Indicators of integration of oncology and palliative care programs: an international consensus

BACKGROUND

Recently, the concept of integrating oncology and palliative care has gained wide professional and scientific support; however, a global consensus on what constitutes integration is unavailable. We conducted a Delphi Survey to develop a consensus list of indicators on integration of specialty palliative care and oncology programs for advanced cancer patients in hospitals with ≥100 beds.

METHODS

International experts on integration rated a list of indicators on integration over three iterative rounds under five categories: clinical structure, processes, outcomes, education, and research. Consensus was defined a priori by an agreement of ≥70%. Major criteria (i.e. most relevant and important indicators) were subsequently identified.

RESULTS

Among 47 experts surveyed, 46 (98%), 45 (96%), and 45 (96%) responded over the three rounds. Nineteen (40%) were female, 24 (51%) were from North America, and 14 (30%) were from Europe. Sixteen (34%), 7 (15%), and 25 (53%) practiced palliative care, oncology, and both specialties, respectively. After three rounds of deliberation, the panelists reached consensus on 13 major and 30 minor indicators. Major indicators included two related to structure (consensus 95%-98%), four on processes (88%-98%), three on outcomes (88%-91%), and four on education (93%-100%). The major indicators were considered to be clearly stated (9.8/10), objective (9.4/10), amenable to accurate coding (9.5/10), and applicable to their own countries (9.4/10).

CONCLUSIONS

Our international experts reached broad consensus on a list of indicators of integration, which may be used to identify centers with a high level of integration, and facilitate benchmarking, quality improvement, and research.

The Safety of Discontinuation of Maintenance Therapy for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) Retinitis and Incidence of Immune Recovery Uveitis Following Potent Antiretroviral Therapy

BACKGROUND

Reconstitution of immune function during potent antiretroviral therapy can prompt discontinuation of maintenance cytomegalovirus (CMV) therapy but has also been associated with sight-threatening inflammatory conditions including immune recovery uveitis (IRU).

METHOD

Patients with inactive CMV retinitis and a CD4+ cell count above 100/mm3, receiving CMV therapy and stable combination antiretroviral therapy, were assigned to one of two groups based on willingness to discontinue CMV therapy.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight participants were enrolled: 28 discontinued anti-CMV therapy (Group 1) and 10 continued CMV treatment (Group 2). Median on-study follow-up was 16 months. One Group 1 participant who experienced an increase in plasma HIV viral load and a decline in CD4+ cell count developed confirmed progression of CMV retinitis. Progression or reactivation CMV retinitis was not observed among Group 2. IRU was present at study entry in 3 participants. Six participants in Group 1 and 3 participants in Group 2 developed IRU on-study. CMV viremia was not detected in any participants, and urinary shedding of CMV was intermittent.

CONCLUSION

Recurrence of CMV retinitis following discontinuation of anti-CMV therapy among patients with antiretroviral-induced increases in CD4+ cell count was rare. However, IRU was common in both those who maintained and discontinued anti-CMV therapy.