Clinician perspectives on integrating neuro-oncology and palliative care for patients with high-grade glioma.

Background: Patients with high-grade glioma have high palliative care needs, yet few receive palliative care consultation. This study aims to explore themes on (1) benefits of primary (delivered by neuro-oncologists) and specialty palliative care (SPC) and (2) barriers to SPC referral, according to a diverse sample of clinicians. Methods: From September 2021 to May 2023, 10 palliative physicians and 10 neuro-oncologists were recruited via purposive sampling for diversity in geographic setting, seniority, and practice structure. Semistructured, 45-minute interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and coded by 2 investigators. A qualitative, phenomenological approach to thematic analysis was used. Results: Regarding primary palliative care, (1) neuro-oncologists have primary ownership of cancer-directed treatment and palliative management and (2) the neuro-oncology clinic is glioma patients' medical home. Regarding SPC, (1) palliative specialists' approach is beneficial even without disease-specific expertise; (2) palliative specialists have time to comprehensively address palliative needs; and (3) earlier SPC enhances its benefits. For referral barriers, (1) appointment burden can be mitigated with telehealth, home-based, and embedded palliative care; (2) heightened stigma associating SPC with hospice in a population with high death anxiety can be mitigated with earlier referral to promote rapport-building; and (3) lack of neuro-oncologic expertise among palliative specialists can be mitigated by emphasizing their role in managing nonneurologic symptoms, coping support, and anticipatory guidance. Conclusions: These themes emphasize the central role of neuro-oncologists in addressing palliative care needs in glioma, without obviating the need for or benefits of SPC. Tailored models may be needed to optimize the balance of primary and specialty palliative care in glioma.

"Life Gets Turned Upside-Down " Opportunities to Improve Palliative Care for High-Grade Glioma.

CONTEXT: Early palliative care referral is recommended broadly in oncology. Yet, few patients with high-grade gliomas (HGG) - highly aggressive brain tumors - receive specialty palliative care consultation. OBJECTIVES: To delineate unique needs of HGG patients relative to other oncology patients according to perceptions of a diverse sample of US palliative medicine physicians and neuro-oncologists in each of the eight domains of palliative care; and to describe contrasts between physician specialties on indications for and timing of specialty palliative care referrals in HGG. METHODS: Between September 2021 and May 2023, we conducted semi-structured, 40-minute interviews with ten palliative medicine physicians and ten neuro-oncologists. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling for diversity in geographic setting, years in practice, and practice structure. Interviews were audio-recorded, professionally transcribed, and coded by two investigators. Data were analyzed thematically using a qualitative, phenomenological approach. RESULTS: The palliative care needs of HGG relative to other cancers across palliative care domains are distinguished by poor prognosis, physical and cognitive deficits, and neuropsychiatric symptoms. Themes on indications for palliative care referral differed between neuro-oncologists and palliative physicians. Neuro-oncologists favored selective referral for clinical indications such as high non-neurologic symptom burden requiring time-intensive management. Palliative physicians favored early referral of most HGG patients, to allow for maximal benefit across HGG trajectory. CONCLUSION: Patients with HGG have unique palliative care needs that affect palliative care delivery across care domains. Bidirectional education, enhanced collaboration, and consensus guidelines may help overcome barriers to specialty palliative care referral.

Benefits of an Early Mobility Program for Hospitalized Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are often hospitalized with complications from cancer and cancer treatment. Many experience a decline in physical functioning, including loss of mobility, which likely contributes to increased length of stay (LOS) and increased readmissions. We aimed to determine whether a mobility program would improve quality of care and decrease health care utilization. METHODS: We implemented a mobility aide program on an oncology unit in a large academic medical center for all patients without bedrest orders between October 1, 2018, and February 28, 2021. The program consisted of nursing evaluation using the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AMPAC), an ordinal scale ranging from bed rest to ambulating ≥ 250 feet, to quantify mobility. Plan of care was determined in a multidisciplinary manner with physical therapy (PT), nursing, and a mobility aide, who is a medical assistant with enhanced rehabilitation training. Patients were then mobilized two times per day 7 days a week. Using descriptive statistics and mixed effects logistic regression, we evaluated the programs impact on LOS, readmissions, and changes in mobility during this time period compared with the 6-month interval before implementation. RESULTS: A total of 1,496 hospitalized patients were identified. The odds of hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge was significantly less for those who received the intervention (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.78; P = .001). The odds ratio (OR) of having a final AMPAC score at or above the median was significantly higher for those who received the intervention (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.45; P < .05). There was no significant difference in LOS. CONCLUSION: Use of this mobility program resulted in a significant decrease in readmissions and maintained or improved patients' mobility. This demonstrates that non-PT professionals can effectively mobilize hospitalized patients with cancer, thereby decreasing the burden on PT and nursing resources. Future work will evaluate the sustainability of the program and evaluate association with health care costs.

A Mixed-methods Assessment of the Impact of Insurance Issues on the Emotional and Physical Health of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), failure to adhere to treatment regimens due to insurance issues can lead to disease complications. Our aim was to examine patients' perceptions of the impact of insurance issues on their health. METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with IBD at a large US academic center and an insurance issue participated in a mixed-methods study. Retrospective chart review and an online questionnaire were completed to collect demographic information, IBD characteristics, and validated resilience scores. Semistructured interviews were completed for insurance experiences, which were coded independently by 2 coders for themes. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients completed the interview, and 24 completed the online survey. Sixteen had Crohn's disease, 13 had ulcerative colitis, and 66% were female. The most common insurance issue was lapsed insurance. Many experienced physical consequences, with 58% having flares, 14% undergoing surgery, and 14% developing antibodies. All emotional responses were negative, with the majority feeling stressed (38%). Providers were uninformed of insurance issues in 28% of cases. When asked about perceived resilience, 41% felt incapable of managing the situation, and 45% gave up trying to solve the problem. When asked how to improve going forward, 38% requested an easily accessible advocate to guide them. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of our cohort chose not to inform their provider, felt incapable of managing on their own, and gave up on resolving their insurance issue. This highlights the need to consider restructuring the insurance system, to identify those at risk for insurance issues, and to make advocates available to avoid devastating consequences.

Few studies have qualitatively examined the impact of insurance issues on the health of patients with IBD. We highlight the need to identify patients at risk of insurance issues and when they occur so as to make advocates available to avoid disease complications.

Thoracic surgeon and patient focus groups on decision-making in early-stage lung cancer surgery.

AIM: To investigate medical decision-making from the thoracic surgeons' and patients' perspectives in early-stage lung cancer. PATIENTS & METHODS: We conducted one focus group with thoracic surgeons (n = 15) and one with a group of early-stage lung cancer patients treated with surgery (n = 7). Focus groups were recorded, transcribed and coded for themes. RESULTS: For surgeons, surgical procedure choice was a primary concern, followed by the surgical treatment plan decision-making process. Survivors focused primarily on the physical and mental health-related postsurgical burden for which they felt they were not well prepared and placed less emphasis on surgical decision-making. CONCLUSION: As early-stage lung cancer mortality rates are improving, surgeons and patients can prioritize surgical approaches and postsurgical care that enhance quality of life.

Interactional Resources for Quality Improvement: Learning From Participants Through a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Implementing quality improvement in hospitals requires a multifaceted commitment from leaders, including financial, material, and personnel resources. However, little is known about the interactional resources needed for project implementation. The aim of this analysis was to identify the types of interactional support hospital teams sought in a surgical quality improvement project. METHODS: Hospital site visits were conducted using a combination of observations, interviews, and focus groups to explore the implementation of a surgical quality improvement project. Twenty-six site visits were conducted between October 2012 and August 2014 at a total of 16 hospitals that agreed to participate. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded for themes using inductive analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 321 respondents and conducted an additional 28 focus groups. Respondents reported needing the following types of interactional support during implementation of quality improvement interventions: (1) a critical outside perspective on their implementation progress; (2) opportunities to learn from peers, especially around clinical innovations; and (3) external validation to help establish visibility for and commitment to the project. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement in hospitals is both a clinical endeavor and a social endeavor. Our findings show that teams often desire interactional resources as they implement quality improvement initiatives. In-person site visits can provide these resources while also activating emotional energy for teams, which builds momentum and sustainability for quality improvement work. IMPLICATIONS: Policymakers and quality improvement leaders will benefit from developing strategies to maximize interactional learning and feedback for quality improvement teams. Further research should investigate the most effective methods for meeting these needs.