A Comparative Analysis of Academic and Nonacademic Hospitals on Outcome Measures and Patient Satisfaction.

Academic hospitals contribute to health care through patient care, research, and teaching; however, their outcomes may not be equivalent to nonacademic hospitals. Multivariate analysis of variance is used to compare publicly reported data on patient satisfaction, readmission rates, mortality rates, and hospital-acquired injury scores between 1906 academic and nonacademic hospitals, while controlling for hospital-level covariates. Results show that academic hospitals have higher levels of patient satisfaction on 7 of the 11 measures and are equivalent to nonacademic hospitals on the remaining 4 measures. Academic hospitals have lower pneumonia mortality rates than nonacademic hospitals, with no difference for other mortality or disease-specific readmissions. However, academic hospitals have a slightly higher overall readmission rate. Infection rates were equivalent between academic and nonacademic hospitals for central line-associated bloodstream infections, pressure ulcers, and wound dehiscence for abdominal and pelvic injuries, but academic hospitals have higher catheter-associated urinary tract infection rates.

Response to Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Breakthrough Pain in Patients with Advanced Cancer with Adequately Controlled Background Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate-release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self-administered survey. We assessed patients' baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very ineffective" to "very effective." "Effective" and "very effective" were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. RESULTS: Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0-10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p = .008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p = .012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p = .017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p = .007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p = .002). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oral immediate-release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer.

Patient Home Visits: Measuring Outcomes of a Community Model for Palliative Care Education.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals may have limited exposure to home-based care. There is no published literature that has described the experiences and satisfaction of participation in patient home visits (PHV). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to describe the characteristics of PHV, our approach, and evaluation by participants over a nine-year period. METHODS: We conducted a review of surveys completed by participants in PHV from 2005-2013. All participants anonymously completed the evaluation questionnaires at the end of PHVs. Different PHV assessment forms were used for the 2005-2010 and 2011-2013 time periods. RESULTS: A total of 34 PHVs were conducted with 106 patients and approximately 750 participants with a mean of 3 patients and 22 participants per PHV between 2005 and 2013. For 18 PHVs there are 317 surveys completed with 353 participants, making it a 90% response rate. Responding participants were physicians 125/543 (23%) and other professionals 418/543 (77%). In both time periods of 2005-2010 and 2011-2013 a survey with a 1 (completely agree) to 5 (completely disagree) scale was used. Agreeing that PHV was an effective teaching tool during 2005-2010 were 335/341 (98%); during 2011-2013, 191/202 (95%) agreed that PHV provided increased understanding and sharing of best practices in palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: PHV was perceived by participants as an effective way of providing interactive community education. A broad range of themes were addressed, and the participants reported high levels of learning in all domains of palliative care. There were no cases of patient or relative expression of distress as a result of PHV.

Symptom profiles in children with advanced cancer: Patient, family caregiver, and oncologist ratings.

BACKGROUND: Systematic symptom assessment is not routinely performed in pediatric oncology. The objectives of the current study were to characterize the symptoms of pediatric oncology outpatients and evaluate agreement between patient and proxy reports and the association between children's ratings and oncologists' treatment recommendations. METHODS: Two versions of the pediatric Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (pMSAS) were translated into Spanish. An age-appropriate and language-appropriate pMSAS was administered independently before visits to the oncologist to patients and family caregivers (caregivers) and after visits to consenting oncologists. Statistical analysis included Spearman correlation coefficients and weighted kappa values. RESULTS: English and Spanish results were similar and were combined. A total of 60 children and their caregivers completed the pMSAS. The children had a median age of 10 years (range, 7-18 years); approximately 62% were male and 33% were Spanish-speaking. Fourteen oncologists completed the pMSAS for 25 patients. Nine patients (15%) had no symptoms and 38 patients (63%) reported ≥2 symptoms. The most common symptoms were fatigue (12 patients; 40%) and itch (9 patients; 30%) for the younger children and pain (15 patients; 50%) and lack of energy (13 patients; 45%) among the older children. Total and subscale score agreement varied by proxy type and subscale, ranging from fair to good for most comparisons. Agreement for individual symptoms between the patient and proxy ranged from a kappa of -0.30 (95% confidence interval, -0.43 to -0.01) to 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.00). Three of 51 symptomatic patients (6%) had treatment recommendations documented in the electronic health record. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms are common and cross several functional domains. Proxy and child reports are often not congruent, possibly explaining apparent undertreatment among this group of patients.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the acute palliative care unit from the emergency center.

CONTEXT: Most patients admitted to acute palliative care units (APCUs) are transferred from inpatient oncology units. We hypothesized that patients admitted to APCUs from emergency centers (ECs) have symptom burdens and outcomes that differ from those of transferred inpatients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the symptom burdens and survival rate of patients admitted to an APCU from an EC with those of inpatients transferred to the APCU. METHODS: Among the 2568 patients admitted to our APCU between September 1, 2003 and August 31, 2008, 312 (12%) were EC patients. We randomly selected 300 inpatients transferred to the APCU as controls (The outcome data were unavailable for two patients). We retrieved data on patient demographics, cancer diagnosis, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System scores, discharge outcomes, and overall survival from time of admission to the APCU. RESULTS: The EC patients had higher rates of pain, fatigue, nausea, and insomnia and were less likely to be delirious. They were more than twice as likely to be discharged alive than transferred inpatients. Kaplan-Meier plot tests for product-limit survival estimate from admission to APCU for EC patients and inpatients were statistically significant (median survival 34 vs. 31 days, P<0.0001). In multivariate analysis, EC admission (odds ratio [OR]=1.8593, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1532-2.9961), dyspnea (OR=0.8533, 95% CI 0.7892-0.9211), well-being (OR=1.1192, 95% CI 1.0234-1.2257), and delirium (OR=0.3942, 95% CI 0.2443-0.6351) were independently associated with being discharged alive. CONCLUSION: The EC patients have a higher acute symptom burden and are more likely to be discharged alive than transferred inpatients. The APCU was successful at managing symptoms and facilitating the discharge of both inpatients and EC patients to the community although the patients had severe symptoms on admission.

Methylphenidate and/or a nursing telephone intervention for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related-fatigue (CRF) is common in advanced cancer. The primary objective of the study was to compare the effects of methylphenidate (MP) with those of placebo (PL) on CRF as measured using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) fatigue subscale. The effect of a combined intervention including MP plus a nursing telephone intervention (NTI) was also assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer with a fatigue score of ≥ 4 out of 10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) were randomly assigned to one of the following four groups: MP+NTI, PL+NTI, MP + control telephone intervention (CTI), and PL+CTI. Methylphenidate dose was 5 mg every 2 hours as needed up to 20 mg per day. The primary end point was the median difference in FACIT-F fatigue at day 15. Secondary outcomes included anxiety, depression, and sleep. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients were evaluable. Median FACIT-F fatigue scores improved from baseline to day 15 in all groups: MP+NTI (median score, 4.5; P = .005), PL+NTI (median score, 8.0; P < .001), MP+CTI (median score, 7.0; P = .004), and PL+CTI (median score, 5.0; P = .03). However, there were no significant differences in the median improvement in FACIT-F fatigue between the MP and PL groups (5.5 v 6.0, respectively; P = .69) and among all four groups (P = .16). Fatigue (P < .001), nausea (P = .01), depression (P = .02), anxiety (P = .01), drowsiness (P < .001), appetite (P = .009), sleep (P < .001), and feeling of well-being (P < .001), as measured by the ESAS, significantly improved in patients who received NTI. Grade ≥ 3 adverse events did not differ between MP and PL (40 of 93 patients v 29 of 97 patients, respectively; P = .06). CONCLUSION: MP and NTI alone or combined were not superior to placebo in improving CRF.