The Administrative Burden on Palliative Academic Physicians.

CONTEXT: Burnout is frequently a workload-related syndrome among palliative care physicians. Mandatory administrative activities contribute to this workload. The purpose of this study was to measure the amount of time involved in multiple required administrative activities and the cost of this on academic healthcare facilities. METHODS: We measured all mandatory and non-mandatory activities that need to be completed by faculty and reviewed them with all Department of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine members for accuracy. RESULTS: Every faculty member spends annually an approximate average of 5300 minutes on administrative activities (approximately the equivalent of 29 consults plus 133 follow-ups). Using the department net average per encounter, the approximate value of these encounters is $36,936 for each faculty member (about 11 clinical days). CONCLUSION: Academic palliative care physicians are required to complete a number of administrative activities. Institutions do not keep a registry of these activities and do not accommodate for them with a reduction in the annual clinical productivity requirements. We recommend that regulatory agencies and institutions work together to better regulate this list of tasks and their frequency.

Frequency and Characteristics of First-Time Palliative Care Referrals During the Last Day of Life.

CONTEXT: Palliative care referrals (PCRs) improve symptom management, provide psychosocial and spiritual support, clarify goals of care, and facilitate discharge planning. However, very late PCR can result in increased clinician distress and prevent patients and families from benefiting from the full spectrum of interdisciplinary care. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency and predictors of PCR within 24 hours of death. METHODS: Consecutive first-time inpatient PCR from September 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017 was identified to determine the frequency and predictors of referrals within 24 hours of death. We compared the clinical characteristics with a random sample of patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR as a control, stratified by year of consult in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: Of 7322 first-time PCRs, 154 (2%) died within 24 hours of referral. These patients were older (P = 0.003) and had higher scores for depression (P = 0.0009), drowsiness (P = 0.02), and shortness of breath (P = 0.008) compared with a random sample of 153 patients discharged alive or died more than 24 hours after first-time PCR. Patients who received a PCR within 24 hours of death were more likely than the control group to have Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (95% vs. 25%, P < 0.0001), delirium (89% vs. 17%, P < 0.0001), do-not-resuscitate code status (81% vs. 18%, P < 0.0001), and hematologic malignancies (39% vs. 16%, P < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, depression (odds ratio [OR] 1.4; P = 0.005), do-not-resuscitate code status (OR 9.1; P = 0.003), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 4 (OR 9.8; P = 0.003) were independently associated with first-time PCR within 24 hours of death. CONCLUSION: Although only a small proportion of first-time PCR occurred in the last 24 hours of life, the patients had a significant amount of distress, indicating a missed opportunity for timely palliative care intervention. These sentinel events call for specific guidelines to better support patients, families, and clinicians during this difficult time. Further research is needed to understand how to minimize very late PCR.

Outcome measurement and complex physical, psychosocial and spiritual experiences of death and dying.

Patients with advanced illnesses, especially near the end of life, often experience multiple complex symptoms which may have profound impact on the quality of life of not only the patients but also their family members. Early and prompt recognition of such clinical challenges is linked with better end of life care for the dying patients, their caregivers and family members. In this narrative, which is not meant to be an in-depth systematic review, we attempt to provide an overview of some commonly used outcome measurement tools available for bedside clinical assessment of the different dimensions of suffering, especially near the time of death. We also mention need for recognition of conditions, like delirium and other personal, environmental and social factors, to draw the readers' attention towards the importance of such assessments, as these may influence interpretation of patient responses on the tools being used to measure outcomes.

Characteristics of Unscheduled and Scheduled Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic Patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: There is limited literature regarding outpatient palliative care and factors associated with unscheduled clinic visits. OBJECTIVES: To compare characteristics of patients with unscheduled vs. scheduled outpatient palliative care clinic visits. METHODS: Medical records of 183 unscheduled cancer new outpatients and 104 unscheduled follow-up (FU) patients were compared with random samples of 361 and 314 scheduled new patients and FU patients, respectively. We gathered data on demographics, symptoms, daily opioid usage, and performance status. RESULTS: Compared with scheduled new patients, unscheduled new patients had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale subscores for pain (P < 0.001), fatigue (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.016), depression (P = 0.003), anxiety (P = 0.038), drowsiness (P = 0.002), sleep (P < 0.001), and overall feeling of well-being (P = 0.001); had a higher morphine equivalent daily dose of opioids (median of 45 mg for unscheduled vs. 30 mg for scheduled; P < 0.001); and were more likely to be from outside the greater Houston area (P < 0.001). Most unscheduled and scheduled new and FU visits were for uncontrolled physical symptoms. Unscheduled FU patients, compared with scheduled FU patients, had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale subscores for pain (P < 0.001), fatigue (P < 0.001), depression (P = 0.002), anxiety (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.010), appetite (P = 0.023), sleep (P = 0.022), overall feeling of well-being (P < 0.001), and higher morphine equivalent daily dose of opioid (median of 58 mg for unscheduled FU visits vs. 40 mg for scheduled FU visits; P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: Unscheduled new FU patients have higher levels of physical and psychosocial distress and higher opioid intake. Outpatient palliative care centers should consider providing opportunities for walk-in visits for timely management and close monitoring of such patients.

Timing of Referral and Characteristics of Uninsured, Medicaid, and Insured Patients Referred to the Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Low-income patients face barriers to palliative care access, which might negatively influence symptom management and advanced care planning. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare time of referral and characteristics (level of symptom distress) among uninsured (indigent), low-insured (Medicaid), and insured patients presenting to our supportive care center (SCC). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of randomly selected 100 indigent, 100 Medicaid, and 300 insured outpatients referred during the same five-year period. We reviewed demographic and clinical characteristics including date of diagnosis of advanced cancer and of first visit to SCC, symptom assessment (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System), type and dose of opioid medication, number of total outpatient visits, and date of last contact with palliative care team. RESULTS: Among 482 evaluable patients, indigent, Medicaid, and insured patients, respectively, had mean (SD) ages of 48 (11), 50 (12), and 63 (13) years (P < 0.001); Edmonton Symptom Assessment System pain scores at first visit of 6.7 (2.5), 5.6 (3.2), and 4.9 (3.2) (P < 0.001); nonwhite race in 60%, 49%, and 25% of cases (P < 0.001); unmarried status in 68%, 64%, and 33% of cases (P < 0.001), while 63%, 87%, and 54% of patients (P < 0.001) were on opioids with median number of encounters per month of 0.6, 0.8, and 0.5 (P = 0.001). Median survival (95% CI) from first visit to last contact was 4.6 (2.8-6.2), 5.4 (3.5-7), and 5.6 (4.7-7.3) months (P = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Patients with limited or no insurance had significantly higher pain and were more frequently on opioids, younger, nonwhite, and not married. They required higher number of SCC follow-up visits. Insurance status did not affect timing of SCC referral or follow-ups at our cancer center.

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Panax Ginseng for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer.

Background: Despite the high frequency, severity, and effects of cancer-related fatigue (CRF) on the quality of life (QoL) of patients with cancer, limited treatment options are available. The primary objective of this study was to compare the effects of oral Panax ginseng extract (PG) and placebo on CRF. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of PG on QoL, mood, and function. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients with CRF ≥4/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) were eligible. Based on a pilot study, we randomized patients to receive either 400 mg of standardized PG twice daily or a matching placebo for 28 days. The primary end point was change in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) subscale from baseline to day 29. Results: Of 127 patients, 112 (88.2%) were evaluable. The mean (SD) FACIT-F subscale scores at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 22.4 (10.1), 29.9 (10.6), and 30.1 (11.6) for PG (P<.001), and 24.0 (9.4), 30.0 (10.1), and 30.4 (11.5) for placebo (P<.001). Mean (SD) improvement in the FACIT-F subscale at day 29 was not significantly different in the PG than in the placebo group (7.5 [12.7] vs 6.5 [9.9]; P=.67). QoL, anxiety, depression, symptoms, and functional scores were not significantly different between the PG and placebo groups. Improvement in the FACIT-F subscale correlated with baseline scores (P=.0005), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale results (P=.032), and sex (P=.023). There were fewer any-grade toxicities in the PG versus placebo group (28/63 vs 33/64; P=.024). Conclusions: Both PG and placebo result in significant improvement in CRF. PG was not significantly superior to placebo after 4 weeks of treatment. There is no justification to recommend the use of PG for CRF. Further studies are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01375114.