The impact of outpatient supportive oncology on cancer care cost and utilization.

BACKGROUND: Supportive oncology (SO) care reduces symptom severity, admissions, and costs in patients with advanced cancer. This study examines the impact of SO care on utilization and costs. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of utilization and costs comparing patients enrolled in SO versus three comparison cohorts who did not receive SO. Using claims, the authors estimated differences in health care utilization and cost between the treatment group and comparison cohorts. The treatment group consisting of patients treated for cancer at an National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center who received SO between January 2018 and December 2019 were compared to an asynchronous cohort that received cancer care before January 2018 (n = 60), a contemporaneous cohort with palliative care receiving SO care from other providers in the Southeastern Pennsylvania region during the program period (n = 86), and a contemporaneous cohort without palliative care consisting of patients at other cancer centers who were eligible for but did not receive SO care (n = 393). RESULTS: At 30, 60, and 90 days post-enrollment into SO, the treatment group had between 27% and 70% fewer inpatient admissions and between 16% and 54% fewer emergency department visits (p < .05) compared to non-SO cohorts. At 90 days following enrollment in SO care, total medical costs were between 4.4% and 24.5% lower for the treatment group across all comparisons (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: SO is associated with reduced admissions, emergency department visits, and total costs in advanced cancer patients. Developing innovative reimbursement models could be a cost-effective approach to improve care of patients with advanced cancer.

Toward reducing racialized pain care disparities: Approaching cannabis research and access through the lens of equity and inclusion.

There is growing interest in cannabis use for cancer pain. This commentary aims to discuss the evidence surrounding cannabis use for cancer pain in the context of the long-racialized landscape of cannabis policies and the disparity in pain control among cancer patients holding minoritized racial identities. Much evidence surrounding both the benefits and harms of cannabis use in cancer patients, and all patients in general, is lacking. Although drawing on the research in cancer that is available, it is also important to illustrate the broader context about how cannabis' deep roots in medical, political, and social history impact patient use and health care policies. There are lessons we can learn from the racialized disparities in opioid risk mitigation strategies, so they are not replicated in the settings of cannabis for cancer symptom management. Additionally, the authors intentionally use the term "cannabis" here rather than "marijuana.: In the early 1900s, the lay press and government popularized the use of the word "marijuana" instead of the more common "cannabis" to tie the drug to anti-Mexican prejudice.

Perspectives from patients with chronic lung disease on a telehealth-facilitated integrated palliative care model: a qualitative content analysis study.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease affects nearly 37 million Americans and often results in significant quality of life impairment and healthcare burden. Despite guidelines calling for palliative care (PC) integration into pulmonary care as a vital part of chronic lung disease management, existing PC models have limited access and lack scalability. Use of telehealth to provide PC offers a potential solution to these barriers. This study explored perceptions of patients with chronic lung disease regarding a telehealth integrated palliative care (TIPC) model, with plans to use findings to inform development of an intervention protocol for future testing. METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews between June 2021- December 2021 with patients with advanced chronic lung disease. Interviews explored experiences with chronic lung disease, understanding of PC, and perceived acceptability of the proposed model along with anticipated facilitators and barriers of the TIPC model. We analyzed findings with a content analysis approach. RESULTS: We completed 20 interviews, with two that included both a patient and caregiver together due to patient preference. Perceptions were primarily related to three categories: burden of chronic lung disease, pre-conceived understanding of PC, and perspective on the proposed TIPC model. Analysis revealed a high level of disease burden related to chronic lung disease and its impact on day-to-day functioning. Although PC was not well understood, the TIPC model using a shared care planning approach via telehealth was seen by most as an acceptable addition to their chronic lung disease care. CONCLUSIONS: These findings emphasize the need for a patient-centered, shared care planning approach in chronic lung disease. The TIPC model may be one option that may be acceptable to individuals with chronic lung disease. Future work includes using findings to refine our TIPC model and conducting pilot testing to assess acceptability and utility of the model.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Cannabis Use, and the Endocannabinoid System: A Scoping Review.

There is emerging evidence that the endocannabinoid system (ECS) plays a significant role in the pathophysiology of many psychiatric disorders, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Increasing evidence suggests that a number of neurobiological correlates between endogenous cannabinoid function and cognitive dysfunction are seen in ADHD, making the ECS a possible target for therapeutic interventions. Cannabis use and cannabis use disorder are more prevalent in individuals with ADHD, compared to the general population, and there is growing popular perception that cannabis is therapeutic for ADHD. However, the relationship between cannabis use and ADHD symptomology is poorly understood. Further understanding of the role of the ECS in ADHD pathophysiology and the molecular alterations that may be a target for treatment is needed. To further the science on this emerging area of research, this scoping review describes the preclinical and clinical evidence seeking to understand the relationship between the ECS and ADHD.

A descriptive study of the connections between social risk and healthcare utilization with supportive oncology care.

OBJECTIVE: This study utilized social risk data in the electronic heath record collected as part of routine clinical practice and examined relationships with supportive oncology care contacts and healthcare utilization. METHODS: A total of 2,807 cancer patients were screened for four social determinants of health (SDOH) domains (financial resource strain, housing instability, food insecurity, and transportation need) and categorized to low or high risk SDOH groups. The number of patient contacts with supportive oncology was compared amongst the groups. The data were analyzed for demographic and outcome differences including emergency department visits, inpatient admissions, and appointment adherence. RESULTS: Heightened social risk was associated with more total contacts with supportive oncology care. Patients with high SDOH risk had more contacts across all outcomes examined including emergency department visits (M = 13), inpatient admissions (M = 14), and missed appointments (M = 11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with both greater social risks and acute care utilization are associated with more psychosocial interventions in supportive oncology follow-up. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive action to respond to social risk factors identified in SDOH screening.

Patient-Important Needs and Goals Related to Nutrition Interventions during Cancer Treatment.

Patients with cancer often experience nutrition-related challenges for which they are subsequently connected with nutritional support. Yet to date there are no validated tools to assess whether nutrition interventions sufficiently address patients' needs. A vital step toward developing a tool is to identify primary patient-important goals related to receiving nutrition support during cancer care. To that end, we interviewed patients and clinicians to identify nutrition-related needs and goals of patients undergoing cancer treatment. We interviewed 31 patients undergoing cancer treatment and 17 clinicians at the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, PA. Two coders analyzed transcripts using a conventional qualitative content analysis approach. Patients and clinicians both identified weight maintenance, improved food satisfaction and intake, and improved quality of life metrics - such as reduced emotional and financial stress - as top nutrition-related goals. Participants also highlighted the importance of patients receiving food they like and having control over what they eat when designing optimal nutrition interventions. These findings will be used in future work to create a patient-centered assessment tool designed to capture a range of patient goals related to nutrition interventions.

A Failure to Guide: Patient Experiences within a State-Run Cannabis Program in Pennsylvania, United States.

INTRODUCTION: Medical cannabis has been available for purchase in dispensaries in Pennsylvania, United States since April 2018. Patients wanting to access medical cannabis must receive certification from physicians for a limited number of physical and psychological conditions. Despite increasing numbers of patients using cannabis in the United States, little is known about the patient experience during certification and entry into state-regulated cannabis programs and how and if they are guided by health care professionals and dispensary staff. Through focus group discussions, we sought to capture patient perspectives of certification, cannabis acquisition and cannabis use. METHODS: Twenty-seven Pennsylvania participants took part in 7 virtual focus groups from June to July 2020. Participants were recruited statewide from the community, medical settings, and dispensaries. RESULTS: Focus group results indicate that while the medical cannabis program is functional, policymakers and the medical community have failed to meaningfully integrate cannabis into the health care system. Participants expressed frustration around two central themes: there was no overarching education about medical use of cannabis and there was little consistency and availability for people once they found a suitable product, resulting in inadequate symptom relief and exorbitant out of pocket costs to pursue cannabis use as an adjuvant therapeutic. Participants noted a siloed experience between the certification process, accessing dispensaries, and receiving ongoing medical care. The lack of integrated care required high levels of self-reliance and experimentation with medical cannabis for participants. CONCLUSION: We recommend that cannabis be better integrated into medical care for patients with qualifying conditions.

Telemedicine and Palliative Care: an Increasing Role in Supportive Oncology.

With the emergence of telemedicine as a routine form of care in various venues, the opportunities to use technology to care for the most vulnerable, most ill cancer patients are extremely appealing. Increasingly, evidence supports early integration of palliative care with standard oncologic care, supported by recent NCCN guidelines to increase and improve access to palliative care. This review looks at the use of telemedicine to expand access to palliative care as well as provide better care for patients and families where travel is difficult, if not impossible. When telemedicine has been used, often in Europe, for palliative care, the results show improvements in symptom management, comfort with care as well as patient and family satisfaction. One barrier to use of telemedicine is the concerns with technology and technology-related complications in population that is often elderly, frail and not always comfortable with non-face-to-face physician care. There remain significant opportunities to explore this intersection of supportive care and telemedicine.

Common questions about wound care.

Lacerations, abrasions, burns, and puncture wounds are common in the outpatient setting. Because wounds can quickly become infected, the most important aspect of treating a minor wound is irrigation and cleaning. There is no evidence that antiseptic irrigation is superior to sterile saline or tap water. Occlusion of the wound is key to preventing contamination. Suturing, if required, can be completed up to 24 hours after the trauma occurs, depending on the wound site. Tissue adhesives are equally effective for low-tension wounds with linear edges that can be evenly approximated. Although patients are often instructed to keep their wounds covered and dry after suturing, they can get wet within the first 24 to 48 hours without increasing the risk of infection. There is no evidence that prophylactic antibiotics improve outcomes for most simple wounds. Tetanus toxoid should be administered as soon as possible to patients who have not received a booster in the past 10 years. Superficial mild wound infections can be treated with topical agents, whereas deeper mild and moderate infections should be treated with oral antibiotics. Most severe infections, and moderate infections in high-risk patients, require initial parenteral antibiotics. Severe burns and wounds that cover large areas of the body or involve the face, joints, bone, tendons, or nerves should generally be referred to wound care specialists.

Online medical professionalism: patient and public relationships: policy statement from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards.

User-created content and communications on Web-based applications, such as networking sites, media sharing sites, or blog platforms, have dramatically increased in popularity over the past several years, but there has been little policy or guidance on the best practices to inform standards for the professional conduct of physicians in the digital environment. Areas of specific concern include the use of such media for nonclinical purposes, implications for confidentiality, the use of social media in patient education, and how all of this affects the public's trust in physicians as patient-physician interactions extend into the digital environment. Opportunities afforded by online applications represent a new frontier in medicine as physicians and patients become more connected. This position paper from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards examines and provides recommendations about the influence of social media on the patient-physician relationship, the role of these media in public perception of physician behaviors, and strategies for physician-physician communication that preserve confidentiality while best using these technologies.

Relief in Gastrointestinal Symptoms with Medical Marijuana Over 1 Year.

Introduction: Subjective improvement in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms was assessed among patients using medical marijuana (MMJ). Methods: Participants completed surveys at 0 days, 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months with questions about the severity of their GI symptoms on a scale from 1 (mild) to 3 (severe). Results: In each survey, participants reported a significant decrease in GI symptom severity when using MMJ versus when not using MMJ (p < 0.05). The most common self-reported side effects from using MMJ were increased appetite (12-21.4%), fatigue (6-16.7%), anxiety (4-11.9%), cough (4-11.9%), headache (6-7.9%), and dry mouth (4-7.1%). Conclusion: In patients with chronic GI symptoms, MMJ may provide persistent symptom severity improvement. Limited product availability and mild to moderate side effects are factors to consider before trialing MMJ.

Development and Preliminary Validation of a Screener for Digital Health Readiness.

Importance: While telehealth use has grown, patient uptake is variable, which has the potential to increase health disparities. Identifying and understanding individuals' barriers to digital health readiness can help health systems efficiently deploy resources to provide personalized patient-centered support. Objective: To develop and validate an instrument to evaluate digital health readiness to identify and quantify barriers to digital readiness. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this qualitative mixed-methods study conducted from April 26, 2022, to June 8, 2023, the instrument was created in 4 phases. Patients and health care professionals were interviewed to explore barriers to telehealth use, scale items were developed for the screener, cognitive interviews were conducted to refine scale items, and psychometric properties of the screener were evaluated. The study was conducted in an urban, multisite academic health system and the surrounding community. Participants were older than 18 years, English-speaking, and able to provide informed consent. Professionals worked within the Jefferson Health system and were involved in telehealth services. Exposure: Participants completed a semistructured interview (duration: 6-19 minutes), a cognitive interview (duration: 13-137 minutes), or the draft screener survey (duration: 5-10 minutes). Main Outcomes and Measures: Development and validation of a screener for digital health readiness. Results: Of 519 patients approached, 19 were ineligible, 122 declined, and 11 were excluded from analysis, resulting in inclusion of 367 participants (32 patient interviews, 16 professional interviews, 15 cognitive interviews, 304 psychometric survey testing). All 16 professionals who were approached participated. Most patient participants were Black (46.7%) or White (37.9%), male (56.4%), and had a high school degree or some college (49.6%); mean (SD) age was 45 (23) years for participants in cognitive interviews, 53 (18) years for survey respondents, and 57 (14) years for patient interviews. The structured interviews uncovered 21 concepts, leading to 48 items that were refined through cognitive interviews. Psychometric analyses of the 29 items that emerged from the cognitive interviews resulted in a final screener with 24 items across 2 factors: technical readiness (18 items; factor loading range, 0.488-0.968) and quality-of-care concerns (6 items; factor loading range, 0.619-0.942). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of digital health readiness, the findings suggest that the screener items may be valid to assess the complexity of factors influencing digital health uptake and highlight several areas for potential intervention.

Cannabis and opioid perceptions, co-use, and substitution among patients across 4 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

Prescription opioids are used for managing pain in persons with cancer, however, there are socioeconomic and racial disparities in medication access. Cannabis is increasingly used for cancer symptom management and as an opioid alternative. Limited data are available about patterns of opioid and cannabis use among patients with cancer. We used survey data from 4 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers in 3 states (n = 1220) to assess perceptions, use of cannabis and opioids for pain, their substitution, and racial and ethnic differences in each outcome. Compared with White patients, Black patients were less likely to use opioids for pain (odds ratio [OR] = 0.66; P = .035) and more likely to report that cannabis was more effective than opioids (OR = 2.46; P = .03). Race effects were mitigated (P > .05) after controlling for socioeconomic factors. Further research is needed to understand cannabis and opioid use patterns and how overlapping social determinants of health create a disadvantage in cancer symptom management for Black patients.

"Addressing barriers to digital health readiness among a Latino population".

Objective: There are many potential barriers to an individual's readiness and ability to use telehealth, including technology access, trust and knowledge. This qualitative study was a partnership between Jefferson and Esperanza Health Center (EHC), focused on addressing barriers to digital readiness among the Latino population served by EHC. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with Latino patients to assess their experiences with technology and willingness to learn more about technology for healthcare. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a content analysis approach. Results: We completed 28 interviews. Most interviews (n = 23, 82 %) were conducted in Spanish. Barriers to using health technology included forgetting passwords, platforms not being available in multiple languages, and lacking digital skills. Conclusion: Participants identified a need and interest in receiving support to develop technological skills needed to access health information and engage in digital health services. Future work is needed to develop patient-centered interventions to support the digital health readiness needs of underserved populations. Innovation: Healthcare systems and community health organizations can partner to build the capacity of community members to identify barriers in digital health use. These partnerships have the potential to empower communities to create culturally sensitive interventions that aim to increase digital health literacy.

How Racialized Approaches to Opioid Use Disorder and Opioid Misuse Management Hamper Pharmacoequity for Cancer Pain.

@JCO_ASCO paper focuses on racialized approaches to OUD and opioid misuse as underappreciated drivers of disparities in cancer and recs a path forward.

Perceptions, prevalence, and patterns of cannabis use among cancer patients treated at 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers.

BACKGROUND: The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. METHODS: A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. RESULTS: Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. CONCLUSION: This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Physicians' Perspectives on Their Training for and Role Within Pennsylvania's Medical Cannabis Program.

BACKGROUND: Physicians' ability to guide their patients on the use of medical cannabis can vary widely and is often shaped by their training, experiences, and the regulations and policies of their state. The goal of this qualitative study is to understand how prepared physicians are to certify and advise their patients to use medical cannabis. A secondary goal is to explore how physicians integrate certification into their clinical practices, and what factors shape their decisions and behaviors around certification. METHOD: Using semi-structured interviews with 24 physicians authorized to certify patients to use medical cannabis in Pennsylvania, a state with a medical access only program, we explored how physicians are trained and set up their practices. Interviews were analyzed using a blend of directed and conventional, and summative content analysis. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data around training, system-level factors, and practice-level factors that shaped how physicians are trained and practice medical cannabis certification. Although participants were largely satisfied with their CME training, they noted areas for improvement and a need for more high-quality research. Participants also noted system-level factors that prohibited treating cannabis as a traditional medical therapy, including communication barriers between physicians and dispensaries and confusion about insurance coverage for certification exams. CONCLUSION: Physicians require additional training to improve the operation of the medical cannabis program in Pennsylvania. Participants suggested that the program could be improved by reducing communication barriers between them, their patients, and the dispensaries around the product purchase, selection, use, and effectiveness of medical cannabis.

A Longitudinal Observational Study of Medical Cannabis Use and Polypharmacy among Patients Presenting to Dispensaries in Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: Cannabis use is increasing among adults to treat a variety of health conditions. Given the potential for interactions and adverse events, it is important to assess the use of medical cannabis along with other concomitant medications when assessing for polypharmacy. METHODS: The objective of this observational, longitudinal study was to examine medical cannabis (MC) use along with concomitant medications over 12 months in patients with serious medical conditions enrolled in the Pennsylvania (PA) Department of Health's (DOH) Medical Marijuana Program and to collect and catalog which forms of MC patients are taking along with their concomitant medications. RESULTS: There were 213 participants who completed the baseline surveys in full, and 201, 187, and 175 who completed the 1, 6, and 12-month follow-up surveys. The mean age of the participants was 41.3 years, and 54.5% were female. The mean number of MC products taken at baseline was 3.41 and 3.47 at the 12-month survey. Participants took an average of 3.76 (SD 3.15) medications at baseline and 3.65 (SD 3.4) at 12 months. Most commonly used concomitant medications at baseline included vitamins (42.3%), antidepressants (29.1%), analgesics (22.1%), herbal products (19.7%), and anxiolytics (17.8%). CONCLUSION: Participants used multiple medical cannabis products to treat a number of medication conditions in conjunction with multiple medications.

Clinician Attitudes, Training, and Beliefs About Cannabis: An Interprofessional Assessment.

Background: Medical use of cannabis is growing in popularity across the United States, but medical education and clinician comfort discussing cannabis use for medical purposes have not kept pace. Materials and Methods: A total of 344 clinicians in the state of Pennsylvania (response rate 14%) completed a brief online survey about their attitudes, training, and experiences regarding medical cannabis and certifying patients to use medical cannabis. Results: Only 51% of clinicians reported completing any formal training on medical cannabis. Compared with noncertifying clinicians (pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), physicians were significantly more comfortable with patient use of medical cannabis, saw fewer risks, more benefits, and felt better prepared to discuss its use with vulnerable populations. All clinicians noted significant limitations to their understanding of how medical cannabis can affect patients, and many indicated a desire for more research and training to fill in gaps in their knowledge. Conclusions: Insufficient medical curricula on the medical uses of cannabis are available to interprofessional clinicians across their disciplines, and clinicians report significant deficits in their knowledge base about its effects. Additionally, these data suggest an urgent need to expand training opportunities to the full spectrum of clinicians as all are involved in caring for patients who use medical cannabis.

Social Determinants of Health Associated with How Cannabis is Obtained and Used in Patients with Cancer Receiving Care at a Cancer Treatment Center in Pennsylvania.

Despite increased rates of cannabis use among patients with cancer, there are gaps in our understanding of barriers to accessing cannabis. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with access to healthcare, but few studies have evaluated how SDoH relate to cannabis access and use among cancer patients. We examined whether access to and modes of cannabis use differed across indicators of SDoH among patients receiving treatment from a large National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated cancer center. This anonymous cross-sectional survey was developed in collaboration with the NCI Cannabis Supplement consortium, which funded 12 supplements to NCI Center Core Grants across the United States. We evaluated the association of race, gender, income, and age with mode of cannabis use, source of obtaining cannabis, what influences their purchase, and medical cannabis certification status. Overall, 1,053 patients receiving treatment for cancer in Pennsylvania completed the survey and 352 (33.4%) reported using cannabis since their cancer diagnosis. Patients who identified as Black/African-American were less likely to have medical cannabis certifications (p=0.04). Males and Black/African-Americans were more likely to report smoking cannabis (vs other forms, ps<0.01) and to purchase cannabis from an unlicensed dealer/seller (p<0.01). Lower-income patients were more likely to be influenced by price and ease of access (ps<0.05). Although cannabis users were younger than non-users, age was not associated with any outcomes. The current data shed light on how critical drivers of health disparities (such as race, gender, and income) are associated with where patients with cancer obtain cannabis, what forms they use, and what may influence their purchase decisions.