Improving Access to Early Palliative Care Delivery for Patients With an Advanced Thoracic Malignancy Through an Embedded Oncopalliative Clinic Model.

PURPOSE: Early integration of palliative care (PC) with standard oncology care is driving the development of innovative PC delivery models. METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective study of outpatient PC before and after the opening of an embedded thoracic oncology-palliative clinic at The Ohio State University. Patients included in the preintervention (October 2017-July 2018) and postintervention (October 2018-July 2019) cohorts had a diagnosis of any non-small-cell lung cancer (stages I-IV) or small-cell lung cancer (limited or extensive stage) and were newly established in the thoracic medical oncology clinic during the study time periods. All patients in the preintervention cohort had access to outpatient PC through a freestanding clinic, while the postintervention cohort had access to both freestanding and embedded clinics. Using time-to-event analyses, we evaluated differences in time intervals from first medical oncology visit to PC referral and first PC visit between cohorts. RESULTS: The majority of patients in both cohorts had metastatic disease at diagnosis. In the postintervention cohort, 20.9% of patients were referred to outpatient PC compared with 9.2% in the preintervention cohort (P < .01). PC referrals for patients outside of Franklin and adjacent counties increased from 4.0% to 14.2% after opening the embedded clinic (P < .01). Completion percentages of PC referrals increased from 57.6% to 76.0% in the preintervention versus postintervention cohorts (P = .048). Median time from palliative referral order to first PC visit decreased from 29 to 20 days (P = .047). Similarly, median time from the first oncology visit to PC referral completion decreased from 103 to 41 days (P = .08). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an embedded PC model was associated with increased access to early PC among patients with thoracic malignancies.

Feasibility of an embedded palliative care clinic model for patients with an advanced thoracic malignancy.

PURPOSE: Early palliative care (PC) with standard oncology care has demonstrated improved patient outcomes, but multiple care delivery models are utilized. This study prospectively evaluated the feasibility of an embedded PC clinic model and collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and caregiver needs. METHODS: In this observational study of embedded outpatient PC for patients with advanced thoracic malignancies treated at The Ohio State University Thoracic Oncology clinic, patients received same-day coordinated oncology and palliative care visits at one clinic location. PC encounters included comprehensive symptom assessment and management, advanced care planning, and goals of care discussion. Multiple study assessments were utilized. We describe the feasibility of evaluating PROs and caregiver needs in an embedded PC model. RESULTS: Forty patients and 28 caregivers were enrolled. PROs were collected at baseline and follow-up visits. Over a 12-month follow-up, 36 patients discontinued study participation due to hospice enrollment, death, study withdrawal, or COVID restrictions. At baseline, 32 patients (80%) rated distress as moderate-severe with clinically significant depression (44%) and anxiety (36%). Survey completion rates significantly decreased over time: 3 months (24 eligible, 66% completed), 6 months (17 eligible; 41% completed), 9 months (9 eligible; 44% completed), and 12 months (4 eligible; 50% completed). CONCLUSION: We found that an embedded PC clinic was feasible, although there were challenges encountered in longitudinal collection of PROs due to high study attrition. Ongoing assessment and expansion of this embedded PC model will continue to identify strengths and challenges to improve patient and caregiver outcomes.

Impact of an Embedded Palliative Care Clinic on Healthcare Utilization for Patients With a New Thoracic Malignancy.

Introduction: Palliative care is beneficial for patients with advanced lung cancer, but the optimal model of palliative care delivery is unknown. We investigated healthcare utilization before and after embedding a palliative care physician within a thoracic medical oncology "onco-pall" clinic. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study comparing healthcare outcomes in two cohorts: "pre-cohort" 12 months prior to and "post-cohort" 12-months after the onco-pall clinic start date. Patients were included if they had a new diagnosis of lung cancer and received care at The Ohio State University Thoracic Oncology Center, and resided in Franklin County or 6 adjacent counties. During the pre-cohort time period, access to palliative care was available at a stand-alone palliative care clinic. Palliative care intervention in both cohorts included symptom assessment and management, advance care planning, and goals of care discussion as appropriate. Outcomes evaluated included rates of emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, 30-day readmissions, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. Estimates were calculated in rates per-person-years and with Poisson regression models. Results: In total, 474 patients met criteria for analysis (214 patients included in the pre-cohort and 260 patients in the post-cohort). Among all patients, 52% were male and 48% were female with a median age of 65 years (range 31-92). Most patients had non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC - 17% stage 1-2, 20% stage 3, 47% stage 4) and 16% had small cell lung cancer. The post-cohort was older [median age 66 years vs 63 years in the pre-cohort (p-value: < 0.01)]. The post-cohort had a 26% reduction in ED visits compared to the pre-cohort, controlling for age, race, marital status, sex, county, Charlson score at baseline, cancer type and stage (adjusted relative risk: aRR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.94, p-value = 0.01). Although not statistically significant, there was a 29% decrease in ICU admissions (aRR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.41-1.21, p-value = 0.21) and a 15% decrease in hospital admissions (aRR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70-1.03, p-value = 0.10). There was no difference in 30-day readmissions (aRR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.73-1.45, p-value = 0.85). Conclusions: Embedding palliative care clinics within medical oncology clinics may decrease healthcare utilization for patients with thoracic malignancies. Further evaluation of this model is warranted.

Too Many Appointments: Assessing Provider and Nursing Perception of Barriers to Referral for Outpatient Palliative Care.

Background: Integration of early outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer requires overcoming logistical constraints as well as attitudinal barriers of referring providers. This pilot study assessed provider perception of logistical and attitudinal barriers to outpatient palliative care referral as well as provider acceptability of an embedded onco-palliative clinic model. Methods: This was a cross-sectional survey-based study of medical oncologists, palliative care physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and oncology nurses at a large U.S. academic center. Participants were invited to participate through anonymous online survey. Participants rank ordered logistical barriers influencing referral to an outpatient palliative clinic. Respondents indicated level of agreement with attitudinal perception of palliative care and acceptability of an embedded palliative clinic model through five-item Likert-like scales. Results: There were a total of 54 study participants (28 oncology physicians/APPs, 15 palliative physicians/APPs, and 11 oncology nurses). Across the three cohorts, most survey respondents ranked "time burden to patients" as the primary logistical barrier to outpatient palliative care referral. Both oncology and palliative providers indicated comfort with primary palliative care skills although palliative providers were more comfortable with symptom management compared with oncology providers (93.3% vs. 32.2%). A majority of participants (94.9%) were willing to refer to a palliative care provider embedded within an oncology clinic. Conclusion: Additional health care time cost to patients is a major barrier to outpatient palliative care referral. Embedding a palliative care provider in an oncology clinic may be an acceptable model to increase patient access to outpatient palliative care while supporting the oncology team.

Substance Abuse Risk and Medication Monitoring in Patients with Advanced Lung Cancer Receiving Palliative Care.

Oncology and Palliative Medicine lack guidance on routine opioid risk screening and compliance monitoring. This study explored relationships among risk screening and aberrant medication related behaviors in patients with advanced lung cancer receiving embedded palliative care. This was a single center, prospective study and data was collected from December 2018 to March 2020. At the initial palliative visit, patients provided a baseline urine drug screen (UDS) test and completed the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain - Revised (SOAPP-R) self-assessment. Clinical pharmacists provided comprehensive review and interpretation of UDS results. Among 39 patients, 12 (30.8%) scored positive for risk of aberrant medication behaviors on the SOAPP-R. Only 34 of 39 patients provided a baseline UDS test and were included in further analysis. Prior to pharmacist review, 11/11 (100%) baseline UDS results in the positive-risk group and 13/23 (56.5%) in the negative-risk group appeared unexpected (p = 0.01). After pharmacist review, aberrant baseline UDS results were confirmed for 5/11 (45.5%) positive-risk and 4/23 (17.4%) negative-risk patients (p = 0.11). Overall, the SOAPP-R alone may be inadequate in this population and clinical pharmacists play an important role in comprehensive UDS result interpretation. Future studies are needed to validate this risk-screening tool in palliative cancer populations.

Patient Perceptions About the Role of Religion and Spirituality During Cancer Care.

We sought to assess the perspectives of cancer patients relative to their spiritual well-being, as well as examine the impact of religion/spirituality during cancer care. A mixed-methods concurrent embedded online survey design was used. While 86% of participants indicated a religious/spiritual belief, respondents also reported lower overall spiritual well-being than population norms (t(73) = - 5.30, p < 0.01). Open-ended responses revealed that 22% of participants desired the healthcare team to address the topic of religion/spirituality, but the majority preferred to discuss with a family member or friend (48%). Religion/spirituality might play a central role for a subset of patients across the cancer journey.

Exploring the perception of survivors on the bidirectional impact between cancer and their social contexts: A mixed-methods approach.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to use a mixed-methods approach to assess the perspective of cancer survivors on the bidirectional impact between cancer and their social contexts. METHOD: A fixed concurrent triangulation mixed-methods survey design was used with open- and closed-ended questions that were predetermined and administered to participants. Quantitative items included demographic questions and the Life Impact Checklist. Qualitative questions were designed to explore the bidirectional impact between the patient and specific contexts including spirituality/faith, the spousal/partner relationship, and the family. A cross-sectional descriptive approach was used to evaluate the quantitative items and the constant comparative method guided the analysis of open-ended questions. RESULT: Among 116 participants (mean age 58.4 years), the majority were female (66.7%) with breast cancer (27.9%). Nearly one-half the respondents endorsed a positive impact of cancer on their spirituality/faith, but qualitative results suggested less of a bidirectional impact. The importance of the spouse/partner during the cancer experience was emphasized, including the subthemes of instrumental and emotional support; however, there was often a negative impact of cancer on the spouse/partner relationship, including sexual functioning. Survivors indicated family members provided instrumental and emotional support, but not as regularly or directly as a spouse/partner. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Social contexts are important among cancer survivors, with many cancer survivors relying more on their spouse/partner than other family members for support. The cancer experience is stressful not only for survivors, but also for individuals in their social contexts and relationships.

Reciprocity within patient-physician and patient-spouse/caregiver dyads: insights into patient-centered care.

PURPOSE: To explore the reciprocal process of decisional conflict within the patient-physician dyad, and its relationship with patient general health and patient-perceived physician helpfulness. Among the subset of participants who were in a committed relationship, we examined the congruence in reciprocal processes between patient-spouse/caregiver and patient-physician dyads. METHODS: An online retrospective survey of cancer patients was conducted in the USA. The reciprocal process of decisional conflict within the patient-physician dyad was measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The Perception of Spousal Reciprocity Scale (POSRS) was used to measure reciprocity in the patient-spouse/caregiver dyad. RESULTS: The final analytic cohort consisted of 116 participants. The average age of participants was 58.4 years, the majority were female (66.7%), and the most common diagnosis was breast cancer (27.9%). Participants who perceived their physician as more helpful were more likely to report lower levels of decisional conflict on the DCS total scale and subscales (r range = 0.24-0.46, p < 0.05). Higher scores on the PSORS were associated with lower levels of decisional conflict (r = - 0.37, p < 0.01). Participants not in a relationship had higher levels of decisional conflict about their treatment decisions (M = 21.69) than participants in a relationship (M = 9.69, t(26.95) = - 2.26, p = 0.032). DISCUSSION: Physicians are an important resource for both the patient and caregiver during the cancer journey. Understanding reciprocal processes within the patient-physician relationship related to patient-centered care and including the caregiver in the medical decision-making process can decrease the threat of decisional conflict and subsequent adverse outcomes.

A systematic review of the methods utilised to measure the relationship between cancer patients and oncologists: Implications for future research and practice.

INTRODUCTION: The patient-physician relationship is a critical component of patient-centred health care. The patient-oncologist relationship is particularly important due to the uncertainties that surround treatment of cancer. The goal of the current review was to summarise current methodological approaches to studying the relationship between cancer patients and oncologists. METHODS: A systematic review using PsychInfo, Ebsco, PubMed and Google Scholar was performed using combinations and variations of the MESH terms: "relationship," "doctor-patient," and "oncology." The included studies explicitly measured the "relationship" as an independent or dependent variable. Data were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: The 13 studies included in the review were published from 2004 to 2018. There was little agreement between studies on the definition of the patient-oncologist relationship. Trust was most frequently measured, but methods varied. Most studies evaluated the patient perspective (n = 10). The few studies that considered the oncologist perspective did not measure their perception of the relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The current review demonstrates that current approaches used to assess the patient-oncologist relationship are inconsistent. These differences may limit our understanding of patient needs in current research and practice. Future research should focus on the use of a relational lens as a theoretical framework to assess the patient-oncologist relationship.