[How do we get around the barriers to integrating palliative care in oncology?] / Comment contourner les freins à l'intégration des soins palliatifs en oncologie ?

Supported by numerous scientific publications showing its clinical benefits, early palliative care has become a gold standard in oncology since 2017, recommended for patients with advanced cancer by the major societies of oncology. Nevertheless, palliative care team integration is still too late in France and the intervention of palliative care teams in oncology is still often limited to the management of patients and their relatives at the end of life. First, we will look at the main obstacles: the lack of staff in palliative care teams and the complex functioning of palliative care identified beds; also, the difficulties of communication with the patient and his relatives for the introduction of palliative care. We will then discuss the prospects for development, moving from the concept of early palliative care (systematic from the advanced phase) to integrated palliative care (targeted to patients' needs). Standardization of the integrated palliative care pathway requires the description of referral criteria, screening modalities, different clinical missions, and collaboration modalities with oncologists. Palliative care and oncology teams, working together, can enable holistic medicine that focuses on the needs of patients and their loved ones, giving voice to their preferences and aiming to improve their quality of life.

First referral to an integrated onco-palliative care program: a retrospective analysis of its timing.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) referral is recommended early in the course of advanced cancer. This study aims to describe, in an integrated onco-palliative care program (IOPC), patient's profile when first referred to this program, timing of this referral and its impact on the trajectory of care at end-of-life. METHODS: The IOPC combined the weekly onco-palliative meeting (OPM) dedicated to patients with incurable cancer, and/or the clinical evaluation by the PC team. Oncologists can refer to the multidisciplinary board of the OPM the patients for whom goals and organization of care need to be discussed. We analyzed all patients first referred at OPM in 2011-2013. We defined the index of precocity (IP), as the ratio of the time from first referral to death by the time from diagnosis of incurability to death, ranging from 0 (late referral) to 1 (early referral). RESULTS: Of the 416 patients included, 57% presented with lung, urothelial cancers, or sarcoma. At first referral to IOPC, 76% were receiving antitumoral treatment, 63% were outpatients, 56% had a performance status ≤2 and 46% had a serum albumin level > 35 g/l. The median [1st-3rd quartile] IP was 0.39 [0.16-0.72], ranging between 0.53 [0.20-0.79] (earliest referral, i.e. close to diagnosis of incurability, for lung cancer) to 0.16 [0.07-0.56] (latest referral, i.e. close to death relatively to length of metastatic disease, for prostate cancer). Among 367 decedents, 42 (13%) received antitumoral treatment within 14 days before death, and 157 (43%) died in PC units. CONCLUSIONS: The IOPC is an effective organization to enable early integration of PC and decrease aggressiveness of care near the end-of life. The IP is a useful tool to model the timing of referral to IOPC, while taking into account each cancer types and therapeutic advances.

Multicentre analysis of intensity of care at the end-of-life in patients with advanced cancer, combining health administrative data with hospital records: variations in practice call for routine quality evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Accessible indicators of aggressiveness of care at the end-of-life are useful to monitor implementation of early integrated palliative care practice. To determine the intensity of end-of-life care from exhaustive data combining administrative databases and hospital clinical records, to evaluate its variability across hospital facilities and associations with timely introduction of palliative care (PC). METHODS: For this study designed as a decedent series nested in multicentre cohort of advanced cancer patients, we selected 997 decedents from a cohort of patients hospitalised in 2009-2010, with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer in 3 academic medical centres and 2 comprehensive cancer centres in the Paris area. Hospital data was combined with nationwide mortality databases. Complete data were collected and checked from clinical records, including first referral to PC, chemotherapy within 14 days of death, ≥1 intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ≥2 emergency department visits (ED), and ≥ 2 hospitalizations, all within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Overall (min-max) indicator values as reported by facility providing care rather than the place of death, were: 16% (8-25%) patients received chemotherapy within 14 days of death, 16% (6-32%) had ≥2 admissions to acute care, 6% (0-15%) had ≥2 emergency visits and 18% (4-35%) had ≥1 intensive care unit admission(s). Only 53% of these patients met the PC team, and the median (min-max) time between the first intervention of the PC team and death was 41 (17-112) days. The introduction of PC > 30 days before death was independently associated with lower intensity of care. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care is highly variable across centres. This validates the use of indicators to monitor integrated PC in oncology. Disseminating a quality audit-feedback cycle should contribute to a shared view of appropriate end-of-life care objectives, and foster action for improvement among care providers.

Effect of integrated palliative care on the quality of end-of-life care: retrospective analysis of 521 cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of oncologist awareness of palliative care (PC), the intervention of the PC team (PCT) and multidisciplinary decision-making on three quality indicators of end-of-life (EOL) care. SETTING: Cochin Academic Hospital, Paris, 2007-2008. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A 521 decedent case series study nested in a cohort of 735 metastatic cancer patients previously treated with chemotherapy. Indicators were location of death, number of emergency room (ER) visits in last month of life and chemotherapy administration in last 14 days of life. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate associations between indicators and oncologist's awareness of PC, PCT intervention and case discussions at weekly onco-palliative meetings (OPMs). RESULTS: 58 (11%) patients died at home, 45 (9%) in an intensive care unit or ER, and 253 (49%) in an acute care hospital; 185 (36%) patients visited the ER in last month of life and 75 (14%) received chemotherapy in last 14 days of life. Only the OPM (n=179, 34%) independently decreases the odds of receiving chemotherapy in last 14 days of life (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.9) and of dying in an acute care setting (0.3, 0.1 to 0.5). PCT intervention (n=300, 58%) did not independently improve any indicators. Among patients seen by the PCT, early PCT intervention had no impact on indicators, whereas the OPM reduced the odds of persistent chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary decision-making with oncologists and the PCT is the most critical parameter for improving EOL care.