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.

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.

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.

Early integration of palliative care services with standard oncology care for patients with advanced cancer.

Scientific advances in novel cancer therapeutics have led to remarkable changes in oncology practice and longer lives for patients diagnosed with incurable malignancies. However, the myriad options for treatment have established a culture of cancer care that has not been matched with a similar availability of efficacious supportive care interventions aimed at relieving debilitating symptoms due to progressive disease and treatment side effects. Accumulating data show that the introduction of palliative care services at the time of diagnosis of advanced cancer leads to meaningful improvement in the experiences of patients and family caregivers by emphasizing symptom management, quality of life, and treatment planning. In this review article, the rationale and evidence base for this model of early palliative care services integrated into standard oncology care are presented. In addition, the implications and limitations of the existing data to 1) elucidate the mechanisms by which early palliative care benefits patients and families; 2) guide the dissemination and application of this model in outpatient settings; and 3) inform health care policy regarding the delivery of high-quality, cost-effective, and comprehensive cancer care are discussed.

Drivers of care costs and quality in the last 3 months of life among older people receiving palliative care: A multinational mortality follow-back survey across England, Ireland and the United States.

BACKGROUND: Care costs rise towards the end of life. International comparison of service use, costs and care experiences can inform quality and improve access. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare health and social care costs, quality and their drivers in the last 3 months of life for older adults across countries. Null hypothesis: no difference between countries. DESIGN: Mortality follow-back survey. Costs were calculated from carers' reported service use and unit costs. SETTING: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the United States (New York, San Francisco). PARTICIPANTS: Informal carers of decedents who had received palliative care participated in the study. RESULTS: A total of 767 questionnaires were returned: 245 in England, 282 in Ireland and 240 in the United States. Mean care costs per person with cancer/non-cancer were US$37,250/US$37,376 (the United States), US$29,065/US$29,411 (Ireland), US$15,347/US$16,631 (England) and differed significantly (F = 25.79/14.27, p < 0.000). Cost distributions differed and were most homogeneous in England. In all countries, hospital care accounted for > 80% of total care costs; community care 6%-16%, palliative care 1%-15%; 10% of decedents used ~30% of total care costs. Being a high-cost user was associated with older age (>80 years), facing financial difficulties and poor experiences of home care, but not with having cancer or multimorbidity. Palliative care services consistently had the highest satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Poverty and poor home care drove high costs, suggesting that improving community palliative care may improve care value, especially as palliative care expenditure was low. Major diagnostic variables were not cost drivers. Care costs in the United States were high and highly variable, suggesting that high-cost low-value care may be prevalent.

Palliative care for respiratory disease: An education model of care.

That palliative care improves quality of life for seriously ill patients and their families is well known - but how can healthcare providers ensure that the palliative needs of all patients are being assessed and addressed? A growing number of curricula in core palliative care practices have been developed to ensure that clinicians from all specialties and disciplines have the necessary training to manage pain and symptoms and discuss care goals with patients and families. Through broad-based training in core palliative care skills, combined with referral to specialty palliative care for high-need patients, providers can improve quality of life for their patients with respiratory disease.

Palliative Care and Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.

The mission of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association includes increasing access to high-quality, evidence-based care that improves patient outcomes such as health-related quality of life and is consistent with the patients' values, preferences, and goals. Awareness of and access to palliative care interventions align with the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association mission. The purposes of this policy statement are to provide background on the importance of palliative care as it pertains to patients with advanced cardiovascular disease and stroke and their families and to make recommendations for policy decisions. Palliative care, defined as patient- and family-centered care that optimizes health-related quality of life by anticipating, preventing, and treating suffering, should be integrated into the care of all patients with advanced cardiovascular disease and stroke early in the disease trajectory. Palliative care focuses on communication, shared decision making about treatment options, advance care planning, and attention to physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological distress with inclusion of the patient's family and care system. Our policy recommendations address the following: reimbursement for comprehensive delivery of palliative care services for patients with advanced cardiovascular disease and stroke; strong payer-provider relationships that involve data sharing to identify patients in need of palliative care, identification of better care and payment models, and establishment of quality standards and outcome measurements; healthcare system policies for the provision of comprehensive palliative care services during hospitalization, including goals of care, treatment decisions, needs of family caregivers, and transition to other care settings; and health professional education in palliative care as part of licensure requirements.

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA.

Background: patient empowerment, through which patients become self-determining agents with some control over their health and healthcare, is a common theme across health policies globally. Most care for older people is in the acute setting, but there is little evidence to inform the delivery of empowering hospital care. Objective: we aimed to explore challenges to and facilitators of empowerment among older people with advanced disease in hospital, and the impact of palliative care. Methods: we conducted an ethnography in six hospitals in England, Ireland and the USA. The ethnography involved: interviews with patients aged ≥65, informal caregivers, specialist palliative care (SPC) staff and other clinicians who cared for older adults with advanced disease, and fieldwork. Data were analysed using directed thematic analysis. Results: analysis of 91 interviews and 340 h of observational data revealed substantial challenges to empowerment: poor communication and information provision, combined with routinised and fragmented inpatient care, restricted patients' self-efficacy, self-management, choice and decision-making. Information and knowledge were often necessary for empowerment, but not sufficient: empowerment depended on patient-centredness being enacted at an organisational and staff level. SPC facilitated empowerment by prioritising patient-centred care, tailored communication and information provision, and the support of other clinicians. Conclusions: empowering older people in the acute setting requires changes throughout the health system. Facilitators of empowerment include excellent staff-patient communication, patient-centred, relational care, an organisational focus on patient experience rather than throughput, and appropriate access to SPC. Findings have relevance for many high- and middle-income countries with a growing population of older patients with advanced disease.

Cost analysis of a prospective multi-site cohort study of palliative care consultation teams for adults with advanced cancer: Where do cost-savings come from?

BACKGROUND: Studies report cost-savings from hospital-based palliative care consultation teams compared to usual care only, but drivers of observed differences are unclear. AIM: To analyse cost-differences associated with palliative care consultation teams using two research questions: (Q1) What is the association between early palliative care consultation team intervention, and intensity of services and length of stay, compared to usual care only? (Q2) What is the association between early palliative care consultation team intervention and day-to-day hospital costs, compared to a later intervention? DESIGN: Prospective multi-site cohort study (2007-2011). Patients who received a consultation were placed in the intervention group, those who did not in the comparison group. Intervention group was stratified by timing, and groups were matched using propensity scores. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted to three US hospitals with advanced cancer. Principle analytic sample contains 863 patients ( nUC = 637; nPC EARLY = 177; nPC LATE = 49) discharged alive. RESULTS: Cost-savings from early palliative care accrue due to both reduced length of stay and reduced intensity of treatment, with an estimated 63% of savings associated with shorter length of stay. A reduction in day-to-day costs is observable in the days immediately following initial consult but does not persist indefinitely. A comparison of early and late palliative care consultation team cost-effects shows negligible difference once the intervention is administered. CONCLUSION: Reduced length of stay is the biggest driver of cost-saving from early consultation for patients with advanced cancer. Patient- and family-centred discussions on goals of care and transition planning initiated by palliative care consultation teams may be at least as important in driving cost-savings as the reduction of unnecessary tests and pharmaceuticals identified by previous studies.

Social and clinical determinants of preferences and their achievement at the end of life: prospective cohort study of older adults receiving palliative care in three countries.

BACKGROUND: Achieving choice is proposed as a quality marker. But little is known about what influences preferences especially among older adults. We aimed to determine and compare, across three countries, factors associated with preferences for place of death and treatment, and actual site of death. METHODS: We recruited adults aged ≥65-years from hospital-based multiprofessional palliative care services in London, Dublin, New York, and followed them for >17 months. All services offered consultation on hospital wards, support for existing clinical teams, outpatient services and received funding from their National Health Service and/or relevant Insurance reimbursements. The New York service additionally had 10 inpatient beds. All worked with and referred patients to local hospices. Face-to-face interviews recorded most and least preferred place of death, treatment goal priorities, demographic and clinical information using validated questionnaires. Multivariable and multilevel analyses assessed associated factors. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty eight older adults (64 London, 59 Dublin, 15 New York) were recruited, 110 died during follow-up. Home was the most preferred place of death (77/138, 56%) followed by inpatient palliative care/hospice units (22%). Hospital was least preferred (35/138, 25%), followed by nursing home (20%) and home (16%); hospice/palliative care unit was rarely least preferred (4%). Most respondents prioritised improving quality of life, either alone (54%), or equal with life extension (39%); few (3%) chose only life extension. There were no significant differences between countries. Main associates with home preference were: cancer diagnosis (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.40-9.90) and living with someone (OR 2.19, 1.33-3.62). Adults with non-cancer diagnoses were more likely to prefer palliative care units (OR 2.39, 1.14-5.03). Conversely, functional independence (OR 1.05, 1.04-1.06) and valuing quality of life (OR 3.11, 2.89-3.36) were associated with dying at home. There was a mismatch between preferences and achievements - of 85 people who preferred home or a palliative care unit, 19 (25%) achieved their first preference. CONCLUSION: Although home is the most common first preference, it is polarising and for 16% it is the least preferred. Inpatient palliative care unit emerges as the second most preferred place, is rarely least preferred, and yet was often not achieved for those who wanted to die there. Factors affecting stated preferences and met preferences differ. Available services, notably community support and palliative care units, require expansion. Contrasting actual place of death with capacity for meeting patient and family needs may be a better quality indicator than simply 'achieved preferences'.

Education, implementation, and policy barriers to greater integration of palliative care: A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Early integration of palliative care into the management of patients with serious disease has the potential to both improve quality of life of patients and families and reduce healthcare costs. Despite these benefits, significant barriers exist in the United States to the early integration of palliative care in the disease trajectory of individuals with serious illness. AIM: To provide an overview of the barriers to more widespread palliative care integration in the United States. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: A literature review using PubMed from 2005 to March 2015 augmented by primary data collected from 405 hospitals included in the Center to Advance Palliative Care's National Palliative Care Registry for years 2012 and 2013. We use the World Health Organization's Public Health Strategy for Palliative Care as a framework for analyzing barriers to palliative care integration. RESULTS: We identified key barriers to palliative care integration across three World Health Organization domains: (1) education domain: lack of adequate education/training and perception of palliative care as end-of-life care; (2) implementation domain: inadequate size of palliative medicine-trained workforce, challenge of identifying patients appropriate for palliative care referral, and need for culture change across settings; (3) policy domain: fragmented healthcare system, need for greater funding for research, lack of adequate reimbursement for palliative care, and regulatory barriers. CONCLUSION: We describe the key policy and educational opportunities in the United States to address and potentially overcome the barriers to greater integration of palliative care into the healthcare of Americans with serious illness.

Palliative Care Improves Quality of Care, Lowers Costs.

Palliative care has become America's fastest growing medical specialty. ere are now more than 6,500 physicians and 13,500 nurses certified in palliative care, and palliative care teams available in more than 80% of American hospitals with more than 50 beds.

Implementing the Serious Illness Care Program in Safety Net Health Systems: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Interventions to improve the quality of care for people affected by serious illness commonly fail to reach patients from marginalized and underserved communities, which include those characterized by racialized or indigenous identity, sexual and gender minority status, and rural living. Interventions to improve care through serious illness conversations have demonstrated benefit, but little is known about their implementation in health systems that predominantly serve these patient groups. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to understand factors influencing implementation of a serious illness communication-focused intervention-the Serious Illness Care Program in health systems who primarily provide care to marginalized and underserved communities. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (16) and focus groups (3) were conducted with 19 interdisciplinary team members from six geographically diverse U.S. healthcare systems. Using a template analysis approach, investigators coded data inductively and deductively to identify themes. RESULTS: Three themes emerged: patient factors, intervention elements, and health system contextual factors. Participants highlighted mission-driven efforts, creativity, interprofessional practice, and trainees as enablers of success. They identified weaknesses in the intervention's communication tool-the Serious Illness Conversation Guide as barriers to implementation of conversations. Resource constraints, socio-economic vulnerability, and mistrust in the health system were seen as additional barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems that provide care to underserved and marginalized communities face unique challenges implementing the Serious Illness Care Program. They also possess assets, some unique to these settings, that support program adoption. Findings suggest that implementation of similar programs in low-resource healthcare settings may help address unmet needs among marginalized populations.