Snapshot of an Outpatient Supportive Care Center at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Integration of palliative care (PC) in oncology have been found to improve symptom distress, quality of life, and survival in patients with advanced cancer. Early integration is most appropriate in the outpatient setting. However, most PC services in the United States do not have an outpatient component. Our study aims to provide a snapshot of the type of patients and families who are referred to this novel setting for the delivery of early PC. CONCLUSION: Traditionally, PC has been delivered predominantly to patients with advanced disease and to aid in transition to end of life. In recent years, outpatient centers have dramatically changed the nature of PC work as in our snapshot, which shows that in addition to patients regarded as more traditional patients, such as those transitioning to end of life, there are now patients who come in very soon after arrival to a cancer center requiring specialized care to address a variety of symptom and educational needs, thus requiring adaptation of structure and processes to allow access for frequent follow-ups, counseling, and flexibility for walk-in visits. Our findings suggest that Supportive Care Clinic needs to practice in a very different way, which requires certain skills and assessment tools that are not conventionally present in traditional oncology clinic settings. More research is needed to identify the type of patients who would benefit most from a PC referral.

Frequency of unsafe storage, use, and disposal practices of opioids among cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: Approximately 75% of prescription opioid abusers obtain the drug from an acquaintance, which may be a consequence of improper opioid storage, use, disposal, and lack of patient education. We aimed to determine the opioid storage, use, and disposal patterns in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) of a comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: We surveyed 113 patients receiving opioids for at least 2 months upon presenting to the ED and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal. Unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight, and unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids. RESULTS: The median age was 53 years, 55% were female, 64% were white, and 86% had advanced cancer. Of those surveyed, 36% stored opioids in plain sight, 53% kept them hidden but unlocked, and only 15% locked their opioids. However, 73% agreed that they would use a lockbox if given one. Patients who reported that others had asked them for their pain medications (p = 0.004) and those who would use a lockbox if given one (p = 0.019) were more likely to keep them locked. Some 13 patients (12%) used opioids unsafely by either sharing (5%) or losing (8%) them. Patients who reported being prescribed more pain pills than required (p = 0.032) were more likely to practice unsafe use. Most (78%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, 6% believed they were prescribed more medication than required, and 67% had unused opioids at home. Only 13% previously received education about safe disposal of opioids. Overall, 77% (87) of patients reported unsafe storage, unsafe use, or possessed unused opioids at home. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Many cancer patients presenting to the ED improperly and unsafely store, use, or dispose of opioids, thus highlighting a need to investigate the impact of patient education on such practices.

The Impact of an Educational Program on Patient Practices for Safe Use, Storage, and Disposal of Opioids at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Improper use, storage, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our previous study showed a large proportion of cancer patients have unsafe opioid practices. Our objective was to determine whether an improvement occurred in the patterns of use, storage, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients after the implementation of a patient educational program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our palliative care (PC) clinic provides every patient with educational material (EM) on safe opioid use, storage, and disposal every time they receive an opioid prescription. We prospectively assessed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our PC clinic, who had received the EM, and compared them with 300 patients who had not received the EM. The previously used surveys pertaining to opioid use, storage, and disposal were administered, and demographic information was collected. Sharing or losing their opioids was defined as unsafe use. RESULTS: Patients who received EM were more aware of the proper opioid disposal methods (76% vs. 28%; p ≤ .0001), less likely to share their opioids with someone else (3% vs. 8%; p = .0311), less likely to practice unsafe use of opioids (18% vs. 25%; p = .0344), and more likely to be aware the danger of their opioids when taken by others (p = .0099). Patients who received the EM were less likely to have unused medication at home (38% vs. 47%; p = .0497) and more likely to keep their medications in a safe place (hidden, 75% vs. 70%; locked, 14% vs. 10%; p = .0025). CONCLUSION: The use of EM on opioid safety for patients with advanced cancer was associated with improved patient-reported safe opioid use, storage, and disposal. The Oncologist 2017;22:115-121Implications for Practice: Prescription opioid abuse is a fast-growing epidemic that has become more prominent recently, even in the cancer pain population. A previous study reported that 26% of cancer outpatients seen in the supportive care center either lose their pain medications or share their pain medications with someone else. This study demonstrates that the implementation of an opioid educational program and distribution of educational material on opioid safety brings about an improvement in opioid storage, use, and disposal practices in patients being prescribed opioids for cancer-related pain. Our study highlights the importance of consistent and thorough opioid education at every instance in which opioids are prescribed.

The frequency and factors associated with the use of a dedicated Supportive Care Center Telephone Triaging Program in patients with advanced cancer at a comprehensive cancer center.

CONTEXT: There is limited literature on characteristics of telephone triage programs and the nature of interventions in palliative care. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to determine frequency and type of care provided by a Supportive Care Center Telephone Triaging Program (SCCTP) in advanced cancer patients (ACPs). METHODS: Electronic medical records were reviewed of 400 consecutive ACPs referred to palliative care at a comprehensive cancer center and given access to the SCCTP: 200 from the outpatient (OP) supportive care center and 200 from inpatient (IP) palliative care given access after discharge. We reviewed call frequency, type, reason, and outcomes including pain and other symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale [MDAS]) associated with utilization of the SCCTP. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were evaluable. One hundred fifteen of 400 patients (29%) used the SCCTP: 96 OPs (83%) used the SCCTP vs. only 19 IPs (17%) (P < 0.001). The most common reasons for calls were pain (24%), pain medication refills (24%), and counseling (12%). For 115 phone calls, 43% (145 of 340) of recommendations were regarding care at home and 56% were regarding opioids. Patients who used the SCCTP had worse pain (P = 0.006), fatigue (P = 0.045), depression (P = 0.041), and well-being (P = 0.015) and better MDAS scores (P = 0.014) compared with nonusers. OPs had a higher prevalence of symptom distress (P = 0.013), depression (P < 0.001), anxiety (P < 0.01), and insomnia scores (P = 0.001); MDAS scores were significantly higher in IPs (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this study, we found that overall utilization of the SCCTP by ACPs referred to palliative care was relatively low at 28.7%. The use of the SCCTP was particularly poor among the IPs on discharge. Patients who used SCCTP had worse pain, fatigue, depression, and well-being scores and better delirium scores.

The frequency of missed delirium in patients referred to palliative care in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is one of the most common neuropsychiatric complications in advanced cancer patients with a frequency of up to 85 % before death. It is associated with adverse clinical outcomes such as increased morbidity and mortality as well as significant family and patient distress. The aim of our study is to determine at the frequency of missed delirium (MD) and identify factors associated with MD. METHODS: Seven hundred seventy-one consecutive palliative care inpatient consults from August 1, 2009 to January 31, 2010 were reviewed. Demographics, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), primary referral symptom, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), and physician diagnosis of delirium were collected along with delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility. Delirium was diagnosed with a MDAS score of ≥ 7 or by a palliative medicine specialist using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV TR) Criteria. MD was reported in those patients found to have delirium by the palliative medicine specialists but were referred by the primary team for other reasons besides delirium. Chi-squared test and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used to examine the difference on measurements among or between different groups. Univariate logistic regression model was applied to assess for associations for MD. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two (33 %) had a diagnosis of delirium by the palliative medicine specialist. One hundred fifty-three (61 %) were missed by the primary referring team. Females comprised 53 % (n = 81), white 62 % (n = 95), and pain was the most common referral symptom (n = 77, 50 %). Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype of delirium in MD (n = 47, 63 %). Opioid-related delirium was the most common etiology of MD (n = 47, 31 %). Patients referred for pain were more likely to have MD (odds ratio (OR) = 2.57, p = 0.0109). Of the 82 patients with delirium that was reversed, 67 % (n = 55) had a diagnosis of MD. CONCLUSION: Sixty-one percent of patients with a diagnosis of delirium by a palliative care specialist were missed by the primary referring team. Patients with MD were frequently referred for pain. Universal screening of cancer patients for delirium is recommended.

Spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain among caregivers of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers of patients with advanced cancer often face physical, social, and emotional distress as well as spiritual pain. Limited research has focused on the spiritual aspects of caregivers' suffering in the palliative care setting. METHODS: We interviewed 43 caregivers of patients with advanced cancer in our palliative care outpatient clinic. We determined demographic characteristics, religious affiliation, and relationship to the patient. Levels of spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain were self-reported using numeric rating scales (0 = lowest; 10 = highest). The participants completed various validated questionnaires to assess sleep disturbances, psychosocial distress, coping skills, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: The median age was 52 years (range, 21-83); 29 (67%) were women, 34 (78%) were white, 7 (17%) were African American, and 2 (5%) were Hispanic; 39 (91%) were Christian, 1 (2%) was Jewish, and 1 (2%) was agnostic; 37 (86%) were married; 18 (42%) were working full time; and 25 (58%) were spouses. All considered themselves spiritual, and 98% considered themselves religious, with median scores of 8 (interquartile range, 6-10) and 8 (interquartile range, 4-9), respectively. All the caregivers reported that spirituality and religiosity helped them cope with their loved one's illness, and many reported that spirituality and religiosity had a positive impact on their loved one's physical (58%) and emotional (76%) symptoms. Spiritual pain was reported by 23 (58%), with a median score of 5 (interquartile range, 2-8). Caregivers with spiritual pain had higher levels of anxiety (median 10 vs 4; P = .002), depression (6 vs 2; P = .006), and denial (3 vs 2; P = .01); more behavioral disengagement (3 vs 2; P = 0.011) more dysfunctional coping strategies (19 vs 16; P < .001) and worse QOL (70 vs 51; P < .001) than those who did not have spiritual pain. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of caregivers of patients with advanced cancer considered themselves spiritual and religious. Despite this, there is high prevalence of spiritual pain in this population. Caregivers with spiritual pain experienced worse psychological distress and worse QOL. These findings support the importance of spiritual assessment of and spiritual support for caregivers in this setting.

Changes in symptoms and inpatient mortality: a study in advanced cancer patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit in a comprehensive cancer center.

CONTEXT: Although several symptoms have been shown to predict survival, little is known of the roles of symptom changes in predicting inpatient death. OBJECTIVES: To determine the association between changes in symptoms and inpatient mortality among advanced cancer patients in an acute palliative care unit (APCU). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 166 consecutive cancer patients admitted to our APCU from the emergency center (EC) or clinic from June 2006 to December 2007. We recorded symptom severity and presence of delirium on admission (baseline) and on the third, fourth, or fifthth day, whichever appeared first (follow-up). The primary endpoint was the vital status at discharge. Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were used to estimate the odds of inpatient death. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients (80.7%) were discharged alive and 32 (19.3%) died in the APCU. All symptoms significantly improved at follow-up. In UVA, persistent delirium was significantly associated with inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.59, 95% confidence interval [CI 1] 0.09-6.17, p = 0.031), although presence of baseline delirium was not. MVA revealed that greater risk of dying was jointly correlated with a high level of baseline dyspnea (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13-1.61, p = 0.001) and drowsiness (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.04-1.50, p = 0.02), low level of baseline anxiety (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, p = 0.038), and transfer from EC (OR 6.78, 95% CI 1.99-23.14, p = 0.002). Worsened depression was significantly related with death in UVA (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08-1.56, p < 0.001), but not in MVA. CONCLUSION: Changes in certain symptoms, such as worsened depression and persistent delirium, might be important predictors of inpatient death.

Spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain in advanced cancer patients.

CONTEXT: Spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain may affect advanced cancer patients' symptom expression, coping strategies, and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To examine the prevalence and intensity of spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain, and how spiritual pain was associated with symptom expression, coping, and spiritual quality of life. METHODS: We interviewed 100 advanced cancer patients at the M.D. Anderson palliative care outpatient clinic in Houston, TX. Self-rated spirituality, religiosity, and spiritual pain were assessed using numeric rating scales (0=lowest, 10=highest). Patients also completed validated questionnaires assessing symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale [ESAS] and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), coping (Brief COPE and Brief R-COPE), the value attributed by the patient to spirituality/religiosity in coping with cancer (Systems of Belief Inventory-15R), and spiritual quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being-Expanded [FACIT-Sp-Ex]). RESULTS: The median age was 53 years (range 21-85) and 88% were Christians. Almost all patients considered themselves spiritual (98%) and religious (98%), with a median intensity of 9 (interquartile range 7-10) of 10 and 9 (range 5-10) of 10, respectively. Spiritual pain was reported in 40 (44%) of 91 patients, with a median score of 3 (1-6) among those with spiritual pain. Spiritual pain was significantly associated with lower self-perceived religiosity (7 vs. 10, P=0.002) and spiritual quality of life (FACIT-Sp-Ex 68 vs. 81, P=0.001). Patients with spiritual pain reported that it contributed adversely to their physical/emotional symptoms (P<0.001). There was a trend toward increased depression, anxiety, anorexia, and drowsiness, as measured by the ESAS, among patients with spiritual pain (P<0.05), although this was not significant after Bonferroni correction. CONCLUSION: A vast majority of advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care considered themselves spiritual and religious. Spiritual pain was common and was associated with lower self-perceived religiosity and spiritual quality of life.

The frequency and correlates of spiritual distress among patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit.

Limited research is available on the frequency of spiritual distress and its relationship with physical and emotional distress. We reviewed patients admitted to our acute palliative care unit (APCU) and determined the association between patient characteristics, symptom severity using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment scale (ESAS), and spiritual distress as reported by a chaplain on initial visit. In all, 50 (44%) of 113 patients had spiritual distress. In univariate analysis, patients with spiritual distress were more likely to be younger (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96, P = .004), to have pain (OR = 1.2, P = .010) and depression (OR = 1.24, P = .018) compared to those without spiritual distress. Spiritual distress was associated with age (OR = 0.96, P = .012) and depression (OR = 1.27, P = .020) in multivariate analysis. Our findings support regular spiritual assessment as part of the interdisciplinary approach to optimize symptom control.

Characteristics of patients who refuse do-not-resuscitate orders upon admission to an acute palliative care unit in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Refusal of appropriately indicated do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders may cause harm and distress for patients, families, and the medical team. We conducted a retrospective study to determine the frequency and predictors of refusals of DNR in advanced cancer patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit. METHODS: A total of 2538 consecutive admissions were reviewed. Demographic and clinical characteristics from 200 consecutive patients with DNR orders and 100 consecutive patients who refused DNR were collected, and differences between the groups were determined by multivariate regression and recursive partitioning analysis. RESULTS: Of 2538 admissions, 2530 (99%) were appropriate for DNR discussion. Of the 2530 admissions, 2374 were unique patients, and 100 (4%) of 2374 refused DNR. Refusers had median (interquartile range, IQR) pain of 7 (4-9) versus 5 (3-8, P = .0005), nausea of 2 (0-7) versus 1 (0-4, P = .05), and dyspnea of 1 (0-5) versus 4 (0-7, P = .002) as compared with DNR nonrefusers, respectively. Patients with hematological malignancies and advance directives had a lower DNR refusal risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; P = .02, and OR, 0.36; P < .0001, respectively). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients with moderate-severe pain (OR, 3.19; P = .002) and with no advance directives (OR, 2.94; P < or = .001) had higher DNR refusal risk. There were more inpatient deaths among DNR nonrefusers (87 of 200 vs 1 of 100, P < .0001). Median (IQR) time from discharge to death was 18 (8-35) days for those with DNR orders and 85 (25-206) days for DNR refusers (P < or = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: DNR refusal in patients admitted to the acute palliative care unit is low, more frequent in patients with more pain and nausea and no advance directives, and associated with longer survival. This study demonstrates possible predictors of complicated DNR discussions.

Availability and integration of palliative care at US cancer centers.

CONTEXT: The current state of palliative care in cancer centers is not known. OBJECTIVES: To determine the availability and degree of integration of palliative care services and to compare between National Cancer Institute (NCI) and non-NCI cancer centers in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A survey of 71 NCI-designated cancer centers and a random sample of 71 non-NCI cancer centers of both executives and palliative care clinical program leaders, where applicable, regarding their palliative care services between June and October 2009. Survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search, review of guidelines from the National Quality Forum, and discussions among 7 physicians with research interest in palliative oncology. Executives were also asked about their attitudes toward palliative care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Availability of palliative care services in the cancer center, defined as the presence of at least 1 palliative care physician. RESULTS: A total of 142 and 120 surveys were sent to executives and program leaders, with response rates of 71% and 82%, respectively. National Cancer Institute cancer centers were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program (50/51 [98%] vs 39/50 [78%]; P = .002), at least 1 palliative care physician (46/50 [92%] vs 28/38 [74%]; P = .04), an inpatient palliative care consultation team (47/51 [92%] vs 28/50 [56%]; P < .001), and an outpatient palliative care clinic (30/51 [59%] vs 11/50 [22%]; P < .001). Few centers had dedicated palliative care beds (23/101 [23%]) or an institution-operated hospice (37/101 [37%]). The median (interquartile range) reported durations from referral to death were 7 (4-16), 7 (5-10), and 90 (30-120) days for inpatient consultation teams, inpatient units, and outpatient clinics, respectively. Research programs, palliative care fellowships, and mandatory rotations for oncology fellows were uncommon. Executives were supportive of stronger integration and increasing palliative care resources. CONCLUSION: Most cancer centers reported a palliative care program, although the scope of services and the degree of integration varied widely.

Antineoplastic therapy use in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit at a comprehensive cancer center: a simultaneous care model.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients admitted to a palliative care unit generally have a poor prognosis. The role of antineoplastic therapy (ANT) in these patients remains controversial. In the current study, the authors examined the frequency and predictors associated with ANT use in hospitalized patients who required admission to an acute palliative care unit (APCU). METHODS: Included in the study were all 2604 patients admitted over a 5-year period to a 12-bed APCU located within a National Cancer Institute comprehensive cancer center, in which patients had access to both palliative care and ANT. Institutional databases were used to retrospectively retrieve data regarding patient demographics, cancer diagnosis, ANT use, length of hospital stay, and survival from time of admission. RESULTS: The median hospital stay was 11 days, and the median survival was 22 days. During hospitalization, 435 patients (17%) received ANT, including chemotherapy (N = 297; 11%), hormonal agents (N = 54; 2%), and targeted therapy (N = 155; 6%). No significant change in the frequency of ANT use was detected over the 5-year period. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that younger age, specific cancer diagnoses, and longer admissions were independently associated with ANT use. CONCLUSIONS: The use of ANT during hospitalization that included an APCU stay was limited to a small percentage of patients and did not increase over time. ANT use was associated with younger age, specific cancer diagnoses, and longer admissions. The APCU facilitates simultaneous care for patients receiving ANT.

Discharge outcomes and survival of patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit at a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Acute palliative care units (APCUs) are new programs aimed at integrating palliative and oncology care. Few outcome studies from APCUs are available. OBJECTIVES: We examined the frequency, survival, and predictors associated with home discharge and death in our APCU. METHODS: All patients discharged from the APCU between September 1, 2003 and August 31, 2008 were included. Demographics, cancer diagnosis, discharge outcomes, and overall survival from discharge were retrieved retrospectively. RESULTS: The 2568 patients admitted to APCU had the following characteristics: median age, 59 years (range, 18-101); male, 51%; median hospital stay, 11 days; median APCU stay, 7 days; and median survival 21 days (95% confidence interval [CI] 19-23 days). Five hundred ninety-two (20%), 89 (3%), and 1259 (43%) patients were discharged to home, health care facilities, and hospice, respectively, with a median survival of 60, 29, and 14 days, respectively (p < 0.001). Nine hundred fifty-eight (33%) patients died during admission (median stay, 11 days). Compared to hospice transfers, home discharge (hazard ratio = 0.35, 95% CI 0.30-0.41, p < 0.001) was associated with longer survival in multivariate analysis, with a 6-month survival of 22%. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that male gender, specific cancer primaries, and admissions from oncology units were associated with death in the APCU, while younger age and direct admissions to the APCU were associated with home discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Our APCU serves patients with advanced cancer with diverse clinical characteristics and survival, and discharged home a significant proportion with survival greater than 6 months. RESULTS from this simultaneous care program suggest a pattern of care different from that of traditional hospice and palliative care services.