ABSTRACT
OPINION STATEMENT: While the benefits of early palliative care are indisputable, most of the current evidence has emerged from resource-rich settings in urban areas of high-income countries, with an emphasis on solid tumors in outpatient settings; this model of palliative care integration is not currently scalable internationally. A shortage of specialist palliative care clinicians means that in order to meet the needs of all patients who require support at any point along their advanced cancer trajectory, palliative care must also be provided by family physicians and oncology clinicians who require training and mentorship. Models of care that facilitate the timely provision of seamless palliative care across all settings (inpatient, outpatient, and home-based care), with clear communication between clinicians, are crucial to the provision of patient-centred palliative care. The unique needs of patients with hematological malignancies must be further explored and existing models of palliative care provision modified to meet these needs. Finally, care must be provided in an equitable and culturally sensitive manner, recognizing the challenges associated with the delivery of high-quality palliative care to both patients in high-income countries who live in rural areas, as well as to those in low- and middle-income countries. A one-size-fits-all model will not suffice, and there is an urgent need to develop innovative context-specific models of palliative care integration worldwide, in order to provide the right care, in the right place, and at the right time.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Palliative Care , Humans , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/therapy , Quality of Health CareABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Although early palliative care is recommended, resource limitations prevent its routine implementation. We report on the preliminary findings of a mixed methods study involving a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) and qualitative interviews. METHODS: Adults with advanced solid tumors and an oncologist-estimated prognosis of 6-36 months were randomized to STEP or symptom screening alone. STEP involved symptom screening at each outpatient oncology visit; moderate to severe scores triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who offered referral to in-person outpatient palliative care. Patient-reported outcomes of quality of life (FACT-G7; primary outcome), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESAS-r-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE P-16) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. RESULTS: From Aug/2019 to Mar/2020 (trial halted due to COVID-19 pandemic), 69 participants were randomized to STEP (n = 33) or usual care (n = 36). At 6 months, 45% of STEP arm patients and 17% of screening alone participants had received palliative care (p = 0.009). Nonsignificant differences for all outcomes favored STEP: difference in change scores for FACT-G7 = 1.67 (95% CI: -1.43, 4.77); ESAS-r-CS = -5.51 (-14.29, 3.27); FAMCARE P-16 = 4.10 (-0.31, 8.51); PHQ-9 = -2.41 (-5.02, 0.20). Sixteen patients completed qualitative interviews, describing symptom screening as helpful to initiate communication; triggered referral as initially jarring but ultimately beneficial; and referral to palliative care as timely. CONCLUSION: Despite lack of power for this halted trial, preliminary results favored STEP and qualitative results demonstrated acceptability. Findings will inform an RCT of combined in-person and virtual STEP.