ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Outpatient palliative care (PC) has strong evidence demonstrating impact across serious illnesses, resulting in growing demand for skilled outpatient PC clinicians. However, there is limited literature examining the existing state and quality of outpatient PC education during postgraduate training. OBJECTIVES: Characterize the current state of outpatient training in United States (US) Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) physician fellowships and elicit perceptions regarding quality of outpatient PC education. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of US adult HPM fellowship program directors (PDs) or their designee conducted between March and July, 2023. RESULTS: Of 161 programs, 85 participated (53% response rate) with representation across all US regions. HPM fellows spend a median of 4.8 weeks in outpatient PC compared to 24 weeks inpatient PC and 10.5 weeks in hospice settings. Over half (51%) of fellows saw outpatients from primarily one disease type with limited exposure to patients with other serious illnesses. Across programs, fellows' clinic structure, interdisciplinary team composition, and didactic experiences varied. On a 5-point rating scale, PDs reported significantly lower quality outpatient versus inpatient training (mean rating: 3.58 vs. 4.62, P<0.001) and perceived fellows as less prepared for independent outpatient practice upon graduation (mean: 4.06 vs. 4.73, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our survey of US HPM fellowships identified multiple gaps between outpatient and inpatient PC education and training during fellowship and raises concern about the adequacy of outpatient PC training. To prepare the HPM workforce to meet the diverse needs of seriously ill populations and ensure adequate access, outpatient PC training requires reform.
ABSTRACT
Background: Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) clinicians commonly care for patients with serious illness/injury and would benefit from primary palliative care (PC) training. Objective: To assess current practices, attitudes, and barriers toward PC education among U.S. PM&R residencies. Design: This is a cross-sectional study utilizing an electronic 23-question survey. Setting/Subjects: Subjects were program leaders from U.S. PM&R residency programs. Results: Twenty-one programs responded (23% response). Only 14 (67%) offered PC education through lectures, elective rotations, or self-directed reading. Pain management, communication, and nonpain symptom management were identified as the most important PC domains for residents. Nineteen respondents (91%) felt residents would benefit from more PC education, but only five (24%) reported undergoing curricular change. Lack of faculty availability/expertise and teaching time were the most endorsed barriers. Conclusion: PC education is heterogeneous across PM&R programs despite its perceived value. PC and PM&R educators can collaborate to build faculty expertise and integrate PC principles into existing curricula.
Subject(s)
Internship and Residency , Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine , Humans , Palliative Care , Cross-Sectional Studies , Education, Medical, Graduate , Surveys and Questionnaires , CurriculumABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Early, longitudinal integration of palliative care (PC) is recommended for patients with advanced cancer, in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Despite the growth of specialty PC teams in the last decade, the majority of PC is still delivered in the inpatient setting using a traditional referral-based consult delivery model. However, traditional consultation can lead to significant variation or delay in inpatient PC utilization. New care delivery models and strategies are emerging to deliver PC to hospitalized oncology patients who would most benefit from their services and to better align with professional society recommendations. OBJECTIVES: To identify different care models to deliver PC to ho`spitalized oncology patients and summarize their impact on patient and health system-related outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles from 2006 to 2021 evaluating delivery of PC to oncology patients in acute inpatient care. We abstracted study characteristics, the study's intervention and comparison arms, and outcomes related to specialty PC intervention. RESULTS: We identified four delivery models that have been reported to deliver PC: 1) traditional referral-based consultation, 2) criterion-based or "triggered" consultation, 3) co-rounding with primary inpatient team, and 4) PC clinicians serving as the primary team. We summarize the known outcomes data from each model, and compare the benefits and limitations of each model. CONCLUSION: Our findings provide guidance to health systems about care delivery models to deploy and implement inpatient PC resources to best serve their unique populations.
Subject(s)
Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing , Neoplasms , Humans , Palliative Care , Neoplasms/therapy , Medical Oncology , Delivery of Health Care , Referral and ConsultationABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Opioid continuous infusions are commonly used for end-of-life (EOL) symptoms in hospital settings. However, prescribing practices vary, and even the recent literature contains conflicting protocols and guidelines for best practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate opioid infusion use for EOL comfort care at an academic medical center, and determine if inappropriate use is associated with distress. METHODS: Through literature review and iterative interdisciplinary discussion, we defined three criteria for "potentially inappropriate" infusion use. We conducted a retrospective, observational study of inpatients who died over six months, abstracting demographics, opioid use patterns, survival time, palliative care (PC) involvement, and evidence of patient/caregiver/staff distress from the electronic medical record. RESULTS: We identified 193 decedents who received opioid infusions for EOL comfort care. Forty-four percent received opioid infusions that were classified as "potentially inappropriate." Insufficient use of as-needed intravenous opioid boluses and use of opioid infusions in opioid-naïve patients were the most common problems observed. Potentially inappropriate infusions were associated with more frequent patient (24% vs. 2%; P < 0.001) and staff distress (10% vs. 2%; P = 0.02) and were less common when PC provided medication recommendations (20% vs. 50%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Potentially inappropriate opioid infusions are prevalent at our hospital, an academic medical center with an active PC team and existing contracts for in-hospital hospice care. Furthermore, potentially inappropriate opioid infusions are associated with increased patient and staff distress. We are developing an interdisciplinary intervention to address this safety issue.
Subject(s)
Opioid-Related Disorders , Terminal Care , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Death , Humans , Opioid-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Palliative Care/methods , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Palliative care (PC) improves outcomes in advanced cancer, and guidelines recommend early outpatient referral. However, many PC teams see more inpatient than outpatient consults. We conducted a retrospective study of hospitalized patients with cancer to quantify exposure to inpatient and outpatient PC and describe associations between PC and end-of-life (EOL) quality measures. METHODS: We identified all decedents admitted to an inpatient oncology unit in 1 year (October 1, 2017-September 30, 2018) and abstracted hospitalization statistics, inpatient and outpatient PC visits, and EOL outcomes. Descriptive statistics, univariate tests, and multivariate analysis evaluated associations between PC and patient outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 522 decedents were identified. 50% saw PC; only 21% had an outpatient PC visit. Decedents seen by PC were more likely to enroll in hospice (78% v 44%; P < .001), have do-not-resuscitate status (87% v 55%; P < .001), have advance care planning documents (53% v 31%; P < .001), and die at home or inpatient hospice instead of in hospital (67% v 40%; P < .01). Decedents seen by PC had longer hospital length-of-stay (LOS; 8.4 v 7.0 days; P = .03), but this association reversed for decedents seen by outpatient PC (6.3 v 8.3 days; P < .001), who also had longer hospice LOS (46.5 v 27.1 days; P < .01) and less EOL intensive care (6% v 15%; P < .05). CONCLUSION: PC was associated with significantly more hospice utilization and advance care planning. Patients seen specifically by outpatient PC had shorter hospital LOS and longer hospice LOS. These findings suggest different effects of inpatient and outpatient PC, underscoring the importance of robust outpatient PC.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Palliative Care , Death , Humans , Inpatients , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Outpatients , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Family/caregiver visitation provides critical support for patients confronting cancer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought historic disruptions including widespread visitation restrictions. Here, we characterize in-depth the visitor policies of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and analyze geographic/temporal patterns across CCCs. METHODS: The public-facing CCC websites, including archived webpages, were reviewed to abstract initial visitation policies and revisions, including end-of-life (EoL) exceptions and timing of visitation restrictions relative to regional lockdowns. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were employed to analyze associations between geographic region, timing, and severity of restrictions. RESULTS: Most CCCs (n=43, 86%) enacted visitation restrictions between March 15 and April 15, 2020. About half barred all visitors for COVID-negative inpatients (n=24, 48%) or outpatients (n=26, 52%). Most (n=36, 72%) prohibited visitors for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Most (n=40, 80%) published EoL exceptions but the specifics were highly variable. The median time from initial restrictions to government-mandated lockdowns was 1 day, with a wide range (25 days before to 26 days after). There was no association between timing of initial restrictions and geographic location (p=0.14) or severity of inpatient policies (p=1.0), even among centers in the same city. Outpatient policies published reactively (after lockdown) were more restrictive than those published proactively (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: CCCs enacted strict but strikingly variable COVID-19 visitation restrictions, with important implications for patients/families seeking cancer care. A unified, evidence-based approach to visitation policies is needed to balance proven infection control measures with the needs of patients and families.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cancer Care Facilities/organization & administration , Neoplasms/therapy , Organizational Policy , Visitors to Patients , Humans , Social Support , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused unprecedented disruptions to cancer care, including through strict hospital visitation policies. Since a substantial proportion of the U.S. population report a non-English language as their primary language, it is critical that information is disseminated in multiple languages. OBJECTIVES: To examine the availability of language translations of visitation restrictions on adult National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) Web sites. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of visitation policies abstracted from public-facing Web sites of CCCs in June 2020. Using U.S. Census data, CCC's city and state proportions of self-identifying Hispanic/Latinx population were categorized into three cohorts: low (<10%), moderate (10%-20%), and high (>20%). RESULTS: As of June 2020, all 50 CCCs published a COVID-19 visitation policy on their Web site. Of these, 33 (66%) posted policies only in English, whereas 17 (34%) included one or more non-English translations. A minority of CCCs published Spanish language resources, which did not differ based on state or city demographics: for example, only 42% (8 of 19), 10% (1 of 10), and 38% (8 of 21) of CCCs published Spanish language resources in cities with low, moderate, and high Hispanic/Latinx populations, respectively. CONCLUSION: `Most CCC's did not publish non-English language translations of their visitor policies. Even in cities and states with larger Hispanic/Latinx populations, most CCCs did not publish resources in Spanish. This study highlights a key opportunity to mitigate communication barriers and deliver culturally competent, patient-centered care.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Healthcare Disparities , Hispanic or Latino , Humans , Language , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Policy , SARS-CoV-2 , TranslationsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Immunotherapy has rapidly become the mainstream treatment of multiple cancer types. Since the first drug approval in 2011, we have noted a decline in referrals from inpatient oncology to hospice and an increase in referrals to subacute rehabilitation (SAR) facilities, possibly with the aim of getting strong enough for immunotherapy and other promising drugs. This study explores outcomes after discharge to SAR, including rates of cancer-directed therapy after SAR, overall survival, and hospice use. METHODS: We performed an electronic chart review of patients discharged from our inpatient oncology units to SAR facilities from 2009 to 2017. Demographics, admission statistics, and post-discharge outcomes were gathered from discharge summaries and targeted chart searches. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-eight patients were referred to SAR 413 times. One hundred seventy-four patients (49%) returned to the oncology clinic before readmission or death, and only 117 (33%) ever received additional cancer-directed treatment (chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy). Among all discharges, 28% led to readmissions within 30 days. Seventy-four patients (21%) were deceased within 30 days, only 31% of whom were referred to hospice. Palliative care involvement resulted in more frequent do not resuscitate code status, documented goals of care discussions, and electronic advance directives. CONCLUSION: A growing number of oncology inpatients are being discharged to SAR, but two thirds do not receive additional cancer therapy at any point, including a substantial fraction who are readmitted or deceased within 1 month. These data can help guide decision making and hospital discharge planning that aligns with patients' goals of care. More clinical data are needed to predict who is most likely to benefit from SAR and proceed to further cancer therapy.
Subject(s)
Hospices , Medical Oncology , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/rehabilitation , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Referral and Consultation , Aged , Cancer Care Facilities , Disease Management , Electronic Health Records , Female , Hospices/methods , Hospices/trends , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Immunotherapy , Male , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/trends , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/therapy , Palliative Care/methods , Palliative Care/trendsABSTRACT
Although many phase I trials report tumor response, formal analysis of efficacy is deferred to phase II. We reviewed paired phase I and II pediatric oncology trials to ascertain the relationship between phase I and II objective response rate (OR%). Single-agent phase I trials were paired with corresponding phase II trials (comparable study drug, dosing schedule, and population). Phase I trials without efficacy data or a matching phase II trial were excluded. OR% was tabulated for all trials, and phase II authors' subjective conclusions regarding efficacy were documented; 35 pairs of trials were analyzed. The correlation between phase I and II OR% was 0.93. Between phase II studies with a "positive" conclusion versus a "negative" one, there was a statistically significant difference in mean phase I OR% (32.0% vs. 4.5%, P<0.001). Thirteen phase II studies were undertaken despite phase I OR% of 0%; only 1 had a "positive" conclusion, and none exceeded OR% of 15%. OR% are highly correlated between phase I and II pediatric oncology trials. Although not a formal measure of drug efficacy, phase I OR% may provide an estimate of phase II response, inform phase II study design, and should be given greater consideration.
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic/standards , Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic/standards , Antineoplastic Protocols , Child , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Humans , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Odds Ratio , Pediatrics/methods , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Understanding the experiences of men leaving active surveillance programs is critical to making such programs viable for men with localized prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To generate hypotheses about the factors that influence patients' decisions to leave an active surveillance program. METHODS: Using data from the Johns Hopkins active surveillance cohort, bivariate analyses and multinomial regression models examined characteristics of men who self-elected to leave, those who stayed in the program, and those who left because of disease reclassification. We interviewed patients who self-elected to leave. RESULTS: Of 1,159 men in active surveillance, 9 % self-elected to leave. In interviews with a sample of 14 men who self-elected to leave, uncertainty involved in active surveillance participation, existence of personal criteria-distinct from providers' clinical criteria-and fear of cancer were important factors in decisions to leave. CONCLUSION: Men leaving active surveillance were motivated by a number of factors, including patient-defined criteria, which might differ from clinical recommendations. To ensure active surveillance participation, it may be important to address cancer-related anxiety and personal criteria underlying patient decisions.
Subject(s)
Anxiety/psychology , Patient Dropouts/psychology , Prostatic Neoplasms/psychology , Public Health Surveillance , Adult , Aged , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Motivation , Socioeconomic FactorsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Oncologists and patients often avoid discussing prognosis, treatment failure, and end-of-life planning. Thus, many patients still overestimate their prognosis and possibility of cure, impairing decision making. We piloted a question prompt list (QPL) covering these issues to determine whether it would affect patient anxiety and how it would be used and received by new oncology patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A one-page checklist of common questions surrounding cancer care, quality of life, and end of life was created from previous instruments. A total of 30 patients with advanced or metastatic head and neck cancer were recruited from outpatient clinics. Patients received the QPL before their initial consultation. Patient anxiety, satisfaction, and information/decision-making preferences were assessed using validated instruments. Patient opinions regarding the QPL were solicited through Likert-scale items. RESULTS: During their visit, 27 patients (90%) used the QPL, but notably, none shared it directly with their oncologist. Most participants felt that the QPL was relevant and helpful (90%) and recommended that more physicians use this sort of list (90%) while disagreeing that the QPL made them feel anxious (80%). Generally, participants were highly satisfied with the consultation, and their anxiety decreased during the visit (P < .005). CONCLUSION: A simple, one-page QPL addressing cancer treatment, prognosis, quality of life, and end-of-life issues was well received by new oncology patients and did not affect patient anxiety or physician workflow. Follow-up studies will determine whether use of the QPL increases knowledge, facilitates decision making, and improves advance-care planning.