Developing a national implementation strategy to accelerate uptake of evidence-based family caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

OBJECTIVE: Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services. METHODS: Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission-on-Cancer-accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence-based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer center's mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). Top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy-in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards. CONCLUSION: Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence-based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

Availability of Family Caregiver Programs in US Cancer Centers.

Importance: Family caregivers provide the majority of health care to the 18 million patients with cancer in the US. Yet despite providing complex medical and nursing care, a large proportion of caregivers report no formal support or training. In recognition of this gap, many interventions to support cancer caregivers have been developed and tested over the past 2 decades. However, there are few system-level data on whether US cancer centers have adopted and implemented these interventions. Objective: To describe and characterize the availability of family caregiver support programs in US cancer centers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional national survey study was conducted between September 1, 2021, and April 30, 2023. Participants comprised clinical and administrative staff of Commission on Cancer-accredited US cancer centers. Data analysis was performed in May and June 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey questions about the availability of 11 types of family caregiver programs (eg, peer mentoring, education classes, and psychosocial programs) were developed after literature review, assessment of similar program evaluation surveys, and discussions among a 13-member national expert advisory committee. Family caregiver programs were defined as structured, planned, and coordinated groups of activities and procedures aimed at specifically supporting family caregivers as part of usual care. Survey responses were tabulated using standard descriptive statistics, including means, proportions, and frequencies. Results: Of the surveys sent to potential respondents at 971 adult cancer centers, 238 were completed (response rate, 24.5%). After nonresponse weight adjustment, most cancer centers (75.4%) had at least 1 family caregiver program; 24.6% had none. The most common program type was information and referral services (53.6%). Cancer centers with no programs were more likely to have smaller annual outpatient volumes (χ2 = 11.10; P = .011). Few centers had caregiver programs on training in medical and/or nursing tasks (21.7%), caregiver self-care (20.2%), caregiver-specific distress screening (19.3%), peer mentoring (18.9%), and children caregiving for parents (8.3%). Very few programs were developed from published evidence in a journal (8.1%). The top reason why cancer centers selected their programs was community members requesting the program (26.3%); only 12.3% of centers selected their programs based on scientific evidence. Most programs were funded by the cancer center or hospital (58.6%) or by philanthropy (42.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, most cancer centers had family caregiver programs; however, a quarter had none. Furthermore, the scope of programming was limited and rarely evidence based, with few centers offering caregiving education and training. These findings suggest that implementation strategies are critically needed to foster uptake of evidence-based caregiver interventions.

Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. METHODS: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

Perceptions of Palliative Care Program Viability During the Pandemic: Qualitative Results From a National Survey.

Background: Palliative care programs have played a significant role during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the financial impact of the pandemic and operational challenges for palliative care programs have raised concerns for their future viability. Objectives: To explore palliative care program leaders' perceptions of the future viability of their programs in the context of the pandemic and inform future educational and program development. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1430 specialist palliative care program leaders, identified through the Center to Advance Palliative Care's contact lists, via email in May 2020 and January 2021. Leaders were asked why they were or were not concerned about the viability of their palliative care programs. Qualitative content analysis was applied to determine themes. Results: We received 440 responses. Most programs served hospital settings and were geographically located across all US regions. We identified four themes: 1) The importance of being valued by organizational leadership and peers, 2) The importance of adequate and supported palliative care staff, 3) The pandemic validated and accelerated the need for palliative care, and 4) The pandemic perpetuated organizational financial concerns. Conclusion: Findings provide insights about palliative care program viability from the perspective of program leaders during a global pandemic. Technical assistance to support palliative care teams and their relationships with stakeholders, methods to measure the impact of peer support, efforts to educate administrators about the value of palliative care, and efforts to reduce burnout are needed to sustain palliative care programs into the future.

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment. Objective: To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines. Results: Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Expert Panel Consensus on Management of Advanced Cancer-Related Pain in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD. Objective: To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD. Evidence Review: A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021. Findings: Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.

Specialty Palliative Care in COVID-19: Early Experiences from the Palliative Care Quality Collaborative.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred unprecedented need for specialty palliative care. The Palliative Care Quality Collaborative (PCQC) provides unique infrastructure for rapid data collection and analysis. Objectives: To capture and describe real-time, real-world experiences of specialty palliative care professionals caring for patients with COVID-19 through a rapid reporting tool and registry. Setting: Palliative care clinicians consulted for patients either positive for COVID-19, under investigation for COVID-19, or recovered from COVID-19. Design: The PCQC created a 13-item COVID-19 case report form (CRF), modeled after the PCQC core dataset for specialty palliative care quality measurement. Twelve items offered discrete answer choices and one was open-ended. The CRF was publicized widely (e.g., social media, e-mail list serves) and completed through a link on the PCQC website. Results: Three hundred six reports (298 adult, 8 pediatric) were submitted between April 6, 2020 and October 7, 2020. The majority of patients (83%) were 50 years or older; 25% were 80 or older, and 78% were COVID-19 positive. Male gender identity was significantly more prevalent than female (58% vs. 40%, p < 0.002). The most common comorbidity was cardiovascular disease (23%). Of adult hospital-based patients, 69% were full code before palliative care consultation versus 28% after (p < 0.05). All pediatric patients were full code before and after palliative care consult. Qualitative themes were strained communication with patients, family visitation challenges, communication barriers between clinicians and families, rapid changes in palliative care medical management, community care options difficult to find, lack of testing in community-based settings, and guardianship and legal challenges. Conclusion: Preliminary data from the first 306 patients reported to the PCQC COVID-19 Registry describe palliative care use concentrated among older and higher risk patients and challenges to the provision of palliative care during this pandemic.

Palliative Care Specialist Access is Associated With Rankings of Hospital Quality.

CONTEXT: Increasing evidence has shown that access to specialty palliative care, particularly outpatient palliative care clinics, can yield improved health outcomes and be a marker of hospital quality. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an association exists between access to specialty palliative care programs and hospital rankings found in the 2020-2021 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals. METHODS: This study used publicly available data from the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) Provider Directory to determine access to in-patient and out-patient palliative care in the 2020-2021 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings. Descriptive statistics and chi-squares were performed. Data were also analyzed across the four U.S. Census Bureau regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, West). RESULTS: Around 100% of the Top 20 hospitals include hospital-based palliative care consultation teams, and 95% offered outpatient palliative care. Of the second cohort of 83 hospitals, 99% offered inpatient palliative care, and 65% offered outpatient palliative care. Of the third cohort of 75 hospitals ranked, 96% had inpatient palliative care services, while only 41.3% offered outpatient palliative care. This represents a significant association between rank position and access to outpatient palliative care (P < 0.01). Ranked hospitals also have significantly higher access to hospital-based palliative care teams compared to the national prevalence rate (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: These findings reflect the association of access to specialty palliative care with USNWR rankings for hospital quality. Further study is necessary to determine the specific influence of access to palliative care and USNWR rank position.

Palliative Care Team Perceptions of Standardized Palliative Care Referral Criteria Implementation in Hospital Settings.

Background: Standardized referral criteria can aid in identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care consultation. Little is known, however, on palliative care team members' perceptions of these criteria. Objective: Describe palliative care programs' reasons for referral criteria implementation and their perception of the benefits or disadvantages of its use. Design: Online survey of National Palliative Care Registry™ participants who use standardized referral criteria. Results: Fifty-three programs participated. Late referrals (64.2%) were the most commonly cited reason for referral criteria implementation. The majority (77.4%) felt that referral criteria lead to positive outcomes, including earlier referrals for palliative care-appropriate patients (71.7%). Increases in staff workload and inappropriate referrals were identified as disadvantages of referral criteria use.* Conclusion: Palliative care program members identified both benefits and disadvantages of referral criteria use, but felt they had mostly productive results. *Correction added on March 18, 2021 after first online publication of December 18, 2020: In the Results section of the abstract, the third sentence was changed from "Increases in clinical volume and inappropriate referrals were identified as disadvantages of referral criteria use." to "Increases in staff workload and inappropriate referrals were identified as disadvantages of referral criteria use."

Use of an Online Palliative Care Clinical Curriculum to Train U.S. Hospital Staff: 2015-2019.

Background: Most clinicians in the United States do not receive pre-professional education in pain and symptom management, communication skills, and caregiver support. The use of these skills by clinicians improves the quality of care for persons living with serious illness and enables the specialty-trained palliative care workforce to focus on patients whose needs are most complex. Objective: To review current trends in hospital use of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) online clinical training curriculum. Description: Launched in 2015, CAPC clinical curriculum educates clinicians in the knowledge and skills necessary to improve care for patients with serious illness. CAPC currently offers 43 clinical courses and 4 Designations in recognition of successful completion of training by topic. Results: From January 15, 2015, to August 31, 2019, 26,535 clinicians working in hospitals completed 172,684 clinical courses. Registered nurses represented half of learners, and advanced practice providers were most likely to seek Designation. Physicians made up 22% of all learners; 85% of physician learners came from specialties beyond palliative care. Two of every five U.S. hospitals with more than 300 beds had at least one learner. In post-course evaluations, 84% reported that they will make practice changes as a result, and 70% reported that the content was new. Conclusions: The CAPC clinical curriculum is a widely used and valued method for education in clinical skills specific to the care of people living with serious illness. Findings suggest that an increasing number of hospital leaders recognize the importance of these skills in caring for patients with serious illness and support the necessary training.

Factors Associated with the Adoption and Closure of Hospital Palliative Care Programs in the United States.

Background: In the United States, the percentage of hospitals over 50 beds with palliative care programs has risen substantially from 7% of hospitals in 2001 to 72% in 2017. Yet the dynamic nature of program adoption and closure over time is not known. Objective: To examine the rate of palliative care program adoption and closure and associated hospital and geographic characteristics in a national sample of U.S. hospitals. Design: Adoption and closure rates were calculated for 3696 U.S. hospitals between 2009 and 2017. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between adoption and closure status and hospital, geographic, and community characteristics. Setting/Subjects: All nonfederal general medical and surgical, cancer, heart, and obstetric or gynecological hospitals, of all sizes, in the United States in operation in both 2009 and 2017. Results: By 2017, 34.9% (812/2327) of the hospitals without palliative care in 2009 had adopted palliative care programs, and 15.0% (205/1369) of the hospitals with programs had closed them. In multivariable models, hospitals in metropolitan areas, nonprofit and public hospitals (compared to for-profit hospitals), and those with residency training approval by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were significantly more likely to adopt and significantly less likely to close palliative care programs during the study period. Conclusions: This study indicates that palliative care is not equitably adopted nor sustained by hospitals in the United States. Federal and state interventions may be required to ensure that high-quality care is available to our nation's sickest patients.

Hospital Characteristics Associated with Palliative Care Program Prevalence.

Background: Over the past two decades, the number of hospitals with palliative care has increased significantly. Objective: This study analyzes the availability of palliative care in U.S. hospitals and examines the variation by hospital characteristics, community-level socioeconomic demographics, health care markets, and geographic characteristics. Methods: Data were obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database for 2017 and supplemented with 2016 for nonresponders, the United States Census Bureau's 2017 American Community Survey, the Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care's 2016 Spending and 2011 Hospital and Physician Capacity datasets, the National Palliative Care Registry™, state-level directories on palliative care, and web-based searches. Multivariable logistic regression and average marginal effects were used to examine predictors of hospital palliative care programs. Results: Seventy-two percent of hospitals with 50 or more beds had palliative care programs. Hospital and geographic characteristics were significantly associated with the presence of palliative care. Most notably, nonprofit hospitals were 24.5 percentage points more likely than for-profit hospitals to have palliative care, and metropolitan areas were 15.4 percentage points more likely than rural areas, controlling for other variables. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that availability of palliative care in U.S. hospitals is determined by where patients live and the type of hospital to which they are admitted. Equitable and reliable availability to quality palliative care must improve across the nation.