RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Supportive oncology (SO) care reduces symptom severity, admissions, and costs in patients with advanced cancer. This study examines the impact of SO care on utilization and costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of utilization and costs comparing patients enrolled in SO versus three comparison cohorts who did not receive SO. Using claims, the authors estimated differences in health care utilization and cost between the treatment group and comparison cohorts. The treatment group consisting of patients treated for cancer at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center who received SO between January 2018 and December 2019 were compared to an asynchronous cohort that received cancer care before January 2018 (n = 60), a contemporaneous cohort with palliative care receiving SO care from other providers in the Southeastern Pennsylvania region during the program period (n = 86), and a contemporaneous cohort without palliative care consisting of patients at other cancer centers who were eligible for but did not receive SO care (n = 393). RESULTS: At 30, 60, and 90 days post-enrollment into SO, the treatment group had between 27% and 70% fewer inpatient admissions and between 16% and 54% fewer emergency department visits (p < .05) compared to non-SO cohorts. At 90 days following enrollment in SO care, total medical costs were between 4.4% and 24.5% lower for the treatment group across all comparisons (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: SO is associated with reduced admissions, emergency department visits, and total costs in advanced cancer patients. Developing innovative reimbursement models could be a cost-effective approach to improve care of patients with advanced cancer.
RESUMEN
Numerous neurosurgical (NSG) conditions entail high morbidity, mortality, and prolonged ICU stays. Palliative care (PC) serves to alleviate suffering, align treatment with patient preferences, and is linked to enhanced patient and family outcomes as well as reduced care costs. Notably, no studies have addressed demographic and clinical factors associated with PC receipt in NSG patients. Our aim is to identify characteristics and outcomes, particularly end of life outcomes, of hospitalized NSG patients associated with a PC consult compared with usual NSG care. A retrospective chart review was performed of patients admitted to the NSG service from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018 at the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics. Data regarding demographics, clinical outcomes, and GOC and ACP documentation were collected. The most common reasons for a PC consult were goals of care, end of life issues, and comfort care. Of 121 total decedent patients, 97 (80.2%) had PC referrals. Patients with a PC referral had longer hospital stays (10.3 days vs 4 days) and had the majority of care in the ICU (90.7% vs 83.3%). However, fewer PC patients died in the ICU (42.3% vs 75%) and more had PCA/NCA use (51.5% vs 8.3%), code status changes to DNR (90.7% vs 62.5%), GOC documented (78.4% vs 0%) and ACP documentation (35.1% vs 16.7%). In conclusion, in NSG patients, the integration of PC may contribute to improved end-of-life care.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Previous research has shown limited palliative care (PC) utilization among patients evaluated for liver transplantation (LT) despite the cohort's significant symptom burden, high frequency of hospitalization and risk of rapid decompensation. Our aim was to evaluate patient characteristics and end-of-life (EOL) outcomes (i.e. ICU utilization, code status, advance care planning) associated with the use of PC services in patients who were evaluated for LT. Methods: We performed a single-center cross-sectional study comprised of 223 deceased patients evaluated for LT between 1/1/2017 and 12/31/2021. We evaluated demographic characteristics and EOL outcomes for differences between patients who received PC consultation and those who did not. EOL outcomes associated with PC use were assessed using logistic and linear regression analysis adjusted for patient demographics. Results: Patients who received PC consultation were younger (mean 57 vs. 61; P = 0.048), had higher Model for end-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (27.5 vs. 22; P = 0.001), higher rates of hepatic encephalopathy (96% vs. 84%, P = 0.005), and were more frequently declined for LT (77% vs. 57%; P = 0.008). Patients who received PC services were less likely to die in the ICU (OR = 0.07 [0.02-0.18]) and were more likely to have documented advance care planning (OR = 3.16 [1.47-6.97]), family meetings (OR = 6.58 [2.72-17.08]), and goals-of-care discussions (OR = 14.83 [4.39-69.29]). Conclusion: For patients being evaluated for LT, PC utilization differed based on demographics, disease complications and severity, and transplant status. Those who received PC services had higher quality EOL care planning and fewer ICU admissions.