Palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies in Germany: a nationwide survey on everyday practice and influencing factors from the perspective of treating physicians.

Integrating palliative care into the treatment of patients with advanced hematological malignancies (HM) remains challenging. To explore treating physicians' perspectives on current palliative care practice and to evaluate factors influencing integration, we conducted a nationwide online survey. Based on literature and expert review, the survey addressed the importance of palliative care, communication about life-threatening conditions, challenges in establishing goals of care, and factors influencing the integration of palliative care. 207 physicians treating patients with HM in Germany participated. We used standard descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data and a content structuring approach. Most physicians considered palliative care in HM to be very important (60.6%) and discussed life-threatening conditions with more than half of their patients (52%), especially when goals of care were changed (87.0%) or when patients raised the topic (84.0%). Disease-related factors, different professional perspectives on prognosis, and patient hopes were the main barriers to changing goals of care, but collaboration with colleagues and multidisciplinary teams provided important support. Time constraints were identified as the main barrier to integrating palliative care. The majority worked well with palliative care teams. Referral processes and conditions were perceived as minor barriers. The study highlights the need to address barriers to integrating palliative care into the management of patients with advanced HM. Future research should aim at optimizing palliative care for patients with HM.

Utilization and quality of palliative care in patients with hematological and solid cancers: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) contributes to improved end-of-life care for patients with hematologic malignancies (HM) and solid tumors (ST) by addressing physical and psychological symptoms and spiritual needs. Research on PC in HM vs. ST patients is fragmented and suggests less use. METHODS: We analyzed claims data of all deceased members of a large German health insurance provider for the year before death. First, we analyzed the frequency and the beginning of different types of PC and compared patients with HM vs. ST. Second, we analyzed the adjusted impact of PC use on several end-of-life quality outcomes in patients with HM vs. ST. We performed simple and multiple (logistic) regression analysis, adjusted for relevant covariates, and standardized for age and sex. RESULTS: Of the 222,493 deceased cancer patients from 2016 to 2020, we included 209,321 in the first analysis and 165,020 in the second analysis. Patients with HM vs. ST received PC less often (40.4 vs. 55.6%) and later (34 vs. 50 days before death). PC use significantly improved all six quality indicators for good end-of-life care. HM patients had worse rates in five of the six indicators compared with ST patients. Interaction terms revealed that patients with ST derived greater benefit from PC in five of six quality indicators than those with HM. CONCLUSION: The data highlight the need to integrate PC more often, earlier, and more effectively into the care of patients with HM.