Clinician Ordering and Management Patterns of Urine Toxicology Results at a Cancer Center

CONTEXT

Opioid therapy is a cornerstone for treatment of cancer-related pain, but standardized management practices for patients with cancer and aberrant urine drug test (UDT) results are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the prevalence of UDT ordering (both screening and definitive testing) in the oncology setting and to examine clinician management practices for patients with cancer on opioid therapy with aberrant definitive UDT results.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients with cancer on opioid therapy at an academic cancer center in the United States. Outcomes included UDT ordering patterns and clinician management practices in response to aberrant definitive UDT results.

RESULTS

Our study revealed an overallUDT ordering rate of 3.7% among 10,371 patients with cancer on opioid therapy. Among 143 patients for whom definitive UDTs were ordered, oncologists only ordered 14 (9.8%) UDTs, while palliative care ordered the majority (n=129; 90.2%). Fifty-five (38.5%) patients had aberrant results, and the most common aberrancy was presence of illicit drugs [22 (15.4%)]. Clinicians rarely made medication changes [20 (36.4%)] when UDT results were aberrant, and in the setting of possible fentanyl use (n=8), only 3 (37.5%) patients were started/switched to methadone, and none were started/switched to buprenorphine.

CONCLUSION

Overall UDT ordering was infrequent for patients with cancer on opioid therapy, especially by oncologists, and clinicians rarely make prescribing changes when definitive UDT results were aberrant. More definitive guidance related to UDT ordering and opioid management are needed for patients with cancer and aberrant UDT results.

What Went Right? A Mixed-Methods Study of Positive Feedback Data in a Hospital-Wide Mortality Review Survey

BACKGROUND

Toxic work culture contributes to healthcare worker burnout and attrition, but little is known about how healthcare organizations can systematically create and promote a culture of civility and collegiality.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze peer-to-peer positive feedback collected as part of a systematized mortality review survey to identify themes and recognition dynamics that can inform positive organizational culture change.

DESIGN

Convergent mixed-methods study design.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 388 physicians, 212 registered nurses, 64 advanced practice providers, and 1 respiratory therapist at four non-profit hospitals (2 academic and 2 community).

INTERVENTION

Providing optional positive feedback in the mortality review survey.

MAIN MEASURES

Key themes and subthemes that emerged from positive feedback data, associations between key themes and positive feedback respondent characteristics, and recognition dynamics between positive feedback respondents and recipients.

KEY RESULTS

Approximately 20% of healthcare workers provided positive feedback. Three key themes emerged among responses with free text comments: (1) providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care; (2) demonstrating self-possession and mastery; and (3) exhibiting empathic peer support and effective team collaboration. Compared to other specialties, most positive feedback from medicine (70.2%), neurology (65.2%), hospice and palliative medicine (64.3%), and surgery (58.8%) focused on providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care (p = 0.02), whereas emergency medicine (59.1%) comments predominantly focused on demonstrating self-possession and mastery (p = 0.06). Registered nurses (40.2%) provided multidirectional positive feedback more often than other clinician types in the hospital hierarchy (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Analysis of positive feedback from a mortality review survey provided meaningful insights into a health system's culture of teamwork and values related to civility and collegiality when providing end-of-life care. Systematic collection and sharing of positive feedback is feasible and has the potential to promote positive culture change and improve healthcare worker well-being.

Clinician Perceptions of Barriers and Facilitators for Delivering Early Integrated Palliative Care via Telehealth

Early integrated palliative care (EIPC) significantly improves clinical outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. Telehealth may be a useful tool to deliver EIPC sustainably and equitably. Palliative care clinicians completed a survey regarding their perceptions of the barriers, facilitators, and benefits of using telehealth video visits for delivering EIPC for patients with advanced lung cancer. Forty-eight clinicians across 22 cancer centers completed the survey between May and July 2022. Most (91.7%) agreed that telehealth increases access to EIPC and simplifies the process for patients to receive EIPC (79.2%). Clinicians noted that the elderly, those in rural areas, and those with less-resourced backgrounds have greater difficulty using telehealth. Perceived barriers were largely patient-based factors, including technological literacy, internet and device availability, and patient preferences. Clinicians agreed that several organizational factors facilitated telehealth EIPC delivery, including technological infrastructure (85.4%), training (83.3%), and support from study coordinators (81.3%). Other barriers included systems-based factors, such as insurance reimbursement and out-of-state coverage restrictions. Patient-, organization-, and systems-based factors are all important to providing and improving access to telehealth EIPC services. Further research is needed to investigate the efficacy of telehealth EIPC and how policies and interventions may improve access to and dissemination of this care modality.

Pediatric central nervous system tumor survivor and caregiver experiences with multidisciplinary telehealth

PURPOSE

Telehealth use to facilitate cancer survivorship care is accelerating; however, patient satisfaction and barriers to facilitation have not been studied amongst pediatric central nervous system (CNS) tumor survivors. We assessed the telehealth experiences of survivors and caregivers in the Pediatric Neuro-Oncology Outcomes Clinic at Dana-Farber/ Boston Children's Hospital.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of completed surveys among patients and caregivers with ≥ 1 telehealth multidisciplinary survivorship appointment from January 2021 through March 2022.

RESULTS

Thirty-three adult survivors and 41 caregivers participated. The majority agreed or strongly agreed that telehealth visits started on time [65/67 (97%)], scheduling was convenient [59/61 (97%)], clinician's explanations were easy-to-understand [59/61 (97%)], listened carefully/addressed concerns [56/60 (93%)], and spent enough time with them [56/59 (95%)]. However, only 58% (n = 35/60) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed they would like to continue with telehealth and 48% (n = 32/67) agreed telehealth was as effective as in person office visits. Adult survivors were more likely than caregivers to prefer office visits for personal connection [23/32 (72%) vs. 18/39 (46%), p = 0.027].

CONCLUSION

Offering telehealth multi-disciplinary services may provide more efficient and accessible care for a subset of pediatric CNS tumor survivors. Despite some advantages, patients and caregivers were divided on whether they would like to continue with telehealth and whether telehealth was as effective as office visits. To improve survivor and caregiver satisfaction, initiatives to refine patient selection as well as enhance personal communication through telehealth systems should be undertaken.

Video and In-Person Palliative Care Delivery Challenges before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

CONTEXT

Palliative care (PC) clinicians faced many challenges delivering outpatient care during the coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

We described trends for in-person and video visit PC delivery challenges before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.

METHODS

We performed a secondary data analysis of patient characteristics and PC clinician surveys from a multisite randomized controlled trial at 20 academic cancer centers. Patients newly diagnosed with advanced lung cancer (N = 653) were randomly assigned to receive either early in-person or telehealth PC and had at least monthly PC clinician visits. PC clinicians completed surveys documenting PC delivery challenges after each encounter. We categorized patients into 3 subgroups according to their PC visit dates relative to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S.-pre-COVID-19 (all visits before March 1, 2020), pre/post-COVID-19 (≥1 visit before and after March 1, 2020), and post-COVID-19 (all visits after March 1, 2020). We performed Pearson's chi-squared, Fisher's exact, and Kruskal-Wallis tests to examine associations.

RESULTS

We analyzed 2329 surveys for video visits and 2176 surveys for in-person visits. For video visits, the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (25.8% [46/178]) had the most technical difficulties followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (17.2% [307/1784]) and then the post-COVID-19 subgroup (11.4% [42/367]) (P = 0.0001). For in-person visits, challenges related to absent patients' family members occurred most often in the post-COVID-19 subgroup (6.2% [16/259]) followed by the pre/post-COVID-19 subgroup (3.6% [50/1374]) and then the pre-COVID-19 subgroup (2.2% [12/543]) (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Technical difficulties related to PC video visits improved, whereas in-person visit challenges related to absent patients' family members worsened during the pandemic.

Differences in End-of-Life Care between COVID-19 Inpatient Decedents with English Proficiency and Limited English Proficiency

Background: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience lower quality end-of-life (EOL) care. This inequity may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: Compare health care utilization, EOL, and palliative care outcomes between COVID-19 decedents with and without LEP during the pandemic's first wave in Massachusetts. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult inpatients who died from COVID-19 between February 18, 2020 and May 18, 2020 at two academic and four community hospitals within a greater Boston health care system. We performed multivariable regression adjusting for patient sociodemographic variables and hospital characteristics. Primary outcome was place of death (intensive care unit [ICU] vs. non-ICU). Secondary outcomes included hospital and ICU length of stay and time to initial palliative care consultation. Results: Among 337 patients, 89 (26.4%) had LEP and 248 (73.6%) were English proficient. Patients with LEP were less often white (24 [27.0%] vs. 193 [77.8%]; p < 0.001); were more often Hispanic or Latinx (40 [45.0%] vs. 13 [5.2%]; p < 0.001); and less often had a medical order for life-sustaining treatment (MOLST) on admission (15 [16.9%] vs. 120 [48.4%]; p < 0.001) versus patients with English proficiency. In the multivariable analyses, LEP was not independently associated with ICU death, ICU length of stay, or time to palliative care consultation, but was independently associated with increased hospital length of stay (mean difference 4.12 days; 95% CI, 1.72-6.53; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Inpatient COVID-19 decedents with LEP were not at increased risk of an ICU death, but were associated with an increased hospital length of stay versus inpatient COVID-19 decedents with English proficiency.

Primary Addiction Medicine Skills for Hospice and Palliative Medicine Physicians: A Modified Delphi Study

CONTEXT

Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians frequently care for patients with substance use disorders (SUDs), but there is no consensus on which primary addiction medicine (AM) skills are essential.

OBJECTIVES

Identify key primary AM skills that physicians should acquire during an ACGME-accredited HPM fellowship program.

METHODS

A modified Delphi study consisting of 18 experts on SUD in HPM and medical education. A literature review and expert input identified initial AM skills. In three Delphi rounds, participants rated each skill on a nine-point scale from "not at all important to include" to "crucial to include." We calculated medians (IQRs), analyzed panelists' comments, and grouped skills using the RAND / UCLA appropriateness method.

RESULTS

Among 62 proposed AM skills, 53 skills were rated as appropriate to include (38 of which achieved agreement), and nine skills were rated as uncertain. AM skills most relevant to HPM included 1) defining chemical coping, median 8.5 (IQR 2); 2) balancing life expectancy with risks of opioid use for patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0); 3) explaining best practices to dispose unused opioids postmortem, 8 (IQR 2); 4) managing pain for hospice patients with SUD, 9 (IQR 0.75); and 5) partnering with hospice to manage patients on methadone and buprenorphine, 9 (IQR 2). Experts did not achieve consensus on whether HPM physicians should be encouraged to learn to prescribe buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder, 6 (IQR 3).

CONCLUSION

HPM fellowships should consider incorporating the primary AM skills identified in this study in their curricula.

Enhancing goals of care communication by oncologists using a pathway-based intervention

324

Background: Delivering goal-concordant care to patients with advanced cancer requires identifying eligible patients who would benefit from goals of care (GOC) conversations; training clinicians how to have these conversations; conducting conversations in a timely manner; and documenting GOC conversations that can be readily accessed by care teams. We used an existing, locally developed electronic cancer care clinical pathways system to guide oncologists toward these conversations. Methods: To identify eligible patients, pathways directors from 12 oncology disease centers identified therapeutic decision nodes for each pathway that corresponded to a predicted life expectancy of ≤1 year. When oncologists selected one of these pre-identified pathways nodes, the decision was captured in a relational database. From these patients, we sought evidence of GOC documentation within the electronic health record by extracting coded data from the advance care planning (ACP) module—a designated area within the electronic health record for clinicians to document GOC conversations. We also used rule-based natural language processing (NLP) to capture free text GOC documentation within these same patients’ progress notes. A domain expert reviewed all progress notes identified by NLP to confirm the presence of GOC documentation. Results: In a pilot sample obtained between March 20 and September 25, 2020, we identified a total of 21 pathway nodes conveying a poor prognosis, which represented 91 unique patients with advanced cancer. Among these patients, the mean age was 62 (SD 13.8) years old; 55 (60.4%) patients were female, and 69 (75.8%) were non-Hispanic White. The cancers most represented were thoracic (32 [35.2%]), breast (31 [34.1%]), and head and neck (13 [14.3%]). Within the 3 months leading up to the pathways decision date, a total 62 (68.1%) patients had any GOC documentation. Twenty-one (23.1%) patients had documentation in both the ACP module and NLP-identified progress notes; 5 (5.5%) had documentation in the ACP module only; and 36 (39.6%) had documentation in progress notes only. Twenty-two unique clinicians utilized the ACP module, of which 1 (4.5%) was an oncologist and 21 (95.5%) were palliative care clinicians. Conclusions: Approximately two thirds of patients had any GOC documentation. A total of 26 (28.6%) patients had any GOC documentation in the ACP module, and only 1 oncologist documented using the ACP module, where care teams can most easily retrieve GOC information. These findings provide an important baseline for future quality improvement efforts (e.g., implementing serious illness communications training, increasing support around ACP module utilization, and incorporating behavioral nudges) to enhance oncologists’ ability to conduct and to document timely, high quality GOC conversations.

Artificial intelligence in oncology: Path to implementation

In recent years, the field of artificial intelligence (AI) in oncology has grown exponentially. AI solutions have been developed to tackle a variety of cancer‐related challenges. Medical institutions, hospital systems, and technology companies are developing AI tools aimed at supporting clinical decision making, increasing access to cancer care, and improving clinical efficiency while delivering safe, high‐value oncology care. AI in oncology has demonstrated accurate technical performance in image analysis, predictive analytics, and precision oncology delivery. Yet, adoption of AI tools is not widespread, and the impact of AI on patient outcomes remains uncertain. Major barriers for AI implementation in oncology include biased and heterogeneous data, data management and collection burdens, a lack of standardized research reporting, insufficient clinical validation, workflow and user‐design challenges, outdated regulatory and legal frameworks, and dynamic knowledge and data. Concrete actions that major stakeholders can take to overcome barriers to AI implementation in oncology include training and educating the oncology workforce in AI; standardizing data, model validation methods, and legal and safety regulations; funding and conducting future research; and developing, studying, and deploying AI tools through multidisciplinary collaboration.

Laboratory-Generated Urine Toxicology Interpretations: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Clinicians frequently order urine drug testing (UDT) for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT), yet often have difficulty interpreting test results accurately.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a laboratory-generated urine toxicology interpretation service for clinicians prescribing COT.

STUDY DESIGN

Type II hybrid-convergent mixed methods design (implementation) and pre-post prospective cohort study with matched controls (effectiveness).

SETTING

Four ambulatory sites (2 primary care, 1 pain management, 1 palliative care) within 2 US academic medical institutions.

METHODS

Interpretative reports were generated by the clinical chemistry laboratory and were provided to UDT ordering providers via inbox message in the electronic health record (EHR). The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study.Participants were primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians who ordered liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry UDT for COT patients in clinic. Intervention was a laboratory-generated interpretation service that provided an individualized interpretive report of UDT results based on the patient's prescribed medications and toxicology metabolites for clinicians who received the intervention (n = 8) versus matched controls (n = 18).Implementation results included focus group and survey feedback on the interpretation service's usability and its impact on workflow, clinical decision making, clinician-patient relationships, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Effectiveness outcomes included UDT interpretation concordance between the clinician and laboratory, documentation frequency of UDT results interpretation and communication of results to patients, and clinician prescribing behavior at follow-up.

RESULTS

Among the 8 intervention clinicians (median age 58 [IQR 16.5] years; 2 women [25%]) on a Likert scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"), 7 clinicians reported at 6 months postintervention that the interpretation service was easy to use (mean 5 [standard deviation {SD}, 0]); improved results comprehension (mean 5 [SD, 0]); and helped them interpret results more accurately (mean 5 [SD, 0]), quickly (mean 4.67 [SD, 0.52]), and confidently (mean 4.83 [SD, 0.41]). Although there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between cohorts, clinician-laboratory interpretation concordance trended toward improvement (intervention 22/32 [68.8%] to 29/33 [87.9%] vs. control 21/25 [84%] to 23/30 [76.7%], P = 0.07) among cases with documented interpretations.

LIMITATIONS

This study has a low sample size and was conducted at 2 large academic medical institutions and may not be generalizable to community settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretations were well received by clinicians but did not significantly improve laboratory-clinician interpretation concordance, interpretation documentation frequency, or opioid-prescribing behavior.

Using Quality Improvement to Increase Access to Palliative Care

PURPOSE

As part of a larger effort to integrate palliative care into a cancer center, we identified barriers to palliative care referral for patients with breast or gynecologic cancer and developed a pilot program to improve access to palliative care services.

METHODS

We developed a multidisciplinary steering committee to uncover barriers to palliative care referral and developed a pilot program, called the Warm Handoff. Through ongoing collaboration and midpilot feedback sessions, we identified several additional barriers and opportunities to increase access to palliative care.

RESULTS

Clinicians used the initial Warm Handoff process only 20 times over a period of 7 months. Of those calls, 10 were for issues outside of those that the Warm Handoff pilot was intended to address. During the pilot, we identified lack of access to urgent visits and clinician telephone availability for clinical case discussion as additional barriers to access. Increased collaboration led to the creation of a clinical provider of the day (CPOD) care model, which allowed for a notable increase in the capacity to see urgent consults. After this intervention, we observed an average of 19 patients seen urgently per month. In addition, there was a trend toward increasing referrals from breast oncology after the initiation of the CPOD.

CONCLUSION

A CPOD model, developed via close oncology/palliative care collaboration, resulted in increased utilization of palliative care services.

Early Integrated Telehealth versus In-Person Palliative Care for Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer: A Study Protocol

Introduction: Early palliative care (PC) integrated with oncology care improves quality of life (QOL), depression symptoms, illness understanding, and end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with advanced lung cancer. The aims of this trial are to compare the effect of delivering early integrated PC through telehealth versus in-person on patient and caregiver outcomes. We hypothesize that both modalities for delivering early PC would be equivalent for improving patient QOL, communication about EOL care preferences with their oncologist, and length of stay in hospice. Methods: For this comparative effectiveness trial, we will enroll and randomize 1250 adult patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who are not being treated with curative intent, to receive either early integrated telehealth or in-person PC at 20 cancer centers throughout the United States. Patients may also invite a family caregiver to participate in the study. Patients and their caregivers in both study groups meet at least every four weeks with a PC clinician from within 12 weeks of patient diagnosis of advanced NSCLC until death. Participants complete measures of QOL, mood, and quality of communication with oncologists at baseline before randomization and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 weeks. Information on health care utilization, including length of stay in hospice, will be collected from patients' health records. To test equivalence in outcomes between study groups, we will compute analysis of covariance and mixed linear models, controlling for baseline scores and study site. Study Implementation and Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure that this comparative effectiveness trial and findings are as patient centered and meaningful as possible, we have incorporated a robust patient and stakeholder engagement plan. Our stakeholder partners include (1) patients/families, (2) PC clinicians, (3) telehealth experts and clinician users, (4) representatives from health care systems and medical insurance providers, and (5) health care policy makers and advocates. These stakeholders will inform and provide feedback about every phase of study implementation.

Webside Manner during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Maintaining Human Connection during Virtual Visits

Background: As the death rate numbers in the United States related to COVID-19 are in the tens of thousands, clinicians are increasingly tasked with having serious illness conversations. However, in the setting of infection control policies, visitor restrictions, social distancing, and a lack of personal protective equipment, many of these important conversations are occurring by virtual visits. Objective: From our experience with a multisite study exploring the effectiveness of virtual palliative care, we have identified key elements of webside manner that are helpful when conducting serious illness conversations by virtual visit. Results: The key elements and components of webside manner skills are proper set up, acquainting the participant, maintaining conversation rhythm, responding to emotion, and closing the visit. Other considerations that may require conversion to phone visits include persistent technical difficulties, lack of prerequisite technology to conduct virtual visits, patients who are too ill to participate, or who find virtual visits too technically challenging. Conclusions: Similar to bedside manner, possessing nuanced verbal and nonverbal webside manner skills is essential to conducting serious illness conversations during virtual visits.

Distribution and frequency of patient-reported symptomatic adverse events at a comprehensive cancer center

e19117

Background: Systematic review of electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) has been shown to improve quality of life and overall survival in clinical trial. We previously demonstrated feasibility of ePRO across Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI). We sought to examine the distribution and frequency of first symptomatic adverse events (SAEs) among ePRO responders in ambulatory oncology practice. Methods: The ePRO tool uses the validated NCI developed Patient Reported Outcomes – Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) instrument to assess attributes of 15 core SAEs (fatigue, insomnia, general pain, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, shortness of breath, numbness and tingling, rash, concentration, fever, anxiety, sadness) selected by clinician stakeholders and deployed via any internet-enabled device once every 7 days. Responses are viewable in the EHR, scored 0 to 3 using an algorithm, with scores of 3 highlighted to indicate severe grade SAEs. Results: We examined the distribution and frequency of the first 5183 unique ePRO reports for unselected patients seen in the medical, radiation and surgical oncology outpatient clinics of four pilot multidisciplinary clinics (Breast, Genitourinary, Gastrointestinal and Head and Neck) between September 2018-December 2019. Twenty one percent of eligible patients responded to ePRO (5183 of 26,084). Most respondents were female (59%), Caucasian (89%), and age 50-69 years (56% compared to 16% age <50 years, 28% age ≥70; range 19-98 years). The frequency of grade 3 SAEs was pain (10%), fatigue (6%), insomnia (4%), constipation (3%), numbness and tingling/concentration/anxiety/decreased appetite (2%), diarrhea/shortness of breath/sadness (1%), and rash/fever/nausea/vomiting (none) (Table). Conclusions: We observed a consistent distribution of SAEs across cancer types, age and sex. The most frequently reported SAEs are those clinicians struggle to treat with medications - pain, fatigue, insomnia and anxiety. Research to develop effective strategies to address this constellation of SAEs should be prioritized. [Table: see text]

Improving PROMs collection rate in an outpatient palliative care clinic

105

Background: From January 2018 to March 2018, Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) launched a pilot to collect Patient-Reported Outcomes of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) within the adult palliative care (APC) clinic using smart tablets. We had a limited response rate—only 20% of patients attempted to complete the questionnaire. After the pilot ended on March 2018, smart tablets were discontinued and were replaced with a paper version of PRO-CTCAE from April to June 2018. Our aim was to increase the patient attempt and collection rate of the paper PRO-CTCAE from 20% to 50%. Methods: Our primary outcome measure was the percentage of paper PRO-CTCAE attempted and collected. Eligible patients were established patients scheduled to see a provider in the APC clinic. We implemented several Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles including the implementation of the paper version of the questionnaire, training and educating front desk staff, and posting provider reminders in exam rooms. We used a statistical process control (SPC) chart to track percentage of attempted and collected questionnaires over time and to differentiate between special cause and common cause variation. Results: From April 2018 to June 2018, the PRO-CTCAE collection rate improved from 20% to 48%. Special cause variation was associated with implementation of the paper version of the PRO-CTCAE and increased front desk staff engagement. Increased provider satisfaction was also associated with the paper version of the PRO-CTCAE. Conclusions: Implementing a high-reliability process for collecting patient reported outcome measures in an outpatient palliative care clinic is complex and requires cohesive multi-disciplinary teamwork, a user-friendly patient-facing and provider-facing interface, and a streamlined workflow. The electronic version of PRO-CTCAE will resume in September 2018. We will implement lessons learned from the paper PRO-CTCAE implementation, including ongoing front desk staff engagement and an enhanced provider view in the electronic medical record.

National trends in opioid-related hospitalizations among patients with cancer

199

Background: Cancer patients are routinely prescribed opioids for cancer-related pain. With recent attention to the opioid epidemic, we sought to identify risk factors and to describe the incidence of opioid-related hospitalizations among cancer patients. Methods: Serial cross-sectional study of adult cancer patients with opioid-related hospitalizations using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from January 2006 to December 2014. We identified cancer patients using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. We defined opioid-related hospitalizations as ICD-9 codes for heroin poisoning, opioid poisoning, or opioid dependence or abuse in the primary diagnosis field. A logistic regression model identified predictors for opioid-related hospitalizations. We adjusted temporal trends for opioid-related hospitalizations for all-cause hospitalizations among cancer patients. Results: Among 25,443,362 hospitalizations for cancer patients, there were 14,336 opioid-related hospitalizations. Non-heroin opioid poisoning made up 88% of opioid-related hospitalizations. Predictors for opioid-related hospitalizations for cancer patients included drug abuse (OR 9.40, 95% CI 8.28 - 10.66), younger age [age 18 - 29 (OR 4.00, 95% CI 3.10 - 5.17); age 30 - 49 (OR 3.99, 95% CI 3.43 - 4.65)], depression (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.97 - 2.39), alcohol abuse (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.03 - 1.41), and year of hospitalization [2009-2011 (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.07 - 1.32); 2012 - 2014 (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06 - 1.32)]. On average, opioid-related hospitalizations increased by 0.003% per year (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Opioid-related hospitalizations among cancer patients are rare, appear to be increasing over time, and are largely due to non-heroin opioid poisoning. Standardized opioid risk screening based on validated predictors may identify cancer patients with the greatest risk of an opioid-related hospitalization.

A clinical review of granulosa cell tumours of the ovary cases in KKH

INTRODUCTION

Granulosa cell tumour (GCT) represents the largest group of sex-cord stromal tumours and comprises 1.5-3% of ovarian malignancy. The aim is to determine the incidence of the disease, study the profile of local patients, and assess the use of imaging studies in the diagnosis of the tumour.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Clinical records of 19 patients diagnosed with GCT between October 1988 and July 1997 in Kandang Kerbau Hospital (KKH) were reviewed.

RESULTS

GCT accounts for 3.5% of ovarian malignancy (54 out of 1552) in Singapore, of which 94.7% are adult GCT. In our study, patients are mainly peri/postmenopausal women (63.2%) in their 50s who experience post-menopausal bleeding. There is a high incidence of association with endometrial hyperplasia (40%). Ultrasound scans are able to predict the size and involvement of the tumour rather accurately. In our study sample, 13 patients (68.4%) presented with Stage 1 of the disease, none with Stage 2, 1 with Stage 3 (5.3%) and none with Stage 4. The other 5 patients (26.3%) were unstaged. Only one patient required adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

The local data with regards to GCT is congruent with those found in foreign literature. However, in our study, there were no patients with recurrence whereas GCTs are known to be late recurring in up to 20% of patients 10-20 years after diagnosis. This is probably attributed to the relatively short period of follow-up in this study. Thus, despite the fact that there is no evidence of recurrence of disease in our current study, we still recommend a vigilant follow-up protocol on all patients as literature has proven that with early detection of recurrences, it is possible to achieve complete cure.