Associations between symptoms with healthcare utilization and death in advanced cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited data about assessments that are associated with increased utilization of medical services among advanced oncology patients (AOPs). We aimed to identify factors related to healthcare utilization and death in AOP. METHODS: AOPs at a comprehensive cancer center were enrolled in a Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation program. Participants completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale. We examined factors associated with palliative care (PC), acute care (AC), emergency room (ER), hospital admissions (HA), and death. RESULTS: In all, 817 AOPs were included in these analyses with a median age of 69. They were generally female (58.7%), white (61.4%), stage IV (51.6%), and represented common cancers (31.5% GI, 25.2% thoracic, 14.3% gynecologic). ESAS pain, anxiety, and total score were related to more PC visits (B=0.31, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], p<0.001; B=0.24 [0.12, 0.36], p<0.001; and B=0.038 [0.02, 0.06], p=0.001, respectively). Total FACT-G score and physical subscale were related to total PC visits (B=-0.021 [-0.037, -0.006], p=0.008 and B=-0.181 [-0.246, -0.117], p<0.001, respectively). Lower FACT-G social subscale scores were related to more ER visits (B=-0.03 [-0.53, -0.004], p=0.024), while increased tiredness was associated with fewer AC visits (B=-0.039 [-0.073, -0.006], p=0.023). Higher total ESAS scores were related to death within 30 days (OR=0.87 [0.76, 0.98], p=0.027). CONCLUSIONS: The ESAS and FACT-G assessments were linked to PC and AC visits and death. These assessments may be useful for identifying AOPs that would benefit from routine PC.

The perspectives of oncology healthcare providers on the role of palliative care in a comprehensive cancer center.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) is an essential part of oncologic care, but its optimal role within a cancer center remains unclear. This study examines oncology healthcare providers' perspectives about the role of PC at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). METHODS: Physicians, nurses, and other oncology healthcare providers at a CCC were surveyed for their opinions about the role of inpatient and outpatient PC, preferences for PC services, and barriers to referral. Chi-squared tests and multiple regression analyses were performed to explore associations. RESULTS: We received 137/221 completed questionnaires (61% response rate). Respondents were generally female (78%), had ≤ 10 years of service (69%), and included physicians (32%), nurses (32%), and advanced practice providers (17%). Most respondents (82%) agreed that more patients could benefit from PC. They also agreed that PC is beneficial for both outpatient and inpatient management of complex pain (96 and 88%), complex symptoms (84 and 74%), and advanced cancer patients (80 and 64%). Transition to hospice (64 vs. 42%, p = 0.007) and goals of care (62 vs. 49%, p = 0.011) provided by PC services were more valued by respondents for the inpatient than for the outpatient setting. Barriers to utilizing PC included lack of availability, unsure of when to refer, and poor communication. The majority of respondents (83%) preferred a cancer focused PC team to provide high-quality care. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of oncology health care providers believe that more patients could benefit from PC, but opinions vary regarding the roles of inpatient and outpatient PC. Barriers and areas for improvement include availability, referral process, and improved communication.