Standards for Palliative Care Delivery in Oncology Settings

Systematic review of conceptual and theoretical frameworks used in palliative care and end-of-life care research studies

BACKGROUND

Frameworks are the conceptual underpinnings of the study. Both conceptual and theoretical frameworks are often used in palliative and end-of-life care studies to help with study design, guide, and conduct investigations. While an increasing number of investigators have included frameworks in their study, to date, there has not been a comprehensive review of frameworks that were utilized in palliative and end-of-life care research studies.

AIM

To summarize conceptual and theoretical frameworks used in palliative and end-of-life care research studies. And to synthesize which of eight domains from the National Consensus Project's Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care (fourth edition) each framework belongs to.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Four electronic databases (EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, PsychINFO, and PubMed) were searched from July 2010 to September 2021.

RESULTS

A total 2231 citations were retrieved, of which 44 articles met eligibility. Across primary studies, 33,801 study participants were captured. Twenty-six investigators (59.1%) proposed previously unpublished frameworks. In 10 studies, investigators modified existing frameworks, mainly to overcome inherent limitations. In eight studies, investigators utilized existing frameworks referenced in previously published studies. There were eight orientations identified among 44 frameworks we reviewed (e.g. system, patient, patient-doctor).

CONCLUSIONS

We examined palliative and end-of-life research studies to identify and characterize conceptual or theoretical frameworks proposed or utilized. Of 44 frameworks we reviewed, 21 studies (47.7%) were aligned with a Clinical Practice Guideline's single domain, while the rest two or more of eight guidelines in quality palliative care domains.

Cancer patient perspectives regarding preparedness for end-of-life care: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

The extent to which patients feel prepared for end-of-life (EOL) may be associated with important clinical outcomes. Despite growing interest in the concept of "preparedness," however, there is insufficient information about what cancer patients actually need to feel prepared. Such information is foundational for patient-centered care, theory-building, and instrument development.

DESIGN

This qualitative study examined patient perspectives regarding preparedness for EOL care.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

In-depth interviews were conducted with patients with advanced malignancies and limited life expectancies. Participants were drawn from a large academic cancer center and had a diverse range of malignancies. Thematic text analysis was used to analyze the data.

FINDINGS

Six overarching themes emerged. These included readiness to manage concerns about: (1) EOL planning (e.g., goals of care, location of care); (2) interactions with healthcare providers (e.g., communication, symptom control); (3) interactions with family/friends (e.g., perceived burden, support); (4) emotional well-being (e.g., existential distress, fulfillment); (5) spiritual well-being (e.g., spiritual comfort, congregational support); and (6) financial well-being (e.g., medical expenses, estate planning).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings highlight areas that patients themselves regard as critical for a sense of preparedness for EOL care. Participants emphasized broader concerns than those previously construed as facets of patient preparedness, and these domains offer modifiable targets for intervention.

Implementation of NCCN Palliative Care Guidelines by member institutions

Increasingly, evidence suggests the integration of palliative care (PC) with standard oncologic care can yield substantial benefits. As part of an effort to improve the PC of cancer patients, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has developed clinical practice guidelines for PC that promote access to quality, evidence-based PC. This study sought to characterize current implementation of the guidelines by NCCN member institutions. Institutional representatives appointed to the NCCN Palliative Care Guidelines Panel were asked to complete an online survey in the spring of 2014. The survey focused on availability of PC services, screening and referral practices for PC, PC education, and quality improvement programs. The survey was completed by representatives from 21 of 25 NCCN member institutions (84 %). A majority routinely provides PC services via interdisciplinary teams; 52 % routinely inform patients of the availability, elements, and benefits of PC. The guidelines are most often used to guide clinical practice; only 10 % reported using the guidelines to formally screen for PC needs and/or make referrals to PC specialists. Among the 62 % of institutions that screen any patients using any available criteria, when a patient screens positive for PC needs, a referral to a PC specialist is made less than half the time. Implementation of PC Guidelines is incomplete and various aspects of the guidelines, such as the recommendation to screen all patients for PC needs, are applied inconsistently. Despite this, most institutions provide PC services in a manner consistent with the guidelines. Greater implementation of the guidelines' recommendations is needed.

Developing a clinical pathway for the identification and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: an online Delphi consensus process

PURPOSE

People with cancer and their families experience high levels of psychological morbidity. However, many cancer services do not routinely screen patients for anxiety and depression, and there are no standardized clinical referral pathways. This study aimed to establish consensus on elements of a draft clinical pathway tailored to the Australian context.

METHODS

A two-round Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus among Australian oncology and psycho-oncology clinicians about the validity of 39 items that form the basis of a clinical pathway that includes screening, assessment, referral and stepped care management of anxiety and depression in the context of cancer. The expert panel comprised 87 multidisciplinary clinician members of the Australian Psycho-oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG). Respondents rated their level of agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as >80% of respondents scoring within 2 points on the Likert scale.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached for 21 of 39 items, and a further 15 items approached consensus except for specific contextual factors, after two Delphi rounds. Formal screening for anxiety and depression, a stepped care model of management and recommendations for inclusion of length of treatment and time to review were endorsed. Consensus was not reached on items related to roles and responsibilities, particularly those not applicable across cancer settings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified a core set of evidence- and consensus-based principles considered essential to a stepped care model of care incorporating identification, referral and management of anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients.

Implementation of national comprehensive cancer network evidence-based guidelines to prevent and treat cancer-related infections

Clinical practice guidelines are an important result of evidence-based research. However, current clinical practice remains out of step with the rapid pace of research advancements. Often, decades pass before research is translated into clinical practice. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has created evidence-based clinical guidelines to promote effective clinical practice. Formerly, the NCCN established guidelines to reduce cancer-related infections only for neutropenic patients; however, they have expanded their guidelines beyond neutropenia to prevent and treat cancer-related infections. Implementing scientific evidence into clinical practice is challenging and complex, and healthcare professionals should understand barriers to implementing clinical practice guidelines to ensure successful translation into practice. This article provides a brief review of NCCN guidelines and describes common barriers encountered during implementation. In addition, a conceptual framework is offered to help identify and address potential concerns before and after adoption of guidelines.

Consensus-based standards for best supportive care in clinical trials in advanced cancer

Best supportive care is poorly defined in clinical trials, and a standard framework for delivery of such care is needed, using best available evidence and allowing replication of studies. We convened a panel of 36 experts to develop consensus statements via the Delphi method. The first round included open-ended questions; subsequent rounds sought to develop consensus-based standards. Consensus was assessed by use of a 5-point Likert agreement scale; more than 70% of panellists had to give a score of 5 to meet a-priori levels of consensus. The panel identified four key domains of best supportive care in clinical trials: multidisciplinary care; supportive care documentation; symptom assessment; and symptom management. Consensus was reached on 11 statements within these four domains. For example, 24 (96%) panellists recommended that the intervals between symptom assessments should be identical for control and experimental groups. Availability of resources was cited as a challenge to implementation of best supportive care standards.

Supportive care treatment guidelines: value, limitations, and opportunities

Evidence-based guidelines in clinical oncology practice are now prominent, with emphasis on clinical, health outcome and economic perspectives. Given the complexity of cancer management, a multidisciplinary approach is essential. Evidence-based guidelines to address supportive cancer care have merged expert opinion, systematic evaluation of clinical and research data, and meta-analyses of clinical trials. Production of supportive care guidelines by the interdisciplinary team is dependent on sufficient high-quality research studies. Once published, it is essential they be customized at institutional and national levels. Implementation in clinical practice is perhaps the greatest challenge. Optimal management occurs through integration of country-specific issues, including care access, healthcare resources, information technology, and national coordination of healthcare practices. The purpose of this article is to: (1) provide an overview of interdisciplinary cancer management using evidence-based guidelines; (2) delineate the theory and practice of guideline dissemination, utilization and outcome assessment; and (3) recommend future research strategies to maximize guidelines use in clinical practice.