What Patients Facing Cancer and Caregivers Want From Communication in Times of Crisis: A Qualitative Study in the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis. METHODS: We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes. RESULTS: Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time. CONCLUSION: Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises.

Depression care quality among patients with solid tumor cancers detected to have depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics.

Patients with cancer, especially advanced cancer, experience depression at high rates. We aimed to evaluate the quality of depression care received by patients with solid tumor cancer and advanced solid tumor cancer in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients seen in 82 VA primary care clinics who newly screened positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). Outcomes included timely follow-up within 84 or 180 days (3+ mental health specialty, 3+ psychotherapy, or 3+ primary care visits with depression diagnosis codes) and minimum treatment within 1 year (60+ days antidepressants prescribed, 4+ mental health specialty visits, or 3+ psychotherapy visits). 608,042 individuals were seen in VA primary care clinics during this period; 49,839 patients (8.2%) had solid tumor cancer and 9,278 (1.5%) had advanced or poor-prognosis solid tumor cancer. For 686 observations of patients with cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 22.3% within 84 days and 38.2% within 180 days. For 73 observations of patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 21.9% within 84 days and 34.3% within 180 days. Rates of minimum treatment within 1 year were 68.4% and 64.4% for patients with cancer and patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer, respectively. Quality of timely depression management is low in patients with solid tumor cancers. Even in health systems with well-integrated mental health services, care gaps remain for patients with cancer and depression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrating Patient and Expert Perspectives to Conceptualize High-Quality Palliative Cancer Care for Symptoms in the US Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study.

Quality measurement is typically the domain of clinical experts and health system leaders; patient/caregiver perspectives are rarely solicited. We aimed to describe and integrate clinician and patient/caregiver conceptualizations of high-quality palliative symptom care for patients receiving care for advanced cancer within the US Veterans Health Administration in the context of existing quality measures. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts from prioritization discussions of process quality measures relevant to cancer palliative care. These discussions occurred during 2 modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness panels: a panel of 10 palliative care clinical expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) and a panel of 9 patients/caregivers with cancer experience. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and independently double-coded using an a priori logical framework. Content analysis was used to identify subthemes within codes and axial coding was used to identify crosscutting themes. Patients/caregivers and clinical experts contributed important perspectives to 3 crosscutting themes. First, proactive elicitation of symptoms is critical. Patients/caregivers especially emphasized importance of comprehensive and proactive screening and assessment, especially for pain and mental health. Second, screening and assessment alone is not enough; information elicited from patients must inform care. Measuring screening/assessment and management care processes separately has important limitations. Lastly, high-quality symptom management can be broadly defined if it is patient-centered; high-quality care takes an individualized approach and might include non-medical or non-pharmacological symptom management. Integrating the perspectives of clinical experts and patients/caregivers is critical for health systems to consider as they design and implement quality measures for palliative cancer care.

Surgeon-reported Factors Influencing Adoption of Quality Standards for Goal-concordant Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored surgical oncologists' perspectives on factors influencing adoption of quality standards in patients with advanced cancer. BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification Program includes communication standards designed to facilitate goal-concordant care, yet little is known about how surgeons believe these standards align with clinical practice. METHODS: Semistructured video-based interviews were conducted from November 2020 to January 2021 with academic surgical oncologists purposively sampled based on demographics, region, palliative care certification, and years in practice. Interviews addressed: (1) adherence to standards documenting care preferences for life-sustaining treatment, surrogate decision-maker, and goals of surgery; and (2) factors influencing their adoption into practice. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, qualitatively analyzed, and conducted until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Twenty-six surgeons participated (57.7% male, 8.5 mean years in practice, 19.2% palliative care board-certified). Surgeons reported low adherence to documenting care preferences and surrogate decision-maker and high adherence to discussing, but not documenting, goals of surgery. Participants held conflicting views about the relevance of care preferences to preoperative conversations and surrogate decision-maker documentation by the surgeon and questioned the direct connection between documentation of quality standards and higher value patient care. Key themes regarding factors influencing adoption of quality standards included organizational culture, workflow, and multidisciplinary collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgeons routinely discuss goals of surgery, documentation is inconsistent; care preferences and surrogate decision-makers are rarely discussed or documented. Adherence to these standards would be facilitated by multidisciplinary collaboration, institutional standardization, and evidence linking standards to higher value care.

Patient-Reported Quality Measures for Palliative Care: The Time is now.

CONTEXT: While progress has been made in the ability to measure the quality of hospice and specialty palliative care, there are notable gaps. A recent analysis conducted by Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) revealed a paucity of patient-reported measures, particularly in palliative care domains such as symptom management and communication. OBJECTIVES: The research team, consisting of quality measure and survey developers, psychometricians, and palliative care clinicians, used established state-of-the art methods for developing and testing patient-reported measures. METHODS: We applied a patient-centered, patient-engaged approach throughout the development and testing process. This sequential process included 1) an information gathering phase; 2) a pre-testing phase; 3) a testing phase; and 4) an endorsement phase. RESULTS: To fill quality measure gaps identified during the information gathering phase, we selected two draft measures ("Feeling Heard and Understood" and "Receiving Desired Help for Pain") for testing with patients receiving palliative care in clinic-based settings. In the pre-testing phase, we used an iterative process of cognitive interviews to refine draft items and corresponding response options for the proposed measures. The alpha pilot test supported establishment of protocols for the national beta field test. Measures met conventional criteria for reliability, had strong face and construct validity, and there was diversity in program level scores. The measures received National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsement. CONCLUSION: These measures highlight the key role of patient voices in palliative care and fill a much-needed gap for patient-reported experience measures in our field.

The chosen and the unchosen: How eligibility for liver transplant influences the lived experiences of patients with advanced liver disease.

Advanced liver disease is often uncurable and fatal. Liver transplant is the only curative option for patients with advanced, irreversible liver disease, but the need for new livers far exceeds the supply. Patients with the greatest need as well as the greatest likelihood of benefit, based on a complex array of biomedical and psychosocial considerations, are prioritized for transplant. The opportunity to receive a life-saving surgery no doubt has enormous consequences for patients and their healthcare providers, as does the absence of that opportunity. But these consequences are poorly characterized, especially for patients deemed poor candidates for liver transplant. Through in-depth interviews with patients living with advanced liver disease and the providers who care for them, we explore how eligibility status affects illness experiences, including patients' interactions with clinicians, knowledge about their disease, expectations for the future, and efforts to come to terms with a life-limiting illness. We describe how the clinical and social requirements needed to secure eligibility for liver transplant lend themselves to a clinical and cultural logic that delineates "worthy" and "unworthy" patients. We describe how providers and candidates discuss the possibility of moral redemption for such patients through transplant surgeries, a discourse notably absent among patients not eligible for transplant.

Trends in advance care planning and end-of-life care among persons living with dementia requiring surrogate decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated positive impacts of advance care planning (ACP) on end-of-life (EOL) care. We sought to examine trends in ACP and EOL care intensity among persons living with dementia who required surrogate decision-making in their final days of life. METHODS: We analyzed the participants of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative longitudinal panel study of U.S. residents, with dementia 70 years and older who required surrogate decision-making in the final days of life and died between 2000 and 2014. Based on surrogate reports after the death of a participant, our study measured the completion of three specific types of patient-engaged ACP (written EOL care instructions, assignment of a durable power of attorney for healthcare, patient engagement in EOL care discussions) and four measures of EOL care in the final days of life (death in hospital, receipt of life-prolonging treatments, limiting or withholding certain treatments, and receipt of comfort-oriented care). All analyses accounted for the complex survey design of HRS. RESULTS: Among 870 adults (weighted N = 2,812,380) with dementia who died in 2000-2014 and required surrogate decision-making at EOL, only 34.8% of patients participated in all three aspects of ACP, and there was not a significant increase in ACP completion between 2000 and 2014. The receipt of life-prolonging treatments in the final days of life has increased over time (adjusted change per year, 1.4 percentage points [pp]; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.2 pp; P-for-trend = 0.002), while the percentage of death in hospital, limiting or withholding certain treatments, or comfort-oriented care did not change. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the rates of ACP completion have not increased over time despite its potential benefits and life-prolonging treatments are still common among PLWD who require surrogate decision-making, a population who might benefit greatly from early ACP.

Improving Serious Illness Care for Surgical Patients: Quality Indicators for Surgical Palliative Care.

OBJECTIVE: Develop quality indicators that measure access to and the quality of primary PC delivered to seriously ill surgical patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: PC for seriously ill surgical patients, including aligning treatments with patients' goals and managing symptoms, is associated with improved patient-oriented outcomes and decreased healthcare utilization. However, efforts to integrate PC alongside restorative surgical care are limited by a lack of surgical quality indicators to evaluate primary PC delivery. METHODS: We developed a set of 27 preliminary indicators that measured palliative processes of care across the surgical episode, including goals of care, decision-making, symptom assessment, and issues related to palliative surgery. Then using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness method, a 12-member expert advisory panel rated the validity (primary outcome) and feasibility of each indicator twice: (1) remotely and (2) after an in-person moderated discussion. RESULTS: After 2 rounds of rating, 24 indicators were rated as valid, covering the preoperative evaluation (9 indicators), immediate preoperative readiness (2 indicators), intraoperative (1 indicator), postoperative (8 indicators), and end of life (4 indicators) phases of surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: This set of quality indicators provides a comprehensive set of process measures that possess the potential to measure high quality PC for seriously ill surgical patients throughout the surgical episode.

Patient and Caregiver Prioritization of Palliative and End-of-Life Cancer Care Quality Measures.

BACKGROUND: Development and prioritization of quality measures typically relies on experts in clinical medicine, but patients and their caregivers may have different perspectives on quality measurement priorities. OBJECTIVE: To inform priorities for health system implementation of palliative cancer and end-of-life care quality measures by eliciting perspectives of patients and caregivers. DESIGN: Using modified RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Panel methods and materials tailored for knowledgeable lay participants, we convened a panel to rate cancer palliative care process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day, in-person meeting. PARTICIPANTS: Nine patients and caregivers with experience living with or caring for patients with cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Panelists rated each concept on importance for providing patient- and family-centered care on a nine-point scale and each panelist nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5"). KEY RESULTS: Cancer patient and caregiver panelists rated all measure concepts presented as highly important to patient- and family- centered care (median rating ≥ 7) in pre-panel (mean rating range, 6.9-8.8) and post-panel ratings (mean rating range, 7.2-8.9). Forced choice nominations of the "top 5" helped distinguish similarly rated measure concepts. Measure concepts nominated into the "top 5" by three or more panelists included two measure concepts of communication (goals of care discussions and discussion of prognosis), one measure concept on providing comprehensive assessments of patients, and three on symptoms including pain management plans, improvement in pain, and depression management plans. Patients and caregivers nominated one additional measure concept (pain screening) back into consideration, bringing the total number of measure concepts under consideration to 21. CONCLUSIONS: Input from cancer patients and caregivers helped identify quality measurement priorities for health system implementation. Forced choice nominations were useful to discriminate concepts with the highest perceived importance. Our approach serves as a model for incorporating patient and caregiver priorities in quality measure development and implementation.

Impact of a Palliative Care Nurse Practitioner in an Oncology Clinic: A Quality Improvement Effort.

PURPOSE: Guidelines support early integration of palliative care (PC) into standard oncology practice; however, little is known as to whether outcomes can be improved by modifying health care delivery in a real-world setting. METHODS: We report our 6-year experience of embedding a nurse practitioner in an oncology clinic (March 2014-March 2020) to integrate early, concurrent advance care planning and PC. RESULTS: Compared with patients with advanced cancer not enrolled in the palliative care nurse practitioner program, in March 2020, patients who are enrolled are more likely to have higher quality of PC (eg, goals of care note documentation [82% v 15%; P < .01], referral to the psychosocial oncology program [67% v 37%; P < .01], and referral to hospice [61% v 34%; P < .01]) and less inpatient utilization in the last 6 months of life (eg, hospital days [12 v 18; P < .01] and intensive care unit days [1.2 v 2.3; P < .01]). The program expanded over time with the support of faculty skills training for advance care planning and PC, supporting a shared mental model of PC delivery within the oncology clinic. CONCLUSION: Embedding a trained palliative care nurse practitioner in oncology clinics to deliver early integrated PC can lead to improved quality of care for patients with advanced cancer.

Radiation Oncology Program Directors' Attitudes Toward Twenty-Seven Discrete Palliative Care Skills.

Background: We evaluated radiation oncology residency program directors' attitudes toward discrete palliative care skills in effort to determine which skills should be prioritized in radiation oncology resident training. Design: We identified 93 U.S. radiation oncology residency program directors and sent them a survey through e-mail. The survey assessed views of 27 discrete palliative care skills in eight domains and was adapted from the American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Guidance Statement defining high-quality primary palliative care in medical oncology. Using a nine-point scale, respondents rated each skill on three constructs: (1) importance to high-quality cancer care, (2) relevance of the skill to radiation oncology practice, and (3) importance to radiation oncology residency education. Skills were categorized as "Include" (median score ≥7 for all constructs), "Exclude" (median score ≤3 for all constructs), or "Uncertain" (all other skills) using a composite score of all constructs. Results: Twenty-nine program directors (response rate 31%) completed the survey. Of the 27 skills, 100% were rated as highly important to high-quality cancer care, 70% were rated as highly relevant to radiation oncology practice, and 81% were rated as highly important to resident education (median score ≥7). Using the composite score, 70% of skills were categorized as "Include." The domains of Caregiver Support (100%), End-of-Life Care (66%), and Spiritual/Cultural Assessment and Management (33%) had the highest proportions of skills rated as "Uncertain." Conclusions: The surveyed radiation oncology residency program directors generally value palliative care skills within radiation oncology.

Quality measures in HCC care by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.

The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process-based measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13-member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha-fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high-risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging-Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high-risk population.

Two mental models of integrated care for advanced liver disease: qualitative study of multidisciplinary health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to present two divergent mental models of integrated advanced liver disease (AdvLD) care among 26 providers who treat patients with AdvLD. SETTING: 3 geographically dispersed United States Veterans Health Administration health systems. PARTICIPANTS: 26 professionals (20 women and 6 men) participated, including 9 (34.6%) gastroenterology, hepatology, and transplant physicians, 2 (7.7%) physician assistants, 7 (27%) nurses and nurse practitioners, 3 (11.5%) social workers and psychologists, 4 (15.4%) palliative care providers and 1 (3.8%) pharmacist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews of providers caring for patients with AdvLD. We used framework analysis to identify two divergent mental models of integrated AdvLD care. These models vary in timing of initiating various constituents of care, philosophy of integration, and supports and resources needed to achieve each model. RESULTS: Clinicians described integrated care as an approach that incorporates elements of curative care, symptom and supportive care, advance care planning and end-of-life services from a multidisciplinary team. Analysis revealed two mental models that varied in how and when these constituents are delivered. One mental model involves sequential transitions between constituents of care, and the second mental model involves synchronous application of the various constituents. Participants described elements of teamwork and coordination supports necessary to achieve integrated AdvLD care. Many discussed the importance of having a multidisciplinary team integrating supportive care, symptom management and palliative care with liver disease care. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals agree on the constituents of integrated AdvLD care but describe two competing mental models of how these constituents are integrated. Health systems can promote integrated care by assembling multidisciplinary teams, and providing teamwork and coordination supports, and training that facilitates patient-centred AdvLD care.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Palliative Care, Version 2.2021.

Palliative care has evolved to be an integral part of comprehensive cancer care with the goal of early intervention to improve quality of life and patient outcomes. The NCCN Guidelines for Palliative Care provide recommendations to help the primary oncology team promote the best quality of life possible throughout the illness trajectory for each patient with cancer. The NCCN Palliative Care Panel meets annually to evaluate and update recommendations based on panel members' clinical expertise and emerging scientific data. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's recent discussions and highlights updates on the importance of fostering adaptive coping strategies for patients and families, and on the role of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions to optimize symptom management.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About End-Stage Liver Disease.

End-stage liver disease (ESLD) is an increasingly prevalent condition with high morbidity and mortality, especially for those ineligible for liver transplantation. Patients with ESLD, along with their family caregivers, have significant needs related to their quality of life, and there is increasing attention being paid to integration of palliative care (PC) principles into routine care throughout the disease spectrum. To provide upstream care for these patients and their family caregivers, it is essential for PC providers to understand their complex psychosocial and physical needs and to be aware of the unique challenges around medical decision making and end-of-life care for this patient population. This article, written by a team of liver and PC experts, shares 10 high-yield tips to help PC clinicians provide better care for patients with advanced liver disease.

Expert Stakeholder Prioritization of Process Quality Measures to Achieve Patient- and Family-Centered Palliative and End-of-Life Cancer Care.

Importance: Quality measures of palliative and end-of-life care relevant to patients with advanced cancer have been developed, but few are in routine use. It is unclear which of these measures are most important for providing patient- and family-centered care and have high potential for improving quality of care. Objective: To prioritize process quality measures for assessing delivery of patient- and family-centered palliative and end-of-life cancer care in US Veterans Affairs (VA) health care facilities. Design, Setting, Participants: A panel of 10 palliative and cancer care expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) rated process quality measure concepts before and after a 1-day meeting. Measures: Panelists rated 64 measure concepts on a nine-point scale on: (1) importance to providing patient- and family-centered care, and (2) potential for quality improvement (QI). Panelists also nominated five highest priority measure concepts ("top 5") on each attribute. Results: Panelists rated most measure concepts (54 premeeting, 56 post-meeting) as highly important to patient- and family-centered care (median rating ≥7). Considerably fewer (17 premeeting, 22 post-meeting) were rated as having high potential for QI. Measure concepts having postpanel median ratings ≥7 and nominated by one or more panelists as "top 5" on either attribute comprised a shortlist of 20 measure concepts. Conclusions: A panel of expert stakeholders helped prioritize 64 measure concepts into a shortlist of 20. Half of the shortlisted measures were related to communication about patient preferences and decision making, and half were related to symptom assessment and treatment.

Quality Indicators in Surgical Palliative Care: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Defining high quality palliative care in seriously ill surgical patients is essential to provide patient-centered surgical care. Quality indicators specifically for seriously ill surgical patients are necessary in order to integrate palliative care into existing surgical quality improvement programs. OBJECTIVES: To identify existing quality indicators that measure palliative care delivery in seriously ill surgical patients, characterize their development, and assess their methodological quality. METHODS: A PRISMA-guided systematic review included studies that reported on the development process and characteristics of palliative care quality indicators and guidelines in adult surgical patients. Relevant measures were categorized into the previously defined National Consensus Project domains of palliative care and the Donabedian quality framework, and assessed for methodological quality. RESULTS: There were 263 unique measures identified from 26 studies, of which 70% were process measures. Indicators addressing Care of the Patient Near the End of Life (31.5%) and Physical Aspects of Care (20.8%) were the most common. Indicators addressing Spiritual (2.6%) and Cultural Aspects of Care (1.2%) were the least common. Methodological quality varied widely across studies. Although most studies defined a purpose for the indicators and used scientific evidence, many studies lacked input from target populations and few had discussed the practical application of indicators. CONCLUSION: This review was a key step that informed efforts to develop quality indicators for seriously ill surgical patients. Few indicators addressed non-physical aspects of suffering and no indicators were identified addressing palliative surgery. Future attention is needed toward the development and practical application of palliative care quality indicators in surgical patients.

Measure Scan and Synthesis of Palliative and End-of-Life Process Quality Measures for Advanced Cancer.

PURPOSE: Monitoring and improving the quality of palliative and end-of-life cancer care remain pressing needs in the United States. Among existing measures that assess the quality of palliative and end-of-life care, many operationalize similar concepts. We identified existing palliative care process measures and synthesized these measures to aid stakeholder prioritization that will facilitate health system implementation in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed-indexed articles for process quality measures related to palliative and end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer, supplemented by expert input. Measures were inductively grouped into "measure concepts" and higher-level groups. RESULTS: Literature review identified 226 unique measures from 23 measure sources, which we grouped into 64 measure concepts within 12 groups. Groups were advance care planning (11 measure concepts), pain (7), dyspnea (9), palliative care-specific issues (6), other specific symptoms (17), comprehensive assessment (2), symptom assessment (1), hospice/palliative care referral (1), spiritual care (2), mental health (5), information provision (2), and culturally appropriate care (1). CONCLUSION: Measure concepts covered the spectrum of care from acute symptom management to advance care planning and psychosocial needs, with variability in the number of measure concepts per group. This taxonomy of process quality measure concepts can be used by health systems seeking stakeholder input to prioritize targets for improving palliative and end-of-life care quality in patients with advanced cancer.