Perceptions of Palliative Care Among Patients With Kidney Allograft Dysfunction: A Qualitative Study

Rationale & Objective

Nearly half of kidney transplant recipients develop allograft failure within 10 years of transplantation and experience high mortality, significant symptom burden, and complex communication challenges. These patients may benefit from palliative care, but palliative care is infrequently provided in this population. This study explores palliative care perceptions and needs among patients with poorly functioning and declining kidney allografts.

Study Design

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews.

Setting & Participants

Adult kidney transplant recipients with a glomerular filtration rate of <20 mL/min/1.73m2 followed at a single transplant center were interviewed from April 2022 to November 2022.

Analytical Approach

An interdisciplinary team, including nephrology, palliative care, and surgery, conducted a thematic analysis.

Results

Twelve participants (3 women, 9 men; 9 White, 2 Black, and 1 Hispanic patient) were interviewed. The median age of participants was 59 (IQR 48-73). At 6 months postinterview, 7 participants had resumed dialysis, 1 participant had been retransplanted, and 1 participant was deceased. Most participants had not heard of palliative care and those who had equated it with end-of-life care. Participants reported that emotional distress, particularly pervasive concern about the worsening of their kidney disease, was their most significant priority related to unmet palliative care needs. They also desired more discussion with their care team about future quality of life and lifespan. Participants described high trust in their transplant teams, suggesting that palliative care integration with these teams would be well-received.

Limitations

Limitations include recruitment from a single institution, lack of subject familiarity with palliative care, and limited racial and ethnic diversity among participants.

Conclusions

Patients with declining kidney allografts have heterogeneous, unmet palliative care needs, including emotional symptoms and a desire for better prognostic awareness. Our results suggest that patients are largely unaware of palliative care and may benefit from practice models in which transplant teams integrate palliative care education and timely palliative care engagement.

What do cancer patients experience of the simultaneous care clinic? Results of a cross-sectional study on patient care satisfaction

BACKGROUND

Veneto Institute of Oncology has activated a simultaneous care outpatient clinic (SCOC) in which cancer patients with advanced-stage cancer are evaluated by oncologist and palliative care specialists. This cross-sectional study investigated patients' perceptions of the quality of this service.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An ad-hoc self-administered questionnaire, developed by SCOC team, was used to assess the satisfaction of patients admitted at SCOC consultation. The questionnaire, in addition to the socio-demographic questions, contains eight questions with the Likert scale: time dedicated, feel listened to, feel understood, feel free to speak openly and to express doubts and concerns, feeling about information and indication received, level of empathy of health care and quality of the relationship, level of professional/quality of performance and utility of consultation, and one open-ended question. The questionnaire has been proposed to all 174 consecutively admitted patients at SCOC.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-two patients filled in the questionnaire: 66.7% were male, median age was 71 years, 88.3% had metastatic disease. The time dedicated to SCOC consultation was judged more than adequate (55%) or adequate (35%) by 90% of subjects. Patients completely satisfied about being listened to were 92.5%, with 80.9% being completely satisfied with understanding of their issues and 92% with the freedom to speak and express doubts. Usefulness of the SCOC was rated as excellent by 40% and good by 54.4% of patients. No statistically significant differences were observed in the responses to the questions by gender, age (< or ≥70 years old) and type of tumor.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows high levels of satisfactions after SCOC consultation in advanced cancer subjects. Patients' feedback confirmed that SCOC model was effective in helping them during their treatment journey and decision at the end of life. This study encouraged us to enhance our practice of SCOC consultation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

A joint evaluation of patients living with cancer by oncologist and palliative care team (SCOC-embedded model), has shown to enhance patients' experience/satisfaction with care-such as listening, understanding, receiving information, symptom control, and decision about future, independently of age, gender, and kind of tumor.

Integrating palliative care into the evolving landscape of oncology

Patients with cancer have many palliative care needs. Robust evidence supports the early integration of palliative care into the care of patients with advanced cancer. International organizations, such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), have recommended early, longitudinal integration of palliative care into oncology care throughout the cancer trajectory. In this review, we pose a series of clinical questions related to the current state of early palliative care integration into oncology. We review the evidence to address each of these questions and highlight areas for further investigation. As cancer care continues to evolve, incorporating new treatment modalities and improving patient outcomes, we reflect on how to apply the existing evidence supporting early palliative care-oncology integration into this ever-changing therapeutic landscape and how specialty palliative care might adapt to meet the evolving needs of patients, caregivers, and the multidisciplinary oncology team.

An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention.

AIM

To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration.

DESIGN

Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092).

DATA SOURCES

Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour.

RESULTS

Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Improving Access to Early Palliative Care Delivery for Patients With an Advanced Thoracic Malignancy Through an Embedded Oncopalliative Clinic Model

PURPOSE

Early integration of palliative care (PC) with standard oncology care is driving the development of innovative PC delivery models.

METHODS

This was a single-institution retrospective study of outpatient PC before and after the opening of an embedded thoracic oncology-palliative clinic at The Ohio State University. Patients included in the preintervention (October 2017-July 2018) and postintervention (October 2018-July 2019) cohorts had a diagnosis of any non-small-cell lung cancer (stages I-IV) or small-cell lung cancer (limited or extensive stage) and were newly established in the thoracic medical oncology clinic during the study time periods. All patients in the preintervention cohort had access to outpatient PC through a freestanding clinic, while the postintervention cohort had access to both freestanding and embedded clinics. Using time-to-event analyses, we evaluated differences in time intervals from first medical oncology visit to PC referral and first PC visit between cohorts.

RESULTS

The majority of patients in both cohorts had metastatic disease at diagnosis. In the postintervention cohort, 20.9% of patients were referred to outpatient PC compared with 9.2% in the preintervention cohort (P < .01). PC referrals for patients outside of Franklin and adjacent counties increased from 4.0% to 14.2% after opening the embedded clinic (P < .01). Completion percentages of PC referrals increased from 57.6% to 76.0% in the preintervention versus postintervention cohorts (P = .048). Median time from palliative referral order to first PC visit decreased from 29 to 20 days (P = .047). Similarly, median time from the first oncology visit to PC referral completion decreased from 103 to 41 days (P = .08).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an embedded PC model was associated with increased access to early PC among patients with thoracic malignancies.

Lessons Learned from an Embedded Palliative Care Model in the Medical Intensive Care Unit

OBJECTIVE

To describe a physician (MD) and registered nurse (RN) led palliative care consultation team embedded in the medical intensive care unit (MICU). To compare patterns of palliative care consultation, and rates of goals of care documentation and in-ICU mortality before and after the implementation of the embedded team.

CONTEXT

By embedding MD/RN palliative care team in the MICU, more critically ill patients with unmet palliative care needs could receive an earlier palliative care consultation.

METHODS

In a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to the MICU who received a palliative care consultation, we compared sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients who received a referral-based consultation (01/01/2019-06/30/2019) and those who received an embedded MD/RN consult (09/01/2019-02/28/2020). Using the electronic health record data, we compared palliative care consultation characteristics, rates of documentation of medical decision-maker and goals of care, and percentage of in-ICU mortality between the referral group and the embedded group.

RESULTS

In a six-month period, 169 MICU patients received an embedded consultation, as compared to 52 MICU patients who received a referral-based consultation. As compared to the referral-based period, those patients who received an embedded consult were seen significantly earlier in hospitalization (median number of days from hospital admission to consult: 10 days [pre] vs. 3 days [embedded], P<0.001), more likely to have documentation of medical decision-makers (40% [pre] vs. 66% [embedded], P=0.002) and goals of care (37% [pre] vs. 71% [embedded], P<0.001) and less likely to die in the hospital (75% [pre] vs. 44% [embedded], P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

After embedding a palliative care MD/RN team into the MICU, patients received earlier palliative care consultation, were more likely to have medical decision-maker and goals of care documented, and less likely to die in the hospital. Future work will examine how to adapt this model to other ICUs to improve palliative care access for critically ill patients broadly.

Should Outpatient Palliative Care Clinics in Cancer Centers be Stand Alone or Embedded?

Outpatient palliative care facilitates timely symptom management, psychosocial care and care planning. A growing number of cancer centers have either stand-alone or embedded outpatient palliative care clinics. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, three groups of thought leaders independently answer this question. Specifically, each group provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. One group advocates for stand-alone clinics, another for embedded, and the third group tries to find a balance. In the absence of evidence that directly compares the two models, factors such as cancer center size, palliative care team composition, clinic space availability, and financial considerations may drive the decision-making process at each institution. Stand-alone clinics may be more appropriate for larger academic cancer centers or palliative care programs with a more comprehensive interdisciplinary team, while embedded clinics may be more suited for smaller palliative care programs or community oncology programs to stimulate referrals. As outpatient clinic models continue to evolve, investigators need to document the referral and patient outcomes to inform practice.

Impact of an Embedded Palliative Care Clinic on Healthcare Utilization for Patients With a New Thoracic Malignancy

Introduction

Palliative care is beneficial for patients with advanced lung cancer, but the optimal model of palliative care delivery is unknown. We investigated healthcare utilization before and after embedding a palliative care physician within a thoracic medical oncology "onco-pall" clinic.

Methods

This is a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study comparing healthcare outcomes in two cohorts: "pre-cohort" 12 months prior to and "post-cohort" 12-months after the onco-pall clinic start date. Patients were included if they had a new diagnosis of lung cancer and received care at The Ohio State University Thoracic Oncology Center, and resided in Franklin County or 6 adjacent counties. During the pre-cohort time period, access to palliative care was available at a stand-alone palliative care clinic. Palliative care intervention in both cohorts included symptom assessment and management, advance care planning, and goals of care discussion as appropriate. Outcomes evaluated included rates of emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, 30-day readmissions, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Estimates were calculated in rates per-person-years and with Poisson regression models.

Results

In total, 474 patients met criteria for analysis (214 patients included in the pre-cohort and 260 patients in the post-cohort). Among all patients, 52% were male and 48% were female with a median age of 65 years (range 31-92). Most patients had non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC - 17% stage 1-2, 20% stage 3, 47% stage 4) and 16% had small cell lung cancer. The post-cohort was older [median age 66 years vs 63 years in the pre-cohort (p-value: < 0.01)]. The post-cohort had a 26% reduction in ED visits compared to the pre-cohort, controlling for age, race, marital status, sex, county, Charlson score at baseline, cancer type and stage (adjusted relative risk: aRR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.94, p-value = 0.01). Although not statistically significant, there was a 29% decrease in ICU admissions (aRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.41-1.21, p-value = 0.21) and a 15% decrease in hospital admissions (aRR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.03, p-value = 0.10). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions (aRR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.73-1.45, p-value = 0.85).

Conclusions

Embedding palliative care clinics within medical oncology clinics may decrease healthcare utilization for patients with thoracic malignancies. Further evaluation of this model is warranted.

Substance Abuse Risk and Medication Monitoring in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Receiving Palliative Care

Oncology and Palliative Medicine lack guidance on routine opioid risk screening and compliance monitoring. This study explored relationships among risk screening and aberrant medication related behaviors in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving embedded palliative care. This was a single center, prospective study and data was collected from December 2018 to March 2020. At the initial palliative visit, patients provided a baseline urine drug screen (UDS) test and completed the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain - Revised (SOAPP-R) self-assessment. Clinical pharmacists provided comprehensive review and interpretation of UDS results. Among 39 patients, 12 (30.8%) scored positive for risk of aberrant medication behaviors on the SOAPP-R. Only 34 of 39 patients provided a baseline UDS test and were included in further analysis. Prior to pharmacist review, 11/11 (100%) baseline UDS results in the positive-risk group and 13/23 (56.5%) in the negative-risk group appeared unexpected (p = 0.01). After pharmacist review, aberrant baseline UDS results were confirmed for 5/11 (45.5%) positive-risk and 4/23 (17.4%) negative-risk patients (p = 0.11). Overall, the SOAPP-R alone may be inadequate in this population and clinical pharmacists play an important role in comprehensive UDS result interpretation. Future studies are needed to validate this risk-screening tool in palliative cancer populations.

Too Many Appointments: Assessing Provider and Nursing Perception of Barriers to Referral for Outpatient Palliative Care

Background: Integration of early outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer requires overcoming logistical constraints as well as attitudinal barriers of referring providers. This pilot study assessed provider perception of logistical and attitudinal barriers to outpatient palliative care referral as well as provider acceptability of an embedded onco-palliative clinic model. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey-based study of medical oncologists, palliative care physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and oncology nurses at a large U.S. academic center. Participants were invited to participate through anonymous online survey. Participants rank ordered logistical barriers influencing referral to an outpatient palliative clinic. Respondents indicated level of agreement with attitudinal perception of palliative care and acceptability of an embedded palliative clinic model through five-item Likert-like scales. Results: There were a total of 54 study participants (28 oncology physicians/APPs, 15 palliative physicians/APPs, and 11 oncology nurses). Across the three cohorts, most survey respondents ranked "time burden to patients" as the primary logistical barrier to outpatient palliative care referral. Both oncology and palliative providers indicated comfort with primary palliative care skills although palliative providers were more comfortable with symptom management compared with oncology providers (93.3% vs. 32.2%). A majority of participants (94.9%) were willing to refer to a palliative care provider embedded within an oncology clinic. Conclusion: Additional health care time cost to patients is a major barrier to outpatient palliative care referral. Embedding a palliative care provider in an oncology clinic may be an acceptable model to increase patient access to outpatient palliative care while supporting the oncology team.

Palliative care in day-hospital for advanced cancer patients: a study protocol for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Background

Team-based and timely integrated palliative care is a gold standard of care in oncology, but issues concerning its optimal organization remain. Palliative Care in Day-Hospital (PCDH) could be one of the most efficient service model of palliative care to deliver interdisciplinary and multidimensional care addressing the complex supportive care needs of patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesize that, compared to conventional outpatient palliative care, PCDH allows the clinical benefits of palliative care to be enhanced.

Methods/design

This study is a multicentre parallel group trial with stratified randomization. Patient management in PCDH will be compared to conventional outpatient palliative care. The inclusion criteria are advanced cancer patients referred to a palliative care team with an estimated life expectancy of more than 2 months and less than 1 year. The primary endpoint is health-related quality of life with deterioration-free survival based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. The secondary objectives are the following: increase in patient satisfaction with care using the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7 questionnaires, better understanding of the prognosis using the PTPQ questionnaire and advance care planning; decrease in the need for supportive care among relatives using the SCNS-P&C-F questionnaire, and reduction in end-of-life care aggressiveness. Patients will complete one to five questionnaires on a tablet before each monthly visit over 6 months and will be followed for 1 year. A qualitative study will take place, aiming to understand the specificity of palliative care management in PCDH. Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and, an additional economic evaluation based on capability approach will be conducted from a societal point of view.

Discussion

The first strength of this study is that it combines the main relevant outcomes assessing integrated palliative care; patient quality of life and satisfaction; discussion of the prognosis and advance care planning, family well-being and end-of-life care aggressiveness. The second strength of the study is that it is a mixed-method study associating a qualitative analysis of the specificity of PCDH organization, with a medical-economic study to analyse the cost of care.

Trial registration

Name of the registry: IDRCB 2019-A03116–51

Trial registration number:NCT04604873

Date of registration: October 27, 2020

URL of trial registry record

Models of Integration of Specialized Palliative Care with Oncology

OPINION STATEMENT

Evidence from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses has shown that early integration of specialized palliative care improves symptoms and quality of life for patients with advanced cancer. There are various models of early integration, which may be classified based on setting of care and method of palliative care referral. Most successful randomized controlled trials of early palliative care have used a model of specialized teams providing in-person palliative care in free-standing or embedded outpatient clinics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has become a prominent model for palliative care delivery. This model of care has been well received by patients and palliative care providers, although evidence to date is limited. Despite evidence from trials that routine early integration of palliative care into oncology care improves patient outcomes, referral to palliative care still occurs mostly according to the judgment of individual oncologists. This hinders equitable access to palliative care and to its known benefits for patients and their caregivers. Automated referral based on triggering criteria is being actively explored as an alternative. In particular, routine technology-assisted symptom screening, combined with targeted needs-based automatic referral to outpatient palliative care, may improve integration and ultimately increase quality of life.

A Multicenter Retrospective Review of Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment and Palliative Care Provided to Solid Tumor Oncology Patients in the 12 Weeks Preceding Death in Ireland

Background:

Systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) can improve symptoms and survival in patients with incurable cancer but there may be harmful consequences. Information regarding the use of SACT at the end-of-life and its impact on patients has not been described in Ireland.

Aims:

The study aimed to quantify and describe the use of SACT at end-of-life. The primary outcome of interest was the number of patients who received treatment in the last 12, 4 and 2 weeks of life. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of admissions and procedures, location of death, and timing of specialist palliative care (SPC) referral.

Methods:

Retrospective review. Fisher exact testing was used for analyses. Patients were included if they died between January 2015 and July 2017 and received at least 1 dose of treatment for a solid tumor malignancy.

Results:

Five hundred and eighty two patients were included. Three hundred and thirty eight (58%), 128 (22%) and 36 (6%) received treatment in the last 12, 4 and 2 weeks of life respectively. Patients who received chemotherapy in the last 12 weeks of life were more likely to be admitted to hospital, undergo a procedure, and die in hospital than those who did not (P < 0.001 for all). Median time of SPC referral before death was shorter in those patients who received chemotherapy than those who did not (61 v129 days, p = 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Patients who received chemotherapy had a higher likelihood of hospital admission, invasive procedure, and in-hospital death. They were less likely to have been referred early to SPC services.

Duration of palliative care before death in international routine practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early provision of palliative care, at least 3-4 months before death, can improve patient quality of life and reduce burdensome treatments and financial costs. However, there is wide variation in the duration of palliative care received before death reported across the research literature. This study aims to determine the duration of time from initiation of palliative care to death for adults receiving palliative care across the international literature.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094718). Six databases were searched for articles published between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, as well undertaking citation list searches. Following PRISMA guidelines, articles were screened using inclusion (any study design reporting duration from initiation to death in adults palliative care services) and exclusion (paediatric/non-English language studies, trials influencing the timing of palliative care) criteria. Quality appraisal was completed using Hawker's criteria and the main outcome was the duration of palliative care (median/mean days from initiation to death).

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-nine studies from 23 countries were included, involving 11,996,479 patients. Prior to death, the median duration from initiation of palliative care to death was 18.9 days (IQR 0.1), weighted by the number of participants. Significant differences between duration were found by disease type (15 days for cancer vs 6 days for non-cancer conditions), service type (19 days for specialist palliative care unit, 20 days for community/home care, and 6 days for general hospital ward) and development index of countries (18.91 days for very high development vs 34 days for all other levels of development). Forty-three per cent of studies were rated as 'good' quality. Limitations include a preponderance of data from high-income countries, with unclear implications for low- and middle-income countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of palliative care is much shorter than the 3-4 months of input by a multidisciplinary team necessary in order for the full benefits of palliative care to be realised. Furthermore, the findings highlight inequity in access across patient, service and country characteristics. We welcome more consistent terminology and methodology in the assessment of duration of palliative care from all countries, alongside increased reporting from less-developed settings, to inform benchmarking, service evaluation and quality improvement.

Oncology Fellow-Led Quality Improvement Project to Improve Rates of Palliative Care Utilization in Patients With Advanced Cancer

PURPOSE

ASCO guidelines recommend palliative care (PC) referral for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. Despite this, implementation has considerable hurdles. First-year oncology fellows at our institution identified low rates of PC utilization in their longitudinal clinic as a metric needing improvement.

METHODS

A fellow-led multidisciplinary team aimed to increase PC utilization for patients with advanced cancer followed in he first-year fellows' clinic from a baseline of 11.5% (5 of 43 patients, July to December of 2018) to 30% over a 6-month period. Utilization was defined as evaluation in the outpatient PC clinic hosted in the cancer center. The team identified the following barriers to referral: orders difficult to find in the electronic medical record (EMR), multiple consulting mechanisms (EMR, by phone, or in person), EMR request not activating formal consult, no centralized scheduler to contact or confirm appointment, and poor awareness of team structure. Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were implemented based on identified opportunities. Data were obtained from the EMR.

RESULTS

The first PDSA cycle included focus groups with stakeholders, standardizing referral process via single order set, identifying a single scheduler with bidirectional communication, and disseminating process changes. PDSA cycles were implemented from January to June of 2019. Rates of PC use increased from 11.5% before the intervention to 48.4% (48 of 99 patients) after the intervention.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary approach and classic quality improvement methodology improved PC use in patients with advanced cancer. The pilot succeeded given the small number of fellows, buy-in from stakeholders, and institutional and leadership support. Straightforward EMR interventions and ancillary staff use are effective in addressing underreferrals.

Models of Palliative Care Delivery for Patients With Cancer

Palliative care has evolved over the past five decades as an interprofessional specialty to improve quality of life and quality of care for patients with cancer and their families. Existing evidence supports that timely involvement of specialist palliative care teams can enhance the care delivered by oncology teams. This review provides a state-of-the-science synopsis of the literature that supports each of the five clinical models of specialist palliative care delivery, including outpatient clinics, inpatient consultation teams, acute palliative care units, community-based palliative care, and hospice care. The roles of embedded clinics, nurse-led models, telehealth interventions, and primary palliative care also will be discussed. Outpatient clinics represent the key point of entry for timely access to palliative care. In this setting, patient care can be enhanced longitudinally through impeccable symptom management, monitoring, education, and advance care planning. Inpatient consultation teams provide expert symptom management and facilitate discharge planning for acutely symptomatic hospitalized patients. Patients with the highest level of distress and complexity may benefit from an admission to acute palliative care units. In contrast, community-based palliative care and hospice care are more appropriate for patients with a poor performance status and low to moderate symptom burden. Each of these five models of specialist palliative care serve a different patient population along the disease continuum and complement one another to provide comprehensive supportive care. Additional research is needed to define the standards for palliative care interventions and to refine the models to further improve access to quality palliative care.

Patients' Perspective of Timeliness and Usefulness of an Outpatient Supportive Care Referral at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

CONTEXT

Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective.

OBJECTIVES

To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic.

METHODS

This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation.

RESULTS

Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.

Models of Outpatient Palliative Care Clinics for Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE:

Early integration of outpatient palliative care (OPC) benefits patients with advanced cancer and also the health care systems in which these patients are seen. Successful development and implementation of models of OPC require attention to the needs and values of both the patients being served and the institution providing service.

SUMMARY:

In the 2016 clinical guideline, ASCO recommended integrating palliative care early in the disease trajectory alongside cancer-directed treatment. Despite strong endorsement and robust evidence of benefit, many patients with cancer lack access to OPC. Here we define different models of care delivery in four successful palliative care clinics in four distinct health care settings: an academic medical center, a safety net hospital, a community health system, and a hospice-staffed clinic embedded in a community cancer center. The description of each clinic includes details on setting, staffing, volume, policies, and processes.

CONCLUSION:

The development of robust and capable OPC clinics is necessary to meet the growing demand for these services among patients with advanced cancer. This summary of key aspects of functional OPC clinics will enable health care institutions to evaluate their specific needs and develop programs that will be successful within the environment of an individual institution.

Palliative Cancer Care in the Outpatient Setting: Which Model Works Best?

OPINION STATEMENT

Multiple randomized controlled trials have underscored the importance of timely referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Outpatient palliative care can facilitate timely referral and is increasingly available in many cancer centers. The key question is which model of outpatient palliative care is optimal. There are currently many variations for how palliative care is delivered in the outpatient setting, including (1) Interdisciplinary Specialist Palliative Care in Stand-Alone Clinics, (2) Physician-Only Specialist Palliative Care in Stand-Alone Clinics, (3) Nurse-Led Specialist Palliative Care in Stand-Alone Clinics, (4) Nurse-Led Specialist Palliative Care Telephone-Based Interventions, (5) Embedded Specialist Palliative Care with Variable Team Makeup, and (6) Advanced Practice Providers-Based Enhanced Primary Palliative Care. It is important to make a clear distinction among these delivery models of outpatient palliative care because they have different structures, processes, and outcomes, along with unique strengths and limitations. In this review article, we will provide a critical appraisal of the literature on studies investigating these models. At this time, interdisciplinary specialist palliative care in stand-alone clinics remains the gold standard for ambulatory palliative care because this approach has the greatest impact on multiple patient and caregiver outcomes. Although the other models may require fewer resources, they may not be able to provide the same level of comprehensive palliative care as an interdisciplinary team. Further research is needed to evaluate the optimal model of palliative care delivery in different settings.

Filling the Gap: Creating an Outpatient Palliative Care Program in Your Institution

Well-designed, randomized trials demonstrate that outpatient palliative care improves symptom burden and quality of life (QOL) while it reduces unnecessary health care use in patients with cancer. Despite the strong evidence of benefit and ASCO recommendations, implementation of outpatient palliative care, especially in community oncology settings, faces considerable hurdles. This article, which is based on published literature and expert opinion, presents practical strategies to help oncologists make a strong clinical and fiscal case for outpatient palliative care. This article outlines key considerations for how to build an outpatient palliative care program in an institution by (1) defining the scope and benefits; (2) identifying strategies to overcome common barriers to integration of outpatient palliative care into cancer care; (3) outlining a business case; (4) describing successful models of outpatient palliative care; and (5) examining important factors in design and operation of a palliative care clinic. The advantages and disadvantages of different delivery models (e.g., embedded vs. independent) and different methods of referral (triggered vs. physician discretion) are reviewed. Strategies to make the case for outpatient palliative care that align with institutional values and/or are supported by local institutional data on cost savings are included.

Improving patient and caregiver outcomes in oncology: Team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care

Over the past decade, a large body of evidence has accumulated supporting the integration of palliative care into oncology practice for patients with advanced cancer. The question is no longer whether palliative care should be offered, but what is the optimal model of delivery, when is the ideal time to refer, who is in greatest need of a referral, and how much palliative care should oncologists themselves be providing. These questions are particularly relevant given the scarcity of palliative care resources internationally. In this state-of-the-science review directed at the practicing cancer clinician, the authors first discuss the contemporary literature examining the impact of specialist palliative care on various health outcomes. Then, conceptual models are provided to support team-based, timely, and targeted palliative care. Team-based palliative care allows the interdisciplinary members to address comprehensively the multidimensional care needs of patients and their caregivers. Timely palliative care, at its best, is preventive care to minimize crises at the end of life. Targeted palliative care involves identifying the patients most likely to benefit from specialist palliative care interventions, akin to the concept of targeted cancer therapies. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of innovative care models, such as outpatient clinics, embedded clinics, nurse-led palliative care, primary palliative care provided by oncology teams, and automatic referral, are summarized. Moving forward, more research is needed to determine how different health systems can best personalize palliative care to provide the right level of intervention, for the right patient, in the right setting, at the right time. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;680:00-00. 2018 American Cancer Society, Inc.

Outcomes of Embedded Palliative Care Outpatients Initial Consults on Timing of Palliative Care Access, Symptoms, and End-of-Life Quality Care Indicators among Advanced Nonsmall Cell Lung Cancer Patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine the timing of palliative care (PC) access, symptoms, and end-of-life (EOL) quality care outcomes of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) referred to outpatients embedded palliative care consults (EPC) compared with those of outpatients palliative care consults (OPC).

BACKGROUND

There are no studies comparing the outcomes of outpatients EPC consults with those of stand-alone OPC consults among patients with NSCLC.

DESIGN

The design consists of a random sample of OPC consults (January 2009 to July 2012) and EPC consults (August 2012 to June 2013) at MD Anderson Cancer Center. After the initial consult, all EPC follow-ups occurred at the OPC clinic.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients' characteristics, symptoms (assessed by Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale), time from referral to first consult, overall survival from consult to death, and EOL quality care outcomes (ICU admissions, emergency center visits, hospitalizations within last 30 days, cancer treatments within last 14 days, hospice referrals, advanced care planning [ACP] discussions, and completion of advanced directives) were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 340 consults were included (EPC consults = 147). Baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status (2.2 vs. 1.9, p < 0.001) and median pain (6 vs. 5, p = 0.038) were higher among EPC consults. In EPC consults, time from referral to first consult was shorter (median: 0 day vs. 7 days, p < 0.001), and ACP discussions occurred more frequently (90% vs. 77%, p = 0.026), and earlier (median: 2 month vs. 1 month before death, p = 0.018). No other significant differences in symptoms, EOL outcomes, or survival were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

EPC consults plus OPC follow-ups accessed PC earlier, and had more frequent and earlier ACP discussions as compared with OPC consults. Embedded palliative cancer care might not be the ideal model for an initial PC consultation. Further research is necessary.

Evaluating the Time to Palliative Care Referrals in Patients With Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Single-Centre Retrospective Review

INTRODUCTION

Lung cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Patients with lung cancer may experience a plethora of symptoms, which can be debilitating and affect their quality of life. Palliative care input to manage their physical and psychological well-being is a crucial component of their oncological care. The benefit of early palliative care input has been shown in patients with non-small cell lung cancer; however, data pertaining to patients with small-cell lung cancer are scarce. Nevertheless, early palliative care input is recommended by several national and international guidelines. Thus, we aimed to assess the time to palliative care referrals in patients diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer in an Irish tertiary hospital and to determine what impact this had on overall survival.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, single-center audit of all patients diagnosed with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer over a 6-year period in an Irish tertiary hospital.

RESULTS

Overall, 91 patients were identified. Median age at diagnosis was 66 years (range: 38-83 years). The median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status at diagnosis was 1 (range: 0-3); 24 (26%) patients had multiple sites of distant metastasis at diagnosis; 45 (49.5%) patients were alive at 6 months, and 15 (16.5%) patients were alive at 12 months. One hundred percent of patients received palliative care input in our center over the course of their care. In the patients alive at 6 months after diagnosis, there was no survival advantage in those receiving palliative care within 1 month ( P = .002, odd ratio: 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.09-0.59).

CONCLUSION

Palliative care treatment is a critical aspect in the oncological treatment of all patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, and this study highlights good compliance with existing national guidelines. Further research focusing on quality-of-life issues with the use of questionnaires to assess physical and psychological symptoms should be performed to further understand the impact of palliative care in these patients.