Pain coping, multidisciplinary care, and mHealth: Patients' views on managing advanced cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain is common among people with advanced cancer. While opioids provide significant relief, incorporating psycho-behavioral treatments may improve pain outcomes. We examined patients' experiences with pain self-management and how their self-management of chronic, cancer-related pain may be complemented by behavioral mobile health (mHealth) interventions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients with advanced cancer and pain. Each participant reviewed content from our behavioral mHealth application for cancer pain management and early images of its interface. Participants reflected on their experiences self-managing cancer pain and on app content. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients (n = 28; 54% female; mean age = 53) across two geographic regions reported using psychological strategies (e.g., reframing negative thoughts, distraction, pain acceptance, social support) to manage chronic cancer-related pain. Patients shared their perspectives on the integration of psycho-behavioral pain treatments into their existing medical care and their experiences with opioid hesitancy. Patient recommendations for how mHealth interventions could best support them coalesced around two topics: 1.) convenience in accessing integrated pharmacological and psycho-behavioral pain education and communication tools and 2.) relevance of the specific content to their clinical situation. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated pharmacological and psycho-behavioral pain treatments were important to participants. This underscores a need to coordinate complimentary approaches when developing cancer pain management interventions. Participant feedback suggests that an mHealth intervention that integrates pain treatments may have the capacity to increase advanced cancer patients' access to destigmatizing, accessible care while improving pain self-management.

Development and pre-pilot testing of STAMP + CBT: an mHealth app combining pain cognitive behavioral therapy and opioid support for patients with advanced cancer and pain.

PURPOSE: We developed and piloted a mobile health app to deliver cognitive behavioral therapy for pain (pain-CBT), remote symptom monitoring, and pharmacologic support for patients with pain from advanced cancer. METHODS: Using an iterative process of patient review and feedback, we developed the STAMP + CBT app. The app delivers brief daily lessons from pain-CBT and pain psychoeducation, adapted for advanced cancer. Daily surveys assess physical symptoms, psychological symptoms, opioid utilization and relief. Just-in-time adaptive interventions generate tailored psychoeducation in response. We then conducted a single-arm pilot feasibility study at two cancer centers. Patients with advanced cancer and chronic pain used the app for 2 or 4 weeks, rated its acceptability and provided feedback in semi-structured interviews. Feasibility and acceptability were defined as ≥ 70% of participants completing ≥ 50% of daily surveys, and ≥ 80% of acceptability items rated ≥ 4/5. RESULTS: Fifteen participants (female = 9; mean age = 50.3) tested the app. We exceeded our feasibility and accessibility benchmarks: 73% of patients completed ≥ 50% of daily surveys; 87% of acceptability items were rated ≥ 4/5. Participants valued the app's brevity, clarity, and salience, and found education on stress and pain to be most helpful. The app helped participants learn pain management strategies and decrease maladaptive thoughts. However, participants disliked the notification structure (single prompt with one snooze), which led to missed content. CONCLUSION: The STAMP + CBT app was an acceptable and feasible method to deliver psychological/behavioral treatment with pharmacologic support for cancer pain. The app is being refined and will be tested in a larger randomized pilot study. TRN: NCT05403801 (05/06/2022).

Development of an Actor Rehearsal Guide for Communication Skills Courses.

BACKGROUND: Established models of serious illness communication training frequently include role play with simulated patient actors. Yet preparing for communication courses can feel challenging, as most faculty have minimal experience directing actors, and no literature exists to guide faculty in how to lead course rehearsals. METHODS: A team of palliative care educators partnered with a seasoned acting teacher to design and implement a faculty guide for directing actors during communication course rehearsals. Their approach involved a series of brainstorming sessions, creation and piloting of a draft rehearsal guide and revisions based on actor and faculty feedback. RESULTS: The actor rehearsal guide offers a stepwise approach to beginning a rehearsal, rehearsing a patient case, giving feedback to the actor and ensuring the actor responds appropriately to learners of varied skill levels. From early 2021 to late 2022, the team used the guide to prepare for 36 courses, which trained 446 clinicians. Faculty and actors noted that the guide fostered predictable and efficient rehearsals. CONCLUSIONS: A novel actor rehearsal guide can support preparation for communication courses at a single institution. Next steps include disseminating the guide to other institutions and evaluating the guide's impact on faculty and actors' experience of rehearsals and learners' experience of training.

Refinement of an Emergency Department-Based, Advance Care Planning Intervention for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Their Caregivers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) conversations are important to provide goal-concordant care (i.e., the care that matches the patient's previously stated goals) near end of life. While 31% of older adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) have dementia, only 39% have previously had ACP conversations. We refined and piloted an ED-based, motivational interview designed to stimulate ACP conversations (ED GOAL) for patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We systematically refined ED GOAL and then conducted an acceptability study in an urban, academic medical center. We prospectively enrolled adults aged 50+ with cognitive impairment and their caregivers. Trained clinicians conducted the intervention. We measured acceptability after the intervention and participants' ACP engagement at baseline and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: Specific statements to address both the patient and caregiver were added to the ED GOAL script. Of 60 eligible patient/caregiver dyads approached, 26 participated, and 20 (77%) completed follow-up assessments. Patient mean age was 79 years (SD 8.5); 65% were female, 92.3% were White, 96.2% were non-Hispanic, and 69% had moderate dementia. Most patients/caregivers reported feeling completely heard and understood by the study clinician about their future medical care preferences (58%, 15/26). They also reported that the study clinician was very respectful (96%, 25/26) when eliciting those preferences. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Patients living with cognitive impairment and their caregivers found our refined ED GOAL acceptable and respectful. Future studies need to examine the effect of ED GOAL on ACP engagement among these dyads in the ED.

Developing a Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) to promote patient-centered communication in ovarian cancer care: A design thinking approach.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-centered communication (PCC) occurs when clinicians respond to patients' needs, preferences, and concerns. While PCC is associated with better health-related quality of life in patients with cancer, patients with ovarian cancer have reported unmet communication needs. We used design thinking to develop an intervention to promote PCC in ovarian cancer care. METHODS: Following the steps of design thinking, we empathized with stakeholders by reviewing the literature, then created stakeholder and journey maps to define the design challenge. To ideate solutions, we developed a challenge map. Finally, we developed wireframe prototypes and tested them with stakeholders. RESULTS: Empathizing revealed that misaligned visit priorities precipitated suboptimal communication. Defining the design challenge and ideating solutions highlighted the need to normalize preference assessments, promote communication self-efficacy, and enhance visit efficiency. The Collaborative Agenda-Setting Intervention (CASI) elicits patients' needs and preferences and delivers communication guidance at the point of care. Stakeholders approved of the prototype. CONCLUSION: Design thinking provided a systematic approach to empathizing with stakeholders, identifying challenges, and innovating solutions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To our knowledge, the CASI is the first intervention to set the visit agenda and support communication from within the electronic health record. Future research will assess its usability and acceptability.

Perspectives on Transfusions for Hospice Patients With Blood Cancers: A Survey of Hospice Providers.

CONTEXT: Patients with blood cancers have low rates of hospice use. While lack of transfusion access in hospice is posited to substantially contribute to these low rates, little is known about the perspectives of hospice providers regarding transfusion access in hospice. OBJECTIVES: To characterize hospice providers' perspectives regarding care for patients with blood cancers and transfusions in the hospice setting. METHODS: In 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of a sample of hospices in the United States regarding their experience caring for patients with blood cancers, perceived barriers to hospice use, and interventions to increase enrollment. RESULTS: We received 113 completed surveys (response rate = 23.5%). Of the cohort, 2.7% reported that their agency always offers transfusions, 40.7% reported sometimes offering transfusions, and 54.9% reported never offering transfusions. In multivariable analyses, factors associated with offering transfusions included nonprofit ownership (OR 5.93, 95% CI, 2.2-15.2) and daily census >50 patients (OR 3.06, 95% CI, 1.19-7.87). Most respondents (76.6%) identified lack of transfusion access in hospice as a barrier to hospice enrollment for blood cancer patients. The top intervention considered as "very helpful" for increasing enrollment was additional reimbursement for transfusions (72.1%). CONCLUSION: In this national sample of hospices, access to palliative transfusions was severely limited and was considered a significant barrier to hospice use for blood cancer patients. Moreover, hospices felt increased reimbursement for transfusions would be an important intervention. These data suggest that hospice providers are supportive of increasing transfusion access and highlight the critical need for innovative hospice payment models to improve end-of-life care for patients with blood cancers.

JPSM Controversies in Palliative Care: "What is the Most Important, Measurable Goal of Serious Illness Conversations in the Ambulatory Setting?"

There is widespread agreement that clinicians should talk to seriously ill patients and their families about their illnesses. However, advance directives as a quality metric have been called into question because of the lack of data that these conversations lead to goal-concordant care. The controversy has led many to reexamine the purpose of conversations with seriously ill patients and what should be discussed in ambulatory visits.  In this Controversies in Palliative care, experts in palliative care review the literature and suggest both how it influences their clinical practice and what research needs to be done to clarify the controversy. While there is not a single outcome that the experts agree on, they posit a variety of different ways to assess these conversations.

The differences in code status conversation approaches reported by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: During acute health deterioration, emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians routinely discuss code status (e.g., shared decision making about mechanical ventilation) with seriously ill patients. Little is known about their approaches. We sought to elucidate how code status conversations are conducted by emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians and why their approaches are different. METHODS: We conducted a sequential-explanatory, mixed-method study in three large academic medical centers in the Northeastern United States. Attending physicians and advanced practice providers working in emergency medicine and palliative care were eligible. Among the survey respondents, we purposefully sampled the participants for follow-up interviews. We collected clinicians' self-reported approaches in code status conversations and their rationales. A survey with a 5-point Likert scale ("very unlikely" to "very likely") was used to assess the likelihood of asking about medical procedures (procedure based) and patients' values (value based) during code status conversations, followed by semistructured interviews. RESULTS: Among 272 clinicians approached, 206 completed the survey (a 76% response rate). The reported approaches differed greatly (e.g., 91% of palliative care clinicians reported asking about a patient's acceptable quality of life compared to 59% of emergency medicine clinicians). Of the 206 respondents, 118 (57%) agreed to subsequent interviews; our final number of semistructured interviews included seven emergency medicine clinicians and nine palliative care clinicians. The palliative care clinicians stated that the value-based questions offer insight into patients' goals, which is necessary for formulating a recommendation. In contrast, emergency medicine clinicians stated that while value-based questions are useful, they are vague and necessitate extended discussions, which are inappropriate during emergencies. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency medicine and palliative care clinicians reported conducting code status conversations differently. The rationales may be shaped by their clinical practices and experiences.

Acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy in patients with cancer and major depressive disorder: Qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study explored the acceptability of psilocybin-assisted group therapy from the perspective of patients with cancer and depression who participated in a clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of this novel intervention. METHODS: Guided by the conceptual framework of acceptability, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews with participants of the psilocybin trial. Data were analyzed using template and thematic analyses. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 28) perspectives on the acceptability of the group and simultaneous sessions was generally positive, both in terms of safety and efficacy: first, the groups contributed to increase participants' sense of safety and preparedness as they were engaging in the therapy; and second, the groups fostered a sense of connection and of belonging, which served to enrich and deepen the meaning of participants' experience, ultimately opening a dimension of self-transcendence and compassion. Other subthemes related to factors influencing the acceptability of the group approach included: 1) the importance of the therapeutic framework, 2) the complementary value of individual sessions, 3) disruptive factors related to the group and/or simultaneous setting, and 4) opportunities and challenges related to group size and how to structure interactions. CONCLUSIONS: This study enhances understanding of what promotes acceptability of the psilocybin-assisted therapy group model for the treatment of MDD in cancer patients. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: We conducted exit interviews with participants of a phase 2 trial of psilocybin-assisted therapy (PAT) conducted in a community cancer center, to assess the acceptability of a novel psilocybin delivery model combining simultaneous individual therapy and group sessions. Our findings support the acceptability of this intervention and suggest that in addition to being feasible, it might also enhance participants' perceived safety and efficacy compared to uniquely individual or group delivery models of PAT. Our analysis highlights critical factors conditioning acceptability and suggests new ways PAT may be scaled and integrated into cancer care.

Family Caregiver Experiences in the Inpatient and Outpatient Reduced-Intensity Conditioning Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Settings: A Qualitative Study.

Caregivers (ie, family and friends) are essential in providing care and support for patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and throughout their recovery. Traditionally delivered in the hospital, HCT is being increasingly provided in the outpatient setting, potentially heightening the burden on caregivers. Extensive work has examined the inpatient HCT caregiving experience, yet little is known about how caregiver experiences may differ based on whether the HCT was delivered on an inpatient or outpatient basis, particularly during the acute recovery period post-HCT. This study explored the similarities and differences in caregiver experiences in the inpatient and outpatient settings during the early recovery from reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) allogeneic HCT. We conducted semistructured interviews (n = 15) with caregivers of adults undergoing RIC allogeneic HCT as either an inpatient (n = 7) or an outpatient (n = 8). We recruited caregivers using purposeful criterion sampling, based on the HCT setting, until thematic saturation occurred. Interview recordings were transcribed and coded through thematic analysis using Dedoose v.9.0. The study analysis was guided by the transactional model of stress and coping and the model of adaptation of family caregivers during the acute phase of BMT. Three themes emerged to describe similar experiences for HCT caregivers regardless of setting: (1) caregivers reported feeling like they were a necessary yet invisible part of the care team; (2) caregivers described learning to adapt to changing situations and varying patient needs; and (3) caregivers recounted how the uncertainty following HCT felt like existing between life and death while also maintaining a sense of gratitude and hope for the future. Caregivers also reported distinct experiences based on the transplantation setting and 4 themes emerged: (1) disrupted routines: inpatient caregivers reported disrupted routines when caring for the HCT recipient while simultaneously trying to manage non-caregiving responsibilities at home and work, and outpatient caregivers reported having to establish new routines that included frequent clinic visits with the patient while altering or pausing home and work responsibilities; (2) timing of caregiver involvement: inpatient caregivers felt more involved in care after the patient was discharged from the HCT hospitalization, whereas outpatient caregivers were already providing the majority of care earlier in the post-transplantation period; (3) fear of missing vital information: inpatient caregivers worried about missing vital information about the patient's care and progress if not physically present in the hospital, whereas outpatient caregivers feared overlooking vital information that may warrant contacting the care team as they monitored the patient at home; and (4) perceived adequacy of resources to meet psychosocial and practical needs: inpatient caregivers reported having adequate access to resources (ie, hospital-based services), whereas outpatient caregivers felt they had more limited access and needed to be resourceful in seeking out assistance. Inpatient and outpatient HCT caregivers described both similar and distinct experiences during the acute recovery period post-HCT. Specific interventions should address caregiver psychosocial needs (ie, distress, illness uncertainty, communication, and coping) and practical needs (ie, community resource referral, preparedness for home-based caregiving, and transplantation education) of HCT caregivers based on setting.

Dispensary personnel's views and experiences regarding oncologic cannabis and the counsel they offer adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: A minority of oncologists feel qualified to advise adults with cancer on issues pertaining to medicinal cannabis. Adults with cancer frequently access medicinal cannabis information from non-medical sources such as cannabis dispensaries. We explored dispensary personnel's views and experiences regarding oncologic cannabis and the counsel they extend individuals with cancer. METHODS: Snowball sampling in this qualitative study facilitated recruitment across 13 states (N = 26). Semi-structured phone interviews ceased with thematic saturation. A multi-stage thematic analysis combined inductive and deductive codes. RESULTS: Of the 26 dispensary personnel interviewed, 54% identified as female and 19% as non-white. Median age was 40 years. A consensus emerged among participants concerning the botanical's efficacy for cancer-related symptoms; less so regarding its antineoplastic potential. Principles for serving those with cancer included provision of client-centered, symptom-based, and trial-and-error approaches. Non-inhalation modes of administration were generally recommended. No consensus was reached as to whether delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinal (THC)- or cannabidiol-predominant products were preferable in this population. Challenges in oncologic advising included successfully identifying individuals with cancer at the dispensary counter, financial toxicity, the special treatment required for the THC-naïve, and operating in the absence of standardized guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: These informed assertions suggest that members of the oncologic community should grapple with the extent to which they feel comfortable with both the nature and degree of counsel adults with cancer receive through dispensaries.

Forms or Free-Text? Measuring Advance Care Planning Activity Using Electronic Health Records.

Advance care planning (ACP) discussions seek to guide future serious illness care. These discussions may be recorded in the electronic health record by documentation in clinical notes, structured forms and directives, and physician orders. Yet, most studies of ACP prevalence have only examined structured electronic health record elements and ignored data existing in notes. We sought to investigate the relative comprehensiveness and accuracy of ACP documentation from structured and unstructured electronic health record data sources. We evaluated structured and unstructured ACP documentation present in the electronic health records of 435 patients with cancer drawn from three separate healthcare systems. We extracted structured ACP documentation by manually annotating written documents and forms scanned into the electronic health record. We coded unstructured ACP documentation using a rule-based natural language processing software that identified ACP keywords within clinical notes and was subsequently reviewed for accuracy. The unstructured approach identified more instances of ACP documentation (238, 54.7% of patients) than the structured ACP approach (187, 42.9% of patients). Additionally, 16.6% of all patients with structured ACP documentation only had documents that were judged as misclassified, incomplete, blank, unavailable, or a duplicate of a previously entered erroneous document. ACP documents scanned into electronic health records represent a limited view of ACP activity. Research and measures of clinical practice with ACP should incorporate information from unstructured data.

Structural Barriers to Well-grounded Advance Care Planning for the Seriously Ill: a Qualitative Study of Clinicians' and Administrators' Experiences During a Pragmatic Trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning (ACP) comprises an iterative communication process aimed at understanding patients' goals, values, and preferences in the context of considering and preparing for future medical treatments and decision making in serious illness. The COVID pandemic heightened patients' and clinicians' awareness of the need for ACP. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to explore the experiences of clinicians and administrators in the context of an intervention to improve ACP during the COVID pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and administrators across five sites that participated in the ACP-COVID trial. APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews examining the context and approach to ACP. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis to systematically organize the data and facilitate review across the categories and participants. Templates were developed with iterative input and line-by-line review by the analytic team, to reach consensus. Findings were then organized into emergent themes. KEY RESULTS: Across 20 interviews (4 administrators, 16 clinicians) we identified three themes related to how participants thought about ACP: (1) clinicians have varying views of what constitutes ACP; (2) the health system critically shapes ACP culture and norms; and (3) the centrality of clinicians' affective experience and own needs related to ACP. Varying approaches to ACP include a forms-focused approach; a discussion-based approach; and a parental approach. System features that shape ACP norms are (1) the primacy of clinician productivity measures; (2) the role of the EHR; and (3) the culture of quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite high organizational commitment to ACP, we found that the health system channeled clinicians' ACP efforts narrowly on completion of forms, in tension with the ideal of well-grounded ACP. This resulted in a state of moral distress that risks undermining confidence in the process of ACP and may increase risk of harm for patients, family/caregivers, and providers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04660422.

Effect of Perioperative Palliative Care on Health-Related Quality of Life Among Patients Undergoing Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Involvement of palliative care specialists in the care of medical oncology patients has been repeatedly observed to improve patient-reported outcomes, but there is no analogous research in surgical oncology populations. Objective: To determine whether surgeon-palliative care team comanagement, compared with surgeon team alone management, improves patient-reported perioperative outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgery for high morbidity and mortality upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: From October 20, 2018, to March 31, 2022, a patient-randomized clinical trial was conducted with patients and clinicians nonblinded but the analysis team blinded to allocation. The trial was conducted in 5 geographically diverse academic medical centers in the US. Individuals pursuing curative-intent surgery for an upper GI cancer who had received no previous specialist palliative care were eligible. Surgeons were encouraged to offer participation to all eligible patients. Intervention: Surgeon-palliative care comanagement patients met with palliative care either in person or via telephone before surgery, 1 week after surgery, and 1, 2, and 3 months after surgery. For patients in the surgeon-alone group, surgeons were encouraged to follow National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended triggers for palliative care consultation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of the trial was patient-reported health-related quality of life at 3 months following the operation. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported mental and physical distress. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. Results: In total, 359 patients (175 [48.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 64.6 [10.7] years) were randomized to surgeon-alone (n = 177) or surgeon-palliative care comanagement (n = 182), with most patients (206 [57.4%]) undergoing pancreatic cancer surgery. No adverse events were associated with the intervention, and 11% of patients in the surgeon-alone and 90% in the surgeon-palliative care comanagement groups received palliative care consultation. There was no significant difference between study arms in outcomes at 3 months following the operation in patient-reported health-related quality of life (mean [SD], 138.54 [28.28] vs 136.90 [28.96]; P = .62), mental health (mean [SD], -0.07 [0.87] vs -0.07 [0.84]; P = .98), or overall number of deaths (6 [3.7%] vs 7 [4.1%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: To date, this is the first multisite randomized clinical trial to evaluate perioperative palliative care and the earliest integration of palliative care into cancer care. Unlike in medical oncology practice, the data from this trial do not suggest palliative care-associated improvements in patient-reported outcomes among patients pursuing curative-intent surgeries for upper GI cancers. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03611309.

ADCC's Improving Goal Concordant Care Initiative: Implementing Primary Palliative Care Principles.

BACKGROUND: High-quality, timely goals of care communication (GOCC) may improve patient and caregiver outcomes and promote care that is consistent with patient preferences. PROBLEM: Cancer patients, and their loved ones, appreciate GOCC; however, oncologists often lack formal communication training, institutional support and structures necessary to promote the delivery, documentation, and longitudinal follow-up of GOCC. PROPOSED SOLUTION: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC), representing 10 U.S. academic cancer hospitals, undertook the Improving Goal Concordant Care Initiative (IGCC). This national, 3-year implementation initiative was designed in Fall 2019 by a workgroup of quality, oncology, and palliative care leaders, as well as patient and family advisory committee members (PFAC). IGCC addresses systemic gaps by requiring four core components for participation: 1) Implementation of a formal communication skills training (CST) program, 2) Structured GOCC documentation in the electronic medical record that is visible to all clinicians, 3) Expectations regarding the timing and patient populations for GOCC, and 4) Implementation of a measurement framework. METHOD: Dyads of palliative and oncology leaders committed to attend regularly scheduled, ADCC-led, virtual meetings during the design and implementation phase, incorporating PFAC feedback at every stage. Using the RE-AIM framework, we describe process and outcome evaluation measures defined by implementation and measures workgroups and collected routinely, including: CST completion; trainee evaluation response rate, trainee-reported quality of CST, trainee changes in self-efficacy and distress; percent of high-priority patients participating in GOCC, and patient-reported response to the "Heard and Understood" scale (HU). IGCC's impact will be assessed using claims-based utilization metrics near the end of life (EOLM) and followed longitudinally. Qualitative evaluations near the completion of IGCC will provide insight into perceived barriers, enabling factors, and sustainability. OUTCOMES: Implementation of all IGCC components has begun at all sites. ADCC-wide, 35% of MD/DOs have completed CST (range by site: 8%-100%). CST is highly rated; in Quarter 3, 2022, 93%-100%, 90%-100% and 87%-100% of respondents reported above average to excellent CST quality, likelihood to use the skills and likelihood to recommend CST to others, respectively. Clinician self-efficacy and distress ratings are expected in late 2023. All sites have identified patient populations and continue to refine automated triggers and timelines; uptake of GOCC documentation has been slow. Eight of 10 sites have submitted patient-reported HU data. EOLM data are expected for all sites in early 2024. LESSONS LEARNED: Flexibility in implementation with shared definitions, measures, and learnings about approaches optimizes the ability of all centers to collaborate and make progress in improving GOCC. Flexibility adds to the complexity of understanding intervention effectiveness, the critical intervention components and the fidelity necessary to achieve specific outcomes.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Delivering Specialty-Aligned Palliative Care.

Specialty-aligned palliative care (SAPC) refers to interprofessional palliative care (PC) that is delivered to a specific population of patients in close partnership with other primary or specialty clinicians. As evolving PC models address physical, psychosocial, and spiritual suffering across illnesses and settings, PC clinicians must acquire advanced knowledge of disease-specific symptoms, common treatments, and complications that impact prognosis and outcomes. The tips provided in this article draw on the experience and knowledge of interprofessional PC and other specialist clinicians from diverse institutions across the United States who have developed and studied SAPC services across different disease groups. Recommendations include focusing on approaching specialty team partnerships with humility, curiosity, and diplomacy; focusing on patient populations where PC needs are great; clarifying how work and responsibilities will be divided between PC and other clinicians to the extent possible; using consults as opportunities for bidirectional learning; and adapting workflows and schedules to meet specialty team needs while managing expectations and setting limits as appropriate. Furthermore, to provide effective SAPC, PC clinicians must learn about the specific symptoms, prognoses, and common treatments of the patients they are serving. They must also build trusting relationships and maintain open communication with patients and referring clinicians to ensure integrated and aligned PC delivery.

Daily pain and opioid administration in hospitalized patients with cancer: the importance of psychological factors, recent surgery, and current opioid use.

ABSTRACT: Pain is common and variable in its severity among hospitalized patients with cancer. Although biopsychosocial factors are well established as modulators of chronic pain, less is known about what patient-level factors are associated with worse pain outcomes among hospitalized cancer patients. This prospective cohort study included patients with active cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED) with pain severity of ≥4/10 and followed pain outcomes longitudinally throughout hospital admission. Baseline demographic, clinical, and psychological factors were assessed on ED presentation, and daily average clinical pain ratings and opioid consumption during hospitalization were abstracted. Univariable and multivariable generalized estimating equation analyses examined associations of candidate biopsychosocial, demographic, and clinical predictors with average daily pain and opioid administration. Among 113 hospitalized patients, 73% reported pain as the primary reason for presenting to the ED, 43% took outpatient opioids, and 27% had chronic pain that predated their cancer. Higher pain catastrophizing ( B = 0.1, P ≤ 0.001), more recent surgery ( B = -0.2, P ≤ 0.05), outpatient opioid use ( B = 1.4, P ≤ 0.001), and history of chronic pain before cancer diagnosis ( B = 0.8, P ≤ 0.05) were independently associated with greater average daily pain while admitted to the hospital. Higher pain catastrophizing ( B = 1.6, P ≤ 0.05), higher anxiety ( B = 3.7, P ≤ 0.05), lower depression ( B = -4.9, P ≤ 0.05), metastatic disease ( B = 16.2, P ≤ 0.05), and outpatient opioid use ( B = 32.8, P ≤ 0.001) were independently associated with higher daily opioid administration. Greater psychological distress, especially pain catastrophizing, as well as pain and opioid use history, predicted greater difficulty with pain management among hospitalized cancer patients, suggesting that early assessment of patient-level characteristics may help direct consultation for more intensive pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions.

Development of a keyword library for capturing PRO-CTCAE-focused "symptom talk" in oncology conversations.

Objectives: As computational methods for detecting symptoms can help us better attend to patient suffering, the objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate the performance of a natural language processing keyword library for detecting symptom talk, and to describe symptom communication within our dataset to generate insights for future model building. Materials and Methods: This was a secondary analysis of 121 transcribed outpatient oncology conversations from the Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters trial. Through an iterative process of identifying symptom expressions via inductive and deductive techniques, we generated a library of keywords relevant to the Patient-Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) framework from 90 conversations, and tested the library on 31 additional transcripts. To contextualize symptom expressions and the nature of misclassifications, we qualitatively analyzed 450 mislabeled and properly labeled symptom-positive turns. Results: The final library, comprising 1320 terms, identified symptom talk among conversation turns with an F1 of 0.82 against a PRO-CTCAE-focused gold standard, and an F1 of 0.61 against a broad gold standard. Qualitative observations suggest that physical symptoms are more easily detected than psychological symptoms (eg, anxiety), and ambiguity persists throughout symptom communication. Discussion: This rudimentary keyword library captures most PRO-CTCAE-focused symptom talk, but the ambiguity of symptom speech limits the utility of rule-based methods alone, and limits to generalizability must be considered. Conclusion: Our findings highlight opportunities for more advanced computational models to detect symptom expressions from transcribed clinical conversations. Future improvements in speech-to-text could enable real-time detection at scale.