). We sought to determine whether training oncologists to elicit patient values for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions will increase and improve these discussions. We explored its impact on use of aggressive care at EOL. METHODS: We enrolled and used block randomization to assign 92% of solid tumor oncologists to 2-hour communication skills training and four coaching sessions. We surveyed 265 patient with newly diagnosed advanced cancer with < 2-year life expectancy at baseline and 6 months. We assessed prevalence and quality of GoC communication, change in communication skills, and use of aggressive care in the last month of life. RESULTS: Intervention (INT) oncologists’ (n = 11) skill to elicit patient values increased (27%-55%), while usual care (UC) oncologists’ (n = 11) skill did not (9%-0%; P = .01). Forty-eight percent (n = 74) INT v 51% (n = 56) UC patients reported a GoC discussion ( P = .61). There was no difference in the prevalence or quality of GoC communication between groups (global odds ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.23). Within 6 months, there was no difference in deaths (18 INT v 16 UC; P = .51), mean hospitalizations (0.47 INT v 0.42 UC; P = .63), intensive care unit admissions (5% INT v 9% UC; P = .65), or chemotherapy (26% INT v 16% UC; P = .39). CONCLUSION: Use of a coaching model focused on teaching oncologists to elicit patient values improved that skill but did not increase prevalence or quality of GoC discussions among patients with advanced cancer. There was no impact on high care utilization at EOL.

Prospective evaluation of epoetin-alfa (EA) vs epoetin-beta (EB) vs darbepoetin (DE) in anemic cancer patients (pts) receiving chemotherapy (CT): Early results of an independent observational survey by the Italian ReVERTO network

2006 ◽  
Vol 24 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18548-18548
Author(s):  
C. F. Pollera ◽  
F. Nelli ◽  
T. Gamucci ◽  
I. Sperduti ◽  
A. M. Giampaolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Schedule ◽  
Weekly Schedule ◽  
Severe Anemia ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Therapy Efficacy ◽  
Early Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Major Data

18548 Background: Direct comparison of EA vs EB vs DE has never been performed. In order to define the efficacy, impact on quality of life (QL) and pt’s preference, a prospective observational comparison of erythropoietic agents has been carried out. Methods: Anemic pts (hgb <11 gr/dL) scheduled to receive at least 3 cycles of CT were stratified according to 5 factors (platinum-based CT vs non-platinum; hgb ≤9,5 vs >9,5; PS ≤0–1 vs >1; previous CT vs upfront CT; and previous antianemic therapy vs not) and were autonomously assigned by 15 investigators to EA (3 times a week) or EB (3 times a week and only in pts receiving platinum-based CT) or DE (once a week) therapy. Efficacy by hgb level changes and transfusion needing was evaluated after each cycle of CT, QL by Fact-An questionnaire after 1 and 3 cycles of CT, and pt’s preference for standard vs weekly schedule at least once thereafter. Results: From 09/04 to 12/05 177 pts were recruited: 41%, 39% and 20% were assigned to DE, EA and EB, respectively. Severe anemia at baseline (≤9,5) was reported in 29% of pts, whereas 47% received platinum-based CT. Stratifying categories were well balanced among the treatment groups. Baseline mean hgb values were 9.7, 9.9, and 10 for DE, EA and EB, respectively. As of the general population, DE produced higher subsequent mean hgb increase in respect to EA and EB (Mean increase [gr/dL] for DE: 0.84, 1.58, 2.03; EA: 0.34, 0.84, 1.68; EB: 0.76, 1.54, 1.17). No difference was observed neither among pts receiving platinum-based CT, (mean increase: DE: 0.34, 1.76, 2.8; EA: 0.7, 1.27, 2.14; EB: 0.76, 1.54, 1.71) nor among pts with severe anemia at baseline (DE: 0.98, 2, 2.6; EA: 1.24, 1.94, 3.13; EB: 1.25, 2.25, 2.75). Transfusion needing ranged from 7% for DE to 3% for EB without any significant difference. To date 67% of pts completed at least one subsequent QL valuation, whereas 62% gave their preference for treatment schedule. Conclusions: Early results of our prospective analysis show that antianemic therapy with D is at least as effective as standard schedule of EA or EB. Efficacy of DE seems confirmed in pts with bad prognostic categories for anemia. Major data on QL and pt’s preference will be presented. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Does coaching goals of care discussion skills make a difference?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6586-6586
Author(s):  
Nina A. Bickell ◽  
Kerin B. Adelson ◽  
Jason Parker Gonsky ◽  
Sofya Pintova ◽  
Benjamin Philip Levy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Skills Training ◽  
Cancer Prognosis ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Coaching Model ◽  
Model C ◽  
The Impact

6586 Background: Advanced cancer patients often have a poor understanding of their cancer prognosis. Goals of Care (GoC) discussions provide information about the cancer, its treatment & prognosis and elicit patient values. Little is known about the best ways to enhance patient understanding, clarify values and move GoC discussions earlier in the disease process. We report the effect of coaching oncologists on GoC discussions. Methods: We recruited oncologists & their advanced cancer patients with < 2 year prognosis to a RCT testing a coaching model communication skills training. Patients were surveyed after their post-imaging visit. We define GoC discussions as patient report that their doctor talked about their cancer prognosis and clarified things most important to them given their disease. Outcome variables assess the impact of GoC on patients’ knowledge on what to expect and clarity of values. Results: We enrolled 22/25 (88%) oncologists and 70% of eligible patients of whom 96 (55%) completed a survey. On average, doctors were 44 yrs old (32-66) and in practice 14.5 yrs (5-40). Patients’ mean age was 62 yrs (20-95), 40% females, 58% white, 24% Latino & 22 % black. Overall, 2/3 of patients reported their treatment’s goal was to cure their cancer; 14% reported cure to be unlikely. Patients felt more knowledgeable (79% vs 21%; p = 0.02) when their doctors discussed treatments, side effects & quality of life. When patients were asked about things important to them, they report being a bit clearer about their values (65% vs 35%; p = 0.16). Compared to controls, intervention patients felt more knowledgeable (78% v 63%; p = 0.17) but did not feel clearer about their values (60% v 54%; p = 0.59). Multivariate modeling found that poor health literacy (OR = 0.2; 95%CI: 0.07-0.82), having a GoC discussion (OR = 10.2; 1.7-63.1) and being in the intervention group (OR = 8.8; 1.4-55.2) significantly affected knowledge (model c = 0.88; p < 0.01). However, discussing what’s important to patients did not help patients feel clearer about their values (OR = 2.7; 0.6-12.2; model c = 0.82; p < 0.05). Conclusions: Using a coaching model to teach oncologists communication skills may improve patients’ understanding of what to expect with their cancer but does not impact their clarity of values. Clinical trial information: NCT02374255.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document