Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations on a Comprehensive Cancer Center's Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service.

The goal of this paper is to review and describe the characteristics and outcomes of ethics consultations on a gastrointestinal oncology service and to identify areas for systems improvement and staff education. This is a retrospective case series derived from a prospectively-maintained database (which includes categorization of the primary issues, contextual ethical issues, and other case characteristics) of the ethics consultation service at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. The study analyzed all ethics consultations requested for patients on the gastrointestinal medical oncology service from September 2007 to January 2016. A total of 64 patients were identified. The most common primary ethical issue was the DNR order (39%), followed by medical futility (28%). The most common contextual issues were dispute/conflict between staff and family (48%), dispute/conflict intra-family (16%), and cultural/ethnic/religious issues (16%). The majority of ethical issues leading to consultation were resolved (84%); i.e., the patient, surrogate, and/or healthcare team followed the recommendation of the ethics consultant. 22% had a DNR order prior to the ethics consult and 69% had a DNR order after the consult. In this population of patients on a gastrointestinal oncology service, ethics consultations are most often called regarding patients with advanced cancers and the most common ethical conflicts arose between families and the health care team over goals of care at the end of life, specifically related to the DNR order and perceived futility of continued/escalation of treatment. Ethics consultations assisted with conflict resolution. Conflicts might be reduced with improved communication about prognosis and earlier end of life care planning.

A head and neck cancer intervention for use in survivorship clinics: a protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer survivors commonly experience severe long-term toxicities, late-occurring symptoms, and significant risks of the second primary malignancy and comorbid illnesses. With multiple simultaneous health issues, these complex cancer survivors often do not receive comprehensive health care that addresses their needs. A tool is needed to streamline and standardize comprehensive care for this cohort. METHODS/DESIGN: We designed the Head and Neck Survivorship Tool: Assessment and Recommendations (HN-STAR) to address health care challenges for head and neck cancer survivors. HN-STAR is an electronic platform that aims to simplify the provision of personalized care in cancer survivorship clinics. It uses an algorithmic approach to integrate patient-reported outcomes, clinical details, and evidence-based guidelines to standardize comprehensive care provided in routine survivorship visits. It has four integrated components: (1) a simplified treatment summary, which pulls treatment details from a clinical database or can be completed manually using a streamlined form; (2) an online self-assessment for patients to report their own symptoms; (3) an interactive discussion guide presenting all relevant information to the provider during the clinic visit; and (4) a survivorship care plan generated at the end of each visit that reflects decisions made during the visit. By using a modifiable electronic platform, HN-STAR provides a method for incorporating survivorship care plans into clinical practice and for disseminating evidence on symptom management and preventive care. This is a study to assess the feasibility of a future multi-site, randomized clinical trial of HN-STAR. We will enroll head and neck cancer survivors who are followed in one of two nurse practitioner-led survivorship clinics. We will implement HN-STAR for one routine survivorship visits. We will assess (1) usability and feasibility outcomes of HN-STAR from the perspective of key stakeholders and (2) the planned outcomes intended for the larger trial. We will collect usability and feasibility data from online surveys of survivors and their providers. Our findings will inform whether it is feasible to advance HN-STAR to trial. If so, we will adapt HN-STAR and the study design of the trial in response to feedback from survivors and providers. The long-term goal is to determine if such an intervention will lead to improved and simplified comprehensive survivorship care. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study will evaluate implementation of HN-STAR into clinical practice in terms of usability, practicality, and clinical flow in two distinct clinical settings. This study will also provide critical baseline data to characterize this vulnerable population. Findings from this study will inform a multicenter randomized trial of HN-STAR, aimed at standardizing and streamlining the delivery of evidence-guided comprehensive care for head and neck cancer survivors. Ultimately, if found effective, the modular structure of HN-STAR could permit its expansion to survivors of other complex cancers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571673.

Assuring Quality Cancer Survivorship Care: We've Only Just Begun.

Clinical practice guidelines, quality metrics, and performance improvement projects are the key tools of the national movement to improve and assure quality cancer care. Each of these evaluation instruments is intended to assess quality from a unique perspective, including that of the individual provider, the practice/hospital, and the health care system. A number of organizations have developed or endorsed quality measures specific to cancer, however, these have not formally included survivorship measures. Fortunately, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American Cancer Society, and the American College of Surgeons (ACoS) have taken a leadership role in developing survivorship guidelines and quality metrics. Both ASCO and ACoS have focused their efforts on the treatment summary and care plan, a document that was proposed in the 2006 Institute of Medicine report on cancer survivorship. ASCO has proposed a care plan template for implementation and incorporation into the electronic health records (EHR), which will lend itself to structure, process, and outcome measurement. ACoS, conversely, has included the care plan in its cancer program standards with annual evaluation metrics. In addition, ASCO has developed a number of key survivorship-relevant metrics as part of its Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), a tool developed to measure quality cancer care and assess adherence to guidelines across academic and community practices. Together, these efforts will direct us to more effective ways to disseminate guideline recommendations and to better methods of assessing quality survivorship care nationally.

Outcomes and satisfaction after delivery of a breast cancer survivorship care plan: results of a multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been suggested to reduce fragmentation of care experienced by cancer survivors. Acceptance of SCPs is high, but trials in the United States are few. This pilot study used a quasiexperimental design to examine the outcomes achieved by breast cancer survivors receiving a standardized SCP visit at one of seven comprehensive cancer centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Outcomes were assessed before and again 3 months after delivery of an SCP and included survivors' use of and satisfaction with SCPs, perceived knowledge about survivorship, and assessment of the quality and coordination of survivorship care. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine survivors of breast cancer completed baseline and follow-up measures and received a standardized SCP visit. Participants most commonly used SCP materials to make decisions about exercise (64%), which tests to receive and when (62%), and dietary changes (62%). Only 21% shared the SCP with their primary care provider during that time. Satisfaction with the SCP was high, with 90% of participants reporting being at least satisfied with the SCP. Perceived knowledge about survivorship improved after SCP delivery, as did perceived care coordination and the provider's knowledge of the effects of cancer on survivors (all P < .001). Individuals closer to the time of diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of SCPs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates improvements in perceived knowledge and quality of survivorship care after receipt of a comprehensive SCP. Survivors were satisfied with their SCP, and those closer to diagnosis reported greater satisfaction with and use of the materials.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Ethics Consultations in an Oncologic Intensive Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of ethics consultations in critically ill patients with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of all adult patients with cancer who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) of a comprehensive cancer center and had an ethics consultation between September 2007 and December 2011. Demographic and clinical variables were abstracted along with the details and contexts of the ethics consultations. MAIN RESULTS: Ethics consultations were obtained on 53 patients (representing 1% of all ICU admissions). The majority (90%) of patients had advanced-stage malignancies, had received oncologic therapies within the past 12 months, and required mechanical ventilation and/or vasopressor therapy for respiratory failure and/or severe sepsis. Two-thirds of the patients lacked decision-making capacity and nearly all had surrogates. The most common reasons for ethics consultations were disagreements between the patients/surrogates and the ICU team regarding end-of-life care. After ethics consultations, the surrogates agreed with the recommendations made by the ICU team on the goals of care in 85% of patients. Moreover, ethics consultations facilitated the provision of palliative medicine and chaplaincy services to several patients who did not have these services offered to them prior to the ethics consultations. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that ethics consultations were helpful in resolving seemingly irreconcilable differences between the ICU team and the patients' surrogates in the majority of cases. Additionally, these consultations identified the need for an increased provision of palliative care and chaplaincy visits for patients and their surrogates at the end of life.

Models of cancer survivorship health care: moving forward.

The population of cancer survivors in the United States and worldwide is rapidly increasing. Many survivors will develop health conditions as a direct or indirect consequence of their cancer therapy. Thus, models to deliver high-quality care for cancer survivors are evolving. We provide examples of three different models of survivorship care from a cancer center, a community setting, and a country-wide health care system, followed by a description of the ASCO Cancer Survivorship Compendium, a tool to help providers understand the various models of survivorship care available and integrate survivorship care into their practices in a way that fits their unique needs.

Clinical ethics consultation in oncology.

PURPOSE: There is limited empirical research exploring the nature of clinical ethical consultations within the oncology population. Our objective was to review and describe clinical ethics consultations at two National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers to identify opportunities for systems improvement in clinical care and opportunities for staff education. METHODS: This case series is derived from two institutional prospectively maintained clinical ethics consultation databases. All ethics consultations from 2007 through 2011 that related to adult patients with cancer were included. RESULTS: A total of 208 eligible patient cases were identified. The most common primary issues leading to ethics consultation were code status and advance directives (25%), surrogate decision making (17%), and medical futility (13%). Communication lapses were identified in 45% of patient cases, and interpersonal conflict arose in 51%. Before ethics consultation, 26% of patients had do-not-resuscitate orders, which increased to 60% after ethics consultation. Palliative care consultation occurred in 41% of patient cases. CONCLUSION: Ethics consultations among patients with cancer reflect the complexities inherent to their clinical management. Appropriately honoring patients' wishes within the context of overall goals of care is crucial. Thoughtful consideration of the role of and relationship with palliative care experts, communication barriers, sources of interpersonal conflict, symptom control, and end-of-life care is paramount to optimal management strategies in this patient population.

Clinical ethics consultation in patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of clinical ethics consultations among patients with head and neck cancer in order to better anticipate and manage clinical challenges. METHODS: A database was queried to identify patients with head and neck cancer for whom ethics consultation was performed at a comprehensive cancer center (n = 14). Information from the database was verified via data abstraction and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. RESULTS: Common requests for ethics consultation involved code status (6 of 14) and withdrawal/withholding life-sustaining treatments (6 of 14). Common contextual features were interpersonal conflicts (6 of 14) and communication barriers (5 of 14). Airway management concerns were frequent (5 of 14). Whereas 21% of patients had do not resuscitate (DNR) orders before ethics consultation, 79% were DNR subsequently. CONCLUSION: Ethics consultations among patients with head and neck cancer reflect distinctive complexities inherent to their disease, but are entirely consistent with global clinical ethical themes. Consideration of communication barriers, social isolation/stigma, symptom control, and airway management are critical.

Survivorship care planning after the institute of medicine recommendations: how are we faring?

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates the concordance of treatment summaries (TSs) and survivorship care plans (SCPs) delivered to breast cancer survivors within the LIVESTRONG™ Network of Survivorship Centers of Excellence with Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommendations and describes additional structure/process variables. METHOD: Seven NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and six community-based centers participated. TS/SCPs for 65 patients were rated against IOM recommendations using a study-derived checklist, and surveys were administered to better understand the structure and process of delivering TSs/SCPs. RESULTS: On average, fewer than half of IOM content recommendations were met for TSs (M = 46%) and less than two thirds for SCPs (M = 59%). No sites achieved ≥75% overall concordance with IOM recommendations for TSs and only two of 13 met this criterion for SCPs. Content domain scores across sites varied widely, as did the number of sites addressing domain content with ≥75% concordance. Nonetheless, resources required for document preparation and delivery were substantial. DISCUSSION: Gaps in concordance with IOM recommendations exist even in dedicated survivorship centers. A substantial time burden was also noted. Further research is needed to determine which informational elements are essential, to develop and test strategies for improving efficiency and reach, and to determine if outcomes of survivorship care planning warrant the resources required in their preparation and delivery. IMPLICATIONS FOR SURVIVORS: TSs and SCPs have been recommended for all cancer survivors. Essential elements must be determined, approaches made more efficient, outcome improvements demonstrated, and cost-benefit analyses determined before survivors should expect widespread implementation of this recommendation for survivorship care.

Adult cancer survivorship care: experiences from the LIVESTRONG centers of excellence network.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to characterize survivorship models of care across eight LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence (COE) Network sites and to identify barriers and facilitators influencing survivorship care. METHODS: Using the framework of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), quantitative and qualitative methods of inquiry were conducted with the COEs. Methods included document reviews, key informant telephone interviews with 39 participants, online Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) surveys with 40 participants, and three site visits. RESULTS: Several overarching themes emerged in qualitative interviews and were substantiated by quantitative methods. Health system factors supporting survivorship care include organization and leadership commitment and program champions at various levels of the health care team. System barriers include reimbursement issues, lack of space, and the need for leadership commitment to support changes in clinical practices as well as having program "champions" among clinical staff. Multiple models of care include separate survivorship clinics and integrated models as well as consultative models. COEs' scores on the ACIC survey showed overall "reasonable support" for survivorship care; however, the clinical information system domain was least developed. Although the ACIC findings indicated "reasonable support" for self-management, the qualitative analysis revealed that self-management support was largely limited to health promotion provided in clinic-based education and counseling sessions, with few COEs providing patients with self-management tools and interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The CCM framework captured experiences and challenges of these COEs and provided insight into the current state of survivorship care in the context of National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers. Findings showed that cancer patients and providers could benefit from clinical information systems that would better identify candidates for survivorship care and provide timely information. In addition, a crucial area for development is self-management support outside of clinical care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors may benefit from learning about the experience and challenges faced by the eight LIVESTRONG Centers of Excellence in developing programs and models for cancer survivorship care, and these findings may inform patient and caregiver efforts to seek, evaluate, and advocate for quality survivorship programs designed to meet their needs.

The LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence Network.

INTRODUCTION: The LIVESTRONG Survivorship Center of Excellence Network consists of eight National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers funded by the LAF between 2004 and 2008. The Network was created to accelerate the pace of progress in addressing the needs of the growing survivor community. METHODS: This paper will briefly describe some of the salient issues surrounding the care of cancer survivors, and examine models of survivorship care that are being developed in individual Centers of Excellence (COE) as well as in the overall Network. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: As the recommendations and policies for optimal survivorship care have to be feasible and relevant in the community setting, each COE is partnered with up to three community affiliates. Through these partnerships, the community affiliates develop survivorship initiatives at their institutions with support and guidance from their primary COE.