Quality of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer in a community consortium.

BACKGROUND: Measuring quality of care delivery is essential to palliative care program growth and sustainability. We formed the Carolinas Consortium for Palliative Care and collected a quality data registry to monitor our practice and inform quality improvement efforts. MEASURES: We analyzed all palliative care consultations in patients with cancer in our quality registry from March 2008 through October 2011 using 18 palliative care quality measures. Descriptive metric adherence was calculated after analyzing the relevant population for measurement. INTERVENTION: We used a paper-based, prospective method to monitor adherence for quality measures in a community-based palliative care consortium. OUTCOMES: We demonstrate that measures evaluating process assessment (range 63%-100%), as opposed to interventions (range 3%-17%), are better documented. CONCLUSIONS/LESSONS LEARNED: Analyzing data on quality is feasible and valuable in community-based palliative care. Overall, processes to collect data on quality using nontechnology methods may underestimate true adherence to quality measures.

Cost-effectiveness of early palliative care intervention in recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if early palliative care intervention in patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer is potentially cost saving or cost-effective. METHODS: A decision model with a 6 month time horizon evaluated routine care versus routine care plus early referral to a palliative medicine specialist (EPC) for recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. Model parameters included rates of inpatient admissions, emergency department (ED) visits, chemotherapy administration, and quality of life (QOL). From published ovarian cancer data, we assumed baseline rates over the final 6 months: hospitalization 70%, chemotherapy 60%, and ED visit 30%. Published data from a randomized trial evaluating EPC in metastatic lung cancer were used to model odds ratios (ORs) for potential reductions in hospitalization (OR 0.69), chemotherapy (OR 0.77), and emergency department care (OR 0.74) and improvement in QOL (OR 1.07). The costs of hospitalization, ED visit, chemotherapy, and EPC were based on published data. Ranges were used for sensitivity analysis. Effectiveness was quantified in quality adjusted life years (QALYs); survival was assumed equivalent between strategies. RESULTS: EPC was associated with a cost savings of $1285 per patient over routine care. In sensitivity analysis incorporating QOL, EPC was either dominant or cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) <$50,000/QALY, unless the cost of outpatient EPC exceeded $2400. Assuming no clinical benefit other than QOL (no change in chemotherapy administration, hospitalizations or ED visits), EPC remained highly cost-effective with ICER $37,440/QALY. CONCLUSION: Early palliative care intervention has the potential to reduce costs associated with end of life care in patients with ovarian cancer.

Palliative and hospice care in gynecologic cancer: a review.

Despite the increasing availability of palliative care, oncology providers often misunderstand and underutilize these resources. The goals of palliative care are relief of suffering and provision of the best possible quality of life for both the patient and her family, regardless of where she is in the natural history of her disease. Lack of understanding and awareness of the services provided by palliative care physicians underlie barriers to referral. Oncologic providers spend a significant amount of time palliating the symptoms of cancer and its treatment; involvement of specialty palliative care providers can assist in managing the complex patient. Patients with gynecologic malignancies remain an ideal population for palliative care intervention. This review of the literature explores the current state of palliative care in the treatment of gynecologic cancers and its implications for the quality and cost of this treatment.

Trends in use of high-risk medications for older veterans: 2004 to 2006.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the change in use of high-risk medications for the elderly (HRME), as defined by the National Committee on Quality Assurance's Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality measure (HEDIS HRME), by older outpatient veterans over a 3-year period and to identify risk factors for HEDIS HRME exposure overall and for the most commonly used drug classes. DESIGN: Longitudinal retrospective database analysis. SETTING: Outpatient clinics within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). PARTICIPANTS: Veterans aged 65 by October 1, 2003, and who received VA care at least once each year until September 30, 2006. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of use of HEDIS HRME overall and according to specific drug classes each year from fiscal year 2004 (FY04) to FY06. RESULTS: In a cohort of 1,567,467, high-risk medication exposure fell from 13.1% to 12.3% between FY04 and FY06 (P<.001). High-risk antihistamines (e.g., diphenhydramine), opioid analgesics (e.g., propoxyphene), skeletal muscle relaxants (e.g., cyclobenzaprine), psychotropics (e.g., long half-life benzodiazepines), endocrine (e.g., estrogen), and cardiac medications (e.g., short-acting nifedipine) had modest but statistically significant (P<.001) reductions (range -3.8% to -16.0%); nitrofurantoin demonstrated a statistically significant increase (+36.5%; P<.001). Overall HEDIS HRME exposure was more likely for men, Hispanics, those receiving more medications, those with psychiatric comorbidity, and those without prior geriatric care. Exposure was lower for individuals exempt from copayment. Similar associations were seen between ethnicity, polypharmacy, psychiatric comorbidity, access-to-care factors, and use of individual HEDIS HRME classes. CONCLUSION: HEDIS HRME drug exposure decreased slightly in an integrated healthcare system. Risk factors for exposure were not consistent across drug groups. Future studies should examine whether interventions to further reduce HEDIS HRME use improve health outcomes.