Conformance with supportive care quality measures is associated with better quality of life in patients with cancer receiving palliative care

Assessment of symptom intensity and psychological well-being of patients with advanced cancer undergoing palliative care in a Brazilian public hospital: A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The characterization of clinical-emotional aspects of advanced cancer patients is essential for palliative care. To date, there is scarce information regarding the socio-demographic and clinical profiles, as well as the quality of care given to hospitalized patients under this condition, particularly in South American countries. The objectives of this study were to analyze the socio-demographic profile, symptoms (including psychological well-being), and the quality of life of advanced cancer patients admitted to the oncology ward of the General Hospital of the University of Campinas, Brazil.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients were invited to fill the selected questionnaires such as Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS). Descriptive analyses were performed, regarding socio-demographic profile, symptoms, level of information over treatment aims, and quality-of-life scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine patients were included, of whom 29 were male and 30 female, with a mean age of 58 years. Overall, 31.9% presented pain at the time of the interview, 52.5% depression, and 76.3% anxiety. The median individual scores for ESAS and POS (and interquartile range) were, respectively, 27 (17-41) and 14 (9-19). Patients with previous knowledge of treatment objectives reported worse depression scores in the ESAS (median 2 vs. 0, p 0.02), even when correcting for possible confounders.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

In contrast to current literature, in which pain is a prevalent report, depression and anxiety were more evident in this specific population of hospitalized patients. This framework reflects the need for valuing not only physical but also emotional symptoms to achieve the integrality of care.

The Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Quality of and Access to Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Measuring performance for palliative care is complex as care is delivered in many sites, over time and jointly to the patient and family. Measures of structural processes do not necessarily capture aspects that are important to patients and families nor reflect holistic multidisciplinary outcomes of care. This article focuses on the question as to whether measurement of patient-reported outcome measures improves the outcomes of quality and access to palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To review the international evidence that measurement of indicators of desired outcomes improves the quality of and access to palliative care, in order to apply them to the Canadian context.

DESIGN

Rapid review.

SETTING

Canadian context.

FINDINGS

This review identified six systematic reviews and forty-seven studies that describe largely national efforts to arrive at a consensus as to what needs to be measured to assess quality of palliative care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming more prevalent, with emerging evidence to suggest that their measurement improves outcomes that are important to patients. Several Canadian initiatives are in place, including the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer's efforts, in conjunction with other partners, to develop common quality measures. Results from Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative demonstrate that patient-centered improvements in palliative care can be measured by using patient-reported outcomes derived at the point of care and delivered nationally.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of quality palliative and end-of-life care is very complex. It requires that both administrative data and PROMs be assessed to reflect outcomes that are important to patients and families. Australia's national initiative is a promising exemplar for continued work in this area.

Development of Health Pathways to Standardize Cancer Care Pathways Informed by Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinical Practice Guidelines

PURPOSE

High-quality symptom management and supportive care are essential components of comprehensive cancer care. We aimed to describe the development of an evidence-based automated decisional algorithm for patients with cancer that had specific, actionable, clinical, evidence-based recommendations to improve patient care, communication, and management.

METHODS

We reviewed existing literature and clinical practice guidelines to identify priority domains of patient care and potential clinical recommendations. Two multidisciplinary clinical advisory groups used a two-stage consensus decision-making approach to determine domains of care and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and subsequently developed automated algorithms with clear clinical recommendations amendable to intervention in clinical settings.

RESULTS

Algorithms were developed to inform management of patient symptoms, distress, and unmet needs. Three PRO measures were chosen: Distress Thermometer and problem checklist, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Screening Tool 9. PRO items were mapped to five domains of patient well-being: physical, emotional, practical, social and family, and maintenance of well-being. A total of 15 actionable clinical recommendations tailored to specific issues of concern were established.

CONCLUSION

Using automated algorithms and clinical recommendations provides a platform for streamlining and systematizing the use of PROs to inform risk-stratified guideline-informed care. The series of algorithms, which set out systematized care pathways for the clinical care of patients with cancer, can be used to potentially inform patient-centered care.

Utilization of Prostate Cancer Quality Metrics for Research and Quality Improvement: A Structured Review

BACKGROUND

The shift toward value-based care in the United States emphasizes the role of quality measures in payment models. Many diseases, such as prostate cancer, have a proliferation of quality measures, resulting in resource burden and physician burnout. This study aimed to identify and summarize proposed prostate cancer quality measures and describe their frequency and use in peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

The PubMed database was used to identify quality measures relevant to prostate cancer care, and included articles in English through April 2018. A gray literature search for other documents was also conducted. After the selection process of the pertinent articles, measure characteristics were abstracted, and uses were summarized for the 10 most frequently utilized measures in the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 26 articles were identified for review. Of the 71 proposed prostate cancer quality measures, only 47 were used, and less than 10% of these were endorsed by the National Quality Forum. Process measures were most frequently reported (84.5%). Only 6 outcome measures (8.5%) were proposed-none of which were among the most frequently utilized.

CONCLUSION

Although a high number of proposed prostate cancer quality measures are reported in the literature, few were assessed, and the majority of these were non-endorsed process measures. Process measures were most commonly assessed; outcome measures were rarely evaluated. In a step to close the quality chasm, a "top 5" core set of quality measures for prostate cancer care, including structure, process, and outcomes measures, is suggested. Future studies should consider this comprehensive set of quality measures.

Comparing the Palliative Care Needs of Those With Cancer to Those With Common Non-Cancer Serious Illness

BACKGROUND

Historically, palliative care has been focused on those with cancer. Although these ties persist, palliative care is rapidly integrating into the care of patients with common, non-cancer serious illnesses. Despite this, the bulk of literature informing palliative care practices stems from the care of cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

We compared functionality, advanced care planning, hospital admissions, prognosis, quality of life, pain, dyspnea, fatigue, and depression between patients with cancer and three non-cancer diagnoses-end-stage renal disease (ESRD), heart failure (HF), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the characteristics and symptoms of patient's with ESRD, HF, COPD, and cancer at time of first specialty palliative care referral. Using a web-based point of care quality assessment and reporting tool, Quality Data and Collection Tool-Palliative care, this analysis evaluated all eligible patients who received a palliative care consultation between October 1, 2012 and November 25, 2014. Data were obtained from 13 participating sites. The primary outcome for the study was functionality using the palliative performance scale. Hospital admission in the last 30 days, prognosis, patient's understanding of prognosis, advanced care planning including code status and appointed decision maker, pain, fatigue, depression, and dyspnea were also evaluated as secondary outcomes. We tested for an association between our outcomes with disease type (cancer vs. non-cancer) fitting multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We found that the patients with primary diagnoses other than cancer were less functional at time of referral (odds ratio: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1, 2.3; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with COPD, ESRD, and HF were less functional and more likely to be hospitalized at time of referral to palliative care than cancer patients. These findings may be reflective of the slower and more varied trajectory of non-cancer serious illness. One aim of palliative care for those with non-cancer severe illness should be directed toward improving and assisting with functionality and decreasing frequency of hospital admissions. These interventions could take place in the palliative care office, but could also be integrated into hospital discharge plans.

Comparing Unmet Needs to Optimize Quality: Characterizing Inpatient and Outpatient Palliative Care Populations

CONTEXT

Palliative care (PC) consultation services are available in most hospitals; outpatient services are rapidly growing to meet the needs of patients at earlier stages of the disease trajectory.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the unmet needs of PC patients by location of care to better characterize these populations.

METHODS

This cross-sectional secondary analysis examined patients receiving hospital and outpatient-based PC across 10 community and academic organizations in the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance. We identified unmet symptom, advance care planning, and functional needs within our database from October 23, 2012 to January 22, 2015. Kruskal-Wallis, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests were performed.

RESULTS

We evaluated 633 unique patients. Inpatients (n = 216) were older than outpatients (n = 417; 73 vs. 64 years, P < 0.0001). Seventy-six inpatients (38%) had a Palliative Performance Scale score ≤30%; no outpatients did (P < 0.0001). More inpatients rated their quality of life as poor compared with outpatients (39% vs. 21%, P = 0.0001). We found that outpatients presented with more unresolved pain than inpatients (58.5% vs. 4.1%, P < 0.0001). Conversely, more inpatients presented with unresolved anorexia (52.3% vs. 35.8%, P = 0.002) and dysphagia (28.1% vs. 5.4%, P < 0.0001) than outpatients. We found that inpatient setting was independently associated with lower performance status (odds ratio = 0.068, 95% confidence interval = 0.038-0.120, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with inpatients, outpatients are more burdened by pain at first PC encounter yet experience higher quality of life and better performance status. These findings suggest different clinician skillsets, and assessments are needed depending on the setting of PC consultation.

The level of association between functional performance status measures and patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The process of assessing patient symptoms and functionality using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional performance status (FPS) is an essential aspect of patient-centered oncology research and care. However, PRO and FPS measures are often employed separately or inconsistently combined. Thus, the purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the level of association between PRO and FPS measures to determine their differential or combined utility.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using five databases (1966 to February 2014) to identify studies that described an association between PRO and FPS. Studies were excluded if they were non-cancer specific, did not include adults aged 18 or older, or were review articles. Publications were selected for review by consensus among two authors, with a third author arbitrating as needed.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies met inclusion criteria. FPS was primarily assessed by clinicians using the ECOG Performance Status or Karnofsky Performance Status measures. PROs were captured using a variety of measures, with numerous domains assessed (e.g., pain, fatigue, and general health status). Concordance between PROs and FPS measures was widely variable, falling in the low to moderate range (0.09-0.72).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite consistency in the method of capture of PROs or FPS, domain capture varied considerably across reviewed studies. Irrespective of the method of capturing PROs or FPS, the quantified level of association between these two areas was moderate at best, providing evidence that FPS and PRO assessments offer unique information to assist clinicians in their decision-making.

Quality measures for palliative care in patients with cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Quality assessment is a critical component of determining the value of medical services, including palliative care. Characterization of the current portfolio of measures that assess the quality of palliative care delivered in oncology is necessary to identify gaps and inform future measure development.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed and the gray literature for quality measures relevant to palliative care. Measures were categorized into National Quality Forum domains and reviewed for methodology of development and content. Measures were additionally analyzed to draw summative conclusions on scope and span.

RESULTS

Two hundred eighty-four quality measures within 13 measure sets were identified. The most common domains for measure content were Physical Aspects of Care (35%) and Structure and Processes of Care (22%). Of symptom-related measures, pain (36%) and dyspnea (26%) were the most commonly addressed. Spiritual (4%) and Cultural (1%) Aspects of Care were least represented domains. Generally, measures addressed processes of care, did not delineate benchmarks for success, and often did not specify intended interventions to address unmet needs. This was most evident regarding issues of psychosocial and spiritual assessment and management.

CONCLUSION

Within a large cohort of quality measures for palliative, care is often a focus on physical manifestations of disease and adverse effects of therapy; relatively little attention is given to the other aspects of suffering commonly observed among patients with advanced cancer, including psychological, social, and spiritual distress.