Geographic variation in palliative care delivery among patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer in the USA: Medicare population-based study

Use of Palliative Care Among Adults With Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure: Insights From a US National Insured Patient Sample

BACKGROUND

Despite the known benefits for individuals with heart failure (HF), incomplete data suggest a low use of palliative care (PC) for HF in the United States. We aimed to investigate the national PC use for adults with HF by determining when they received their first PC consultation (PCC) and the associations with clinical factors following diagnosis of HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a national all-payer electronic health record database to identify adults (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed HF between 2011 and 2018. The proportion of those who received PCC within 5 years following a diagnosis of HF, and associations of time to first PCC with patient characteristics and HF-specific clinical markers were determined. We followed 127 712 patients for a median of 792 days, of whom 18.3% received PCC in 5 years. Shorter time to receive PCC was associated with diagnoses of HF in 2016 to 2018 (compared with 2010-2015: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.421 [95% CI, 1.370-1.475]), advanced HF (aHR, 2.065 [95% CI, 1.940-2.198]), cardiogenic shock (aHR, 2.587 [95% CI, 2.414-2.773]), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (aHR, 5.718 [95% CI, 5.327-6.138]), and visits at academic medical centers (aHR, 1.439 [95% CI, 1.381-1.500]).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an expanded definition of PC and recommendations by professional societies, PC for HF remains low in the United States. Racial and geographic variations in access and use of PC exist for patients with HF. Future studies should interrogate the mechanisms of PC underusage, especially before advanced stages, and address barriers to PC services across the health care system.

Mapping the clinical care pathways for advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients in Victoria: A retrospective cohort study of supportive and palliative care

The lung cancer Optimal Care Pathway recommends supportive care and palliative care integration throughout its various steps, with early referral to appropriate services improving the quality of life in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Using Victorian Lung Cancer Registry data and linked administrative datasets, this retrospective cohort study mapped clinical care pathways of 525 Stage III-IV non-small cell lung cancer patients in Victoria to 11 recommendations in the Optimal Care Pathway, identifying unwarranted variations in clinical care. Supportive care and palliative care delivery were further examined to understand the involvement and timing of specialist care teams. Our findings showed that palliative care utilization is highest at the time of treatment, despite recommendations that it should be provided early after diagnosis to improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Early supportive care screening was observed in half the cohort and almost three-quarters of the patients had been presented at a multidisciplinary meeting. Multidisciplinary meeting presentations and supportive care provide an opportunity to improve communication about palliative care needs and integration into routine clinical practice, such as at the time of treatment planning.

Palliative care use and utilization determinants among patients treated for advanced stage lung cancer care in the community and academic medical setting

PURPOSE

Despite clinical guidelines, palliative care is underutilized during advanced stage lung cancer treatment. To inform interventions to increase its use, patient-level barriers and facilitators (i.e., determinants) need to be characterized, especially among patients living in rural areas or those receiving treatment outside academic medical centers.

METHODS

Between 2020 and 2021, advanced stage lung cancer patients (n = 77; 62% rural; 58% receiving care in the community) completed a one-time survey assessing palliative care use and its determinants. Univariate and bivariate analyses described palliative care use and determinants and compared scores by patient demographic (e.g., rural vs. urban) and treatment setting (e.g., community vs. academic medical center) factors.

RESULTS

Roughly half said they had never met with a palliative care doctor (49.4%) or nurse (58.4%) as part of cancer care. Only 18% said they knew what palliative care was and could explain it; 17% thought it was the same as hospice. After palliative care was distinguished from hospice, the most frequently cited reasons patients stated they would not seek palliative care were uncertainty about what it would offer (65%), concerns about insurance coverage (63%), difficulty attending multiple appointments (60%), and lack of discussion with an oncologist (59%). The most common reasons patients stated they would seek palliative care were a desire to control pain (62%), oncologist recommendation (58%), and coping support for family and friends (55%).

CONCLUSION

Interventions should address knowledge and misconceptions, assess care needs, and facilitate communication between patients and oncologists about palliative care.

Evolution of Palliative Care in the Department of Veterans Affairs: Lessons from an Integrated Health Care Model

Palliative care (PC) is beneficial, however, in many settings it is under-resourced and unable to consistently meet the needs of patients and their families. A lack of national health policy support for PC contributes to underutilization and the low value care experienced by many patients with serious illness at the end of life. Through a series of transformative health care structure and process improvements including developing robust initiatives and promoting institutional culture change, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has significantly improved the quality of PC among veterans. VA's strategic simultaneous top-down and bottom-up approach to develop programs, policies, and initiatives provides important perspectives and deserves attention toward advancing PC in the broader U.S. health care system. Although opportunities for improvement exist, the comprehensive framework within VA should help inform the future of program development and serve as a model for integrated and accountable care organizations to emulate.