If We Don't Ask, Our Patients Might Never Tell: The Impact of the Routine Use of a Patient Values Assessment

Multiple Myeloma: Validation of the Values and Preferences Elicitation Questionnaire- Cure and Survival Preference Scale (VPEQ-CSPS)

BACKGROUND

With the emergence of many novel therapies, the treatment decisions for multiple myeloma (MM) are increasingly guided by concerns of quality of life, achievement of cancer-free remission, living a longer overall survival, and a relentless search for a cure; however, the impact of various decision-making factors on patients' actual therapy choices and the patients' desire for cure and survival is mainly unknown. The lack of a valid and reliable measure for uncovering patients' preferences for cure and survival makes it more challenging to put this factor into the actual treatment decision equation.

PURPOSE

This study examined the psychometric properties of the Values and Preferences Elicitation Questionnaire-Cure and Survival Preference Scale (VPEQ-CSPS) instrument.

METHODS

The VPEQ-CSPS instrument was deployed using an anonymous Qualtrics online survey to patients diagnosed with MM within the network of International Myeloma Foundation online patient support groups across the United States. One hundred seventy-four (N = 174) valid responses were obtained and used to examine the validity and reliability of the VPEQ-CSPS.

RESULTS

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) revealed a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of 0.72 indicating excellent sample adequacy. A statistically significant Bartlett's test of sphericity (P < .001) indicated significant correlations among the variables of the dataset to conduct the EFA. The internal consistency coefficients indicated adequate reliability of the instrument with Cronbach's alpha value at 0.80. The EFA and parallel analysis revealed the 5-item VPEQ-CSPS as a valid and reliable unidimensional scale that can be used by oncology clinicians to elicit their patient's preferences for cure and survival. This new instrument has the potential to contribute to the achievement of shared decision-making for myeloma treatment decisions.

The SHARE Study: Pilot Study of a Communication Intervention Designed to Elicit Advanced-Stage Cancer Patients' Preferences and Goals

Background: Helping seriously ill cancer patients identify and communicate their care preferences improves outcomes. Objective: The aim of this study was to pilot test the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention designed to elicit patients' preferences and goals of care and share them with their oncology teams. Design: A single-arm pilot study of a 2.5-minute video, 3-page brief questionnaire, and a wallet card with question prompts was conducted. Primary outcomes were feasibility (≥60% approach-to-consent ratio, ≥60% participants rated the intervention positively) and acceptability (≥60% recommended the intervention). Secondary outcomes, measured pre- and post-intervention, included patient anxiety and distress, hope, quality of life, and therapeutic alliance. Setting/subjects: The study subjects were advanced-stage cancer patients and their clinicians at a U.S. academic and community oncology practice. Results: Among 59 potentially eligible patients, 53 agreed to participate (90% approach-to-consent ratio); 4 were nonevaluable due to death. Overall, 45 of 49 patients (92%) rated their experience as excellent, very good, or good. Participants (mean age = 63 years, range 40-86) agreed or strongly agreed that they would recommend the video (83%), brief questionnaire (88%), and wallet card (63%). However, only 34% of participants reported reviewing the questionnaire with their oncologist. There were no increases in patient anxiety or distress associated with the intervention or reductions in hope or therapeutic alliances with oncologists (all p > 0.05); quality of life was better post-intervention (p = 0.02). Conclusions: This communication intervention that combined a video, questionnaire, and wallet card was both feasible and acceptable for helping advanced cancer patients identify their care preferences and goals and should be tested in a future randomized clinical trial. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03392090.

Navigating a newly diagnosed cancer through clinician-facilitated discussions of health-related patient values: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning, the process through which patient values and goals are explored and documented, is a core quality indicator in cancer care. However, patient values are predominantly elicited at the end of life; patient values earlier in serious illness are not clearly delineated. The objective of this analysis is to assess the content of patient-verified summaries of health-related values among newly diagnosed cancer outpatients in order to develop a theoretical framework to guide future values discussions and optimize person-centered oncologic care.

METHODS

Values summaries among patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were extracted from the medical record. Modified grounded theory analysis included interdisciplinary team coding of values summaries to identify key domains; code categorization; and identification of thematic constructs during successive consensus meetings. A final round of coding stratified themes by disease type.

RESULTS

Analysis of 128 patient values summary documents from 67 patients (gastrointestinal [GI] cancers, n = 49; myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS], n = 18) generated 115 codes across 12 categories. Resultant themes demonstrated patients' focus on retaining agency, personhood and interpersonal connection amidst practical and existential disruption caused by cancer. Themes coalesced into a theoretical framework with 5 sequenced constructs beginning with the cancer diagnosis, leading to 3 nesting constructs of individual identity (character), interpersonal (communication) preferences and needs, and social identity (connection), signifying sources of meaning and fulfillment. Values differences between GI cancer and MDS patients-including greater focus on normalcy, prognosis, and maintaining professional life among GI patients-reflected the distinct therapeutic options and prognoses across these disease groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient values reflect goals of meaning-making and fulfillment through individual agency and interpersonal supports in the setting of a newly diagnosed cancer. Early, nurse-led values discussions provide important and patient-specific data that are informative and likely actionable by clinicians in the delivery of person-centered care. Values can also facilitate discussions between patients and families and clarify patient preferences.

GUIDE Communication Framework: Developing Skills to Improve Nurse-Patient Interactions

GUIDE is a communication framework that helps nurses to empower patients through guidance and support. The five letters in GUIDE stand for gaining insight into the goals of treatment and care, understanding the gaps in the patient's knowledge, informing and educating, directing to additional support, and empowering patients. With the GUIDE communication framework, nurses are supported in being active members of the interprofessional team and participating in shared decision-making. The Ask-Tell-Ask model also allows nurses to discover patients' knowledge gaps and provide efficient education.

Advance Care Planning and End-Of-Life Communications: Practical Tips for Oncology Advanced Practitioners

Advance care planning discussions ensure patients' values and goals of care, including the freedom to choose their place of death, are respected. The benefits of advance care planning and early end-of-life care discussions are often delayed, as these discussions are not initiated early in patients' cancer trajectories. As a result, patients' wishes often remain unknown until the last phase of their life. Evidence suggests that many patients inappropriately receive aggressive treatment near the end of life, which leads to higher resource utilization, decreased quality of life, and increased cost. The purpose of this article is to provide practical tips to the oncology advanced practitioner on initiating advance care planning and end-of-life care discussions with patients and their families or caregivers.

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.

End-of-life decision making in the context of chronic life-limiting disease: a concept analysis and conceptual model

BACKGROUND

Conceptual ambiguities prevent advancements in end-of-life decision making in clinical practice and research.

PURPOSE

To clarify the components of and stakeholders (patients, caregivers, healthcare providers) involved in end-of-life decision making in the context of chronic life-limiting disease and develop a conceptual model.

METHOD

Walker and Avant's approach to concept analysis.

FINDINGS

End-of-life decision making is a process, not a discrete event, that begins with preparation, including decision maker designation and iterative stakeholder communication throughout the chronic illness (antecedents). These processes inform end-of-life decisions during terminal illness, involving: 1) serial choices 2) weighed in terms of potential outcomes 3) through patient and caregiver collaboration (attributes). Components impact patients' death, caregivers' bereavement, and healthcare systems' outcomes (consequences).

DISCUSSION

Findings provide a foundation for improved inquiry into and measurement of the end-of-life decision making process, accounting for the dose, content, and quality the antecedent and attribute factors that collectively contribute to outcomes.

Influence of advance directives on reducing aggressive measures during end-of-life cancer care: A systematic review

CONTEXT

Although the literature recognizes the participation of patients in medical decisions as an important indicator of quality, there is a lack of consensus regarding the influence of advance directives (ADs) on reducing aggressive measures during end-of-life care involving cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

A systematic review was conducted to analyze the influence of ADs on reducing aggressive end-of-life care measures for cancer patients.

METHOD

We searched the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Lilacs databases for studies published until March 2018 using the following keywords, without language restrictions: "advance directives," "living wills," "terminal care," "palliative care," "hospice care," and "neoplasms." Article quality was assessed using study quality assessment tools from the Department of Health and Human Services (NHLBI).

RESULTS

A total of 1,489 studies were identified; 7 met the inclusion criteria. The studies were recently published (after 2014, 71.4%). Patients with ADs were more likely to die at the site of choice (n = 3) and received less chemotherapy in the last 30 days (n = 1). ADs had no impact on intensive care unit admission (n = 1) or hospitalization (n = 1). One study found an association between ADs and referral to palliative care, but other did not find the same result.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Of the seven articles found, four demonstrated effects of ADs on the reduction in aggressive measures at the end of life of cancer patients. Heterogeneity regarding study design and results and poor methodological quality are challenges when drawing conclusions.

Hospice or Hospital: The Costs of Dying of Cancer in the Oncology Care Model

Background: End-of-life management is a difficult aspect of cancer care. With the oncology care model (OCM), we have data to assess both clinical outcomes and total cost of care (TCOC). Objective: To measure and characterize the TCOC for those who received less than three days of hospice care (HC) at the end of life compared with those who received three days or more. Design: Assess data on costs and site and date of death from Medicare claims on patients identified in the OCM who received chemotherapy in the six months before death. Standard statistical methods were used to characterize both populations. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were Medicare patients with cancer who died while managed by U.S. oncology practices in the OCM. Measurements were TCOC in 30-day intervals for the last months of life, cost by site of care at the end of life, and demographic characteristics of the population and association with HC. Results: There were 7329 deaths. Dying in the hospital was twice the cost of dying at home under HC ($20,113 vs. $10,803). Of demographic groups measured, only black race and a lymphoma diagnosis had <50% hospice enrollment for three days or more before death. Conclusions: This study reinforces previous studies regarding costs in the last 30 days of life. The graphic representation highlights the dollar cost and the costs of lost opportunity. Using these data to improve communication, addressing socioeconomic support, and formal palliative care integration are potential strategies to improve care.

Advance Directive and Do-Not-Resuscitate Status among Advanced Cancer Patients with Acute Care Surgical Consultation

Formal communication of end-of-life preferences is crucial among patients with metastatic cancer. Our objective is to describe the prevalence of advance directives (AD) and do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders among stage IV cancer patients with acute care surgery consultations, and the associated outcomes. This is a single institution retrospective review over an eight-year period. Two hundred and three patients were identified; mean age was 55.3 ± 11.4 years and 48.8 per cent were male. Fifty (24.6%) patients underwent exploratory surgery. Nineteen (10.6%) patients had another type of surgery. Twenty-one (10.3%) patients had a DNR order, and none had an AD on-admission. Fifty-four (26.6%) patients had a DNR order placed and four (2%) patients completed an AD postadmission. DNR postadmission was associated with the highest mortality at 42.6 per cent compared with 14.3 per cent for DNR on-admission and 1.56 per cent for full-code patients (P < 0.001). Compared with patients that remained full-code and those with DNR on-admission, DNR postadmission was associated with longer length of stay (19.6 days; P < 0.001) and ICU length of stay (7.72 days; P < 0.001). The prevalence of AD and DNR orders among stage IV cancer patients is low. The higher in-hospital mortality of patients with DNR postadmission reflects the use of DNR orders during clinical decline.

Three-Year Results of a Medicare Advantage Cancer Management Program

Purpose:

Reform of cancer care delivery seeks to control costs while improving quality. Texas Oncology collaborated with Aetna to conduct a payer-sponsored program that used evidence-based treatment pathways, a disease management call center, and an introduction to advance care planning to improve patient care and reduce total costs.

Methods:

From June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2016, 746 Medicare Advantage patients with nine common cancer diagnoses were enrolled. Patients electing for patient support services were telephoned by oncology nurses who assessed symptoms and quality of life and introduced advance care planning. Shared cost savings were determined by comparing the costs of drugs, hospitalization, and emergency room use for 509 eligible patients in the study group with a matched cohort of 900 Medicare Advantage patients treated by non–Texas Oncology providers. Physician adherence to treatment pathways and performance and quality metrics were evaluated.

Results:

During the 3 years of the study, the cumulative cost savings were $3,033,248, and savings continued to increase each year. Drug cost savings per patient per treatment month were $1,874 (95% CI, $1,373 to $2,376; P < .001) after adjusting for age, diagnosis, and study year. Solid tumors contributed most of the savings; hematologic cancers showed little savings. For years 1, 2, and 3, adherence to treatment pathways was 81%, 84%, and 90%, patient satisfaction with patient support services was 94%, 93%, and 94%, and hospice enrollment was 55%, 57%, and 64%, respectively.

Conclusion:

A practice-based program supported by a payer sponsor can reduce costs while maintaining high adherence to treatment pathways and patient satisfaction in older patients.