Assessing the Delivery of Coordinated Care to Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in Ontario, Canada: A Survey of Patients and Healthcare Professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) have complex health needs, and thus require care that is coordinated across professionals and organizations. This study aimed to describe the extent of coordinated care delivery for patients with advanced CKD from the perspectives of both patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: The Coordination Scale of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-26) survey was administered to a random sample of 14,257 patients on maintenance dialysis or receiving care in end-stage kidney disease preparation clinics in Ontario, Canada. A five-item survey was administered to 596 multidisciplinary nephrology professionals. RESULTS: Among the 1,925 patient respondents, 67% reported they had been referred to an allied health professional; 19% had been encouraged to attend programs in the community; and 34% had been told how their visits with other types of doctors helped their treatment (% reporting "always" or "most of the time"). Patient responses were significantly different by treatment modality/setting, but not by gender or geographic location of treatment facility. Among the 276 professional respondents, 37% reported their patients' care was well-coordinated across settings; 56% reported participating in interdisciplinary care planning discussions; and 53% reported they are aware of appropriate home and community services to support their patients (% reporting "always" or "most of the time"). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that care for patients with advanced CKD in Ontario is not consistently coordinated. Healthcare professionals may enhance patient perceptions of coordinated care through explicit communication with patients about how the professionals they see and treatments or services they receive influence their overall health and well-being. At a systems level, there is a need to improve professional awareness of and linkages to home- and community-based services.

Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings: Mixed-methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention aimed at building capacity to deliver palliative care in primary care settings. DESIGN: The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year pilot project involving interprofessional palliative care education and an integrated care model to promote early identification and support of patients with palliative care needs. A concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using descriptive data, provider surveys before and after implementation, and interviews with providers and managers. SETTING: Four primary care practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All providers in each practice were invited to participate. Providers used the "surprise question" as a prompt to determine patient eligibility for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider attitudes toward and confidence in providing palliative care, use of palliative care tools, delivery of palliative care, and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were identified for early initiation of palliative care, most of whom had multiple comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care (30% mean increase, P < .05) and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services (25% mean increase, P < .05). There was substantial variation across practices regarding the percentage of patients identified using the surprise question (0.2% to 1.5%), the number of advance care planning conversations initiated (50% to 90%), and mean time to conversation (13 to 76 days). This variation is attributable, in part, to contextual differences across practices. CONCLUSION: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care to patients can be integrated into the routine practice of primary care practitioners with appropriate training and support. Additional research is needed to understand the practice factors that contribute to the success of palliative care interventions in primary care and to examine patient outcomes.

Directly Mailing gFOBT Kits to Previous Responders Being Recalled for Colorectal Cancer Screening Increases Participation.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces CRC-related death. Average risk individuals should be recalled for screening with gFOBT every 2 years in order to maximize effectiveness. However, adherence with repeated testing is often suboptimal. Our aim was to evaluate whether adding a gFOBT kit to a mailed recall letter improves participation compared with a mailed recall letter alone, among previous responders to a mailed invitation. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the primary care provider as the unit of randomization. Eligible patients had completed a gFOBT and tested negative in an earlier pilot study and were now due for recall. The intervention group received a mailed CRC screening recall letter from their primary care provider plus a gFOBT kit (n = 431) while the control group received a mailed CRC screening mailed recall letter alone (n = 452). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT or colonoscopy within 6 months. RESULTS: gFOBT uptake was higher in the intervention group (61.3%, n = 264) compared with the control group (50.4%, n = 228) with an absolute difference between the two groups of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 20.2%, P = <0.01). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to complete the gFOBT compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.9). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that adding gFOBT kits to the mailed recall letter increased participation among persons recalled for screening. Nine gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen one additional person.

Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Patients in Routine Clinical Care: Perspectives of Patients and Providers on ESAS-r:Renal.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical and psychosocial symptom burden in patients treated with maintenance dialysis. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures suggest the need for deeper understanding of how to optimize their implementation and use. This study examines patient and provider perspectives of the implementation process and the influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal on symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Eight in-facility hemodialysis programs in Ontario, Canada, assessed patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal every 4-6 weeks for 1 year. Screening and completion rates were tracked, and pre- and postimplementation surveys and midimplementation interviews were conducted with patients and providers. A chart audit was conducted 12 months postimplementation. RESULTS: In total, 1459 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; 58% of eligible patients completed the preimplementation survey (n=718), and 56% of patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal at least once completed the postimplementation survey (n=569). Provider survey response rates were 71% (n=514) and 54% (n=319), respectively. Nine patients/caregivers from three sites and 48 providers from all sites participated in interviews. A total of 1207 charts were audited. Seven of eight sites had mean screening rates over 80%, suggesting that routine use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal in clinical practice is feasible. However, the multiple data sources painted an inconsistent picture of the value and effect of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal standardized symptom screening processes across providers and sites; improved patient and provider symptom awareness, particularly for psychosocial symptoms; and empowered patients to raise issues with providers. Yet, there was little, if any, statistically significant improvement in the metrics used to assess symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. CONCLUSIONS: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal patient-reported outcome measure may be useful to standardize symptom screening, enhance awareness of psychosocial symptoms among patients and providers, and empower patients rather than to reduce symptom burden.

Assessing the Impact of Early Identification of Patients Appropriate for Palliative Care on Resource Use and Costs in the Final Month of Life.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether an intervention to identify Canadian patients eligible for a palliative approach changes the use of health care resources and costs within the final month of life. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians identified 1,187 patients in family practice units and cancer centers who were likely to die within 1 year based on diagnosis, symptom assessment, and performance status. A multidisciplinary intervention that included activation of community resources and initiation of palliative planning was started. By using propensity-score matching, patients in the intervention group were matched 1:1 with nonintervention controls selected from provincial administrative data. We compared health care use and costs (using 2017 Canadian dollars) for 30 days before death between patients who died within the 1-year follow-up and matched controls. RESULTS: Groups (n = 629 in each group) were well-balanced in sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and previous health care use. In the last 30 days, there was no differences in proportions between the two groups of patients regarding emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, or inpatient hospitalizations. However, patients in the intervention group had greater use of palliative physician encounters, community home care visits, and/or physician home visits (92.8% v 88.4%; P = .007). In the 507 pairs with cancer, more patients in the intervention group underwent chemotherapy (44% v 33%; P < .001) and radiation (18.7% v 3.2%; P = .043) in the last 30 days. Mean cost per patient was similar for the intervention group (mean, $17,231; 95% CI, $16,027 to $18,436) and for the control group (mean, $16,951; 95% CI, $15,899 to $18,004). CONCLUSION: Even with the limitations in our observational study design, identification of palliative patients did not significantly change overall costs but may shift resources toward palliative services.

Does early palliative identification improve the use of palliative care services?

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care impacts on the use of palliative, community and acute-based care services. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians from eight sites were encouraged to systematically identify patients who were likely to die within one year and would were thought to benefit from early palliative care. Patients in the INTEGRATE Intervention Group were 1:1 matched to controls selected from provincial healthcare administrative data using propensity score-matching. The use of palliative care, community-based care services (home care, physician home visit, and outpatient opioid use) and acute care (emergency department, hospitalization) was each evaluated within one year after the date of identification. The hazard ratio (HR) in the Intervention Group was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Of the 1,185 patients in the Intervention Group, 951 (80.3%) used palliative care services during follow-up, compared to 739 (62.4%) among 1,185 patients in the Control Group [HR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.82)]. The Intervention Group also had higher proportions of patients who used home care [81.4% vs. 55.2%; HR 2.07 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.27)], had physician home visits [35.5% vs. 23.7%; HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.92)] or had increased outpatient opioid use [64.3% vs. 52.1%); HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.57]. The Intervention Group was also more likely to have a hospitalization that was not primarily focused on palliative care (1.42 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.58)) and an unplanned emergency department visit for non-palliative care purpose (1.47 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.64)). CONCLUSION: Physicians actively identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care resulted in increased use of palliative and community-based care services, but also increased use of acute care services.

Integrating early palliative care into routine practice for patients with cancer: A mixed methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing evidence from controlled trials on benefits of early palliative care, there is a need for studies examining implementation in real-world settings. The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year real-world project that promoted early identification and support of patients with cancer who may benefit from palliative care. This study assesses feasibility, stakeholder experiences, and early impact of the INTEGRATE Project METHODS: The INTEGRATE Project was implemented in four cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, and consisted of interdisciplinary provider education and an integrated care model. Providers used the Surprise Question to identify patients for inclusion. A mixed methods evaluation of INTEGRATE was conducted using descriptive data, interviews with providers and managers, and provider surveys. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients with cancer (lung, glioblastoma, head and neck, gastrointestinal) were included. Results suggest improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care and to initiate the Advanced Care Planning (ACP) conversation. The majority of patients (85%) had an ACP or goals of care (GOC) conversation initiated within a mean time to conversation of 5-46 days (SD 20-93) across centers. A primary care report was transmitted to family doctors 48-100% of the time within a mean time to transmission of 7-54 days (SD 9-27) across centers. Enablers and barriers influencing success of the model were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care for patients with cancer can be integrated into the routine practice of oncology providers, with appropriate education, integration into existing clinical workflows, and administrative support.

Do family health clinics provide primary-level palliative care in Ontario and the eastern regions of Quebec?

OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent to which family health clinics in Ontario and the eastern regions of the province of Quebec provide palliative care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ontario and the eastern regions of Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: The clinic leads of a select group of family health clinics with patient enrolment models in Ontario and the eastern regions of Quebec. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The types of palliative care services that the clinics provide, as well as the enablers of and barriers to providing palliative care within the 2 provinces. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 32%. Clinics in both provinces reported providing palliative care to ambulatory patients (83% of Ontario clinics and 74% of Quebec clinics). Only 29 of 102 (28%) Ontario clinics provided on-call services themselves, compared with 31 of 34 (91%) Quebec clinics, with the resulting effect being that more patients were directed to emergency departments in Ontario. Access to palliative care specialist teams for support was higher in Ontario than in Quebec (67% vs 41%, respectively). In Ontario, 56% of practices indicated that they had access to palliative care physicians who could take over the care of their patients with palliative care needs, but a lower number (44%) actually handed over care to these physicians. CONCLUSION: A group of clinics are providing full palliative care services to their own patients with palliative care needs, including "on-call" services and home visits, and these serve as role models. In Ontario in particular, substantial gaps still exist with respect to clinics providing their own after-hours coverage and home visits; many rely on other services to provide that care. In Quebec, lack of access to palliative care specialist teams appears to be a key challenge in the areas included in this survey. This survey could help policy makers and funders of health care services ensure that appropriate conditions are put in place for optimal palliative care provision in these clinics, such as coordinating access to on-call coverage and support from palliative care specialist teams, as well as providing education to all physicians and adequate remuneration.

Home Palliative Service Utilization and Care Trajectory Among Ontario Residents Dying on Chronic Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Many patients who receive chronic hemodialysis have a limited life expectancy comparable to that of patients with metastatic cancer. However, patterns of home palliative care use among patients receiving hemodialysis are unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to undertake a current-state analysis to inform measurement and quality improvement in palliative service use in Ontario. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive study of outcomes and home palliative care use by Ontario residents maintained on chronic dialysis using multiple provincial healthcare datasets. The period of study was the final year of life, for those died between January 2010 and December 2014. RESULTS: We identified 9611 patients meeting inclusion criteria. At death, patients were (median [Q1, Q3] or %): 75 (66, 82) years old, on dialysis for 3.0 (1.0-6.0) years, 41% were women, 65% had diabetes, 29.6% had dementia, and 13.9% had high-impact neoplasms, and 19.9% had discontinued dialysis within 30 days of death. During the last year of life, 13.1% received ⩾1 home palliative services. Compared with patients who had no palliative services, those who received home palliative care visits had fewer emergency department and intensive care unit visits in the last 30 days of life, more deaths at home (17.1 vs 1.4%), and a lower frequency of deaths with an associated intensive care unit stay (8.1 vs 37.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of patients receiving dialysis in Ontario received support through the home palliative care system. There appears to be an opportunity to improve palliative care support in parallel with dialysis care, which may improve patient, family, and health-system outcomes.

CONTEXTE: L'espérance de vie de bon nombre de patients traités par hémodialyse chronique se compare à celle des patients atteints d'un cancer métastatique. Cependant, les tendances d'utilisation des soins palliatifs à domicile chez les patients hémodialysés sont encore peu connues. OBJECTIF DE L'ÉTUDE: Nous souhaitions faire une analyse de l'état actuel des choses afin d'éclairer sur la mesure et l'amélioration de la qualité des soins palliatifs en Ontario. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Nous avons mené une étude descriptive des issues pour les patients et de l'utilisation des soins palliatifs à domicile chez les patients hémodialysés en Ontario. Plusieurs ensembles de données provinciales en soins de santé ont été employés pour procéder à l'analyse. La dernière année de vie des patients décédés entre janvier 2010 et décembre 2014 a constitué la période étudiée. RÉSULTATS: Les patients satisfaisant les critères d'inclusion étaient au nombre de 9 611. La cohorte était constituée à 41 % de femmes. Au moment du décès, l'âge médian (Q1; Q3) des patients était de 75 ans (66; 82 ans) et la médiane de la durée des traitements d'hémodialyse était de trois ans en moyenne (1,0; 6,0 ans). Parmi les comorbidités recensées au décès, 65 % des patients étaient aussi diabétiques, environ un tiers (29,3 %) étaient atteints de démence et 13,9 % présentaient des néoplasmes. Dans les 30 jours précédant leur décès, 19,9 % des patients avaient cessé leurs traitements de dialyse. Au cours de la dernière année de vie, seulement 13,1 % des patients de la cohorte avaient reçu au moins un service de soins palliatifs à domicile. Lorsque comparés aux patients n'ayant reçu aucun service en soins palliatifs, ils se sont moins souvent présentés aux urgences et ont moins souvent séjourné dans les unités de soins intensifs. De plus, une plus grande proportion des patients ayant reçu des soins palliatifs sont décédés à domicile, soit 17,1 % contre 1,4 % des patients n'ayant reçu aucun service en soins palliatifs. Enfin, le taux de mortalité associé à un séjour aux soins intensifs s'est avéré bien inférieur chez les patients qui avaient reçu des soins palliatifs, soit 8,1 % contre 37,8 % pour les patients n'ayant reçu aucun service de soins palliatifs. CONCLUSION: En Ontario, une très faible proportion des patients hémodialysés a reçu du soutien par l'entremise du système de soins palliatifs à domicile au cours de la période étudiée. Il semble donc y avoir une possibilité d'améliorer l'offre de soins palliatifs parallèlement aux traitements de dialyse; et ceci pourrait avoir une incidence positive sur les patients et leurs proches, de même que sur le système de santé.

Integrated Care Planning for Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing emphasis on the use of integrated care plans to deliver cancer care. However little is known about how integrated care plans for cancer patients are developed including featured core activities, facilitators for uptake and indicators for assessing impact. METHODS: Given limited consensus around what constitutes an integrated care plan for cancer patients, a scoping review was conducted to explore the components of integrated care plans and contextual factors that influence design and uptake. RESULTS: Five types of integrated care plans based on the stage of cancer care: surgical, systemic, survivorship, palliative and comprehensive (involving a transition between stages) are described in current literature. Breast, esophageal and colorectal cancers were common disease sites. Multi-disciplinary teams, patient needs assessment and transitional planning emerged as key features. Provider buy-in and training alongside informational technology support served as important facilitators for plan uptake. Provider-level measurement was considerably less robust compared to patient and system-level indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in design features, components and facilitators across the various types of integrated care plans indicates opportunities to leverage shared features and enable a management lens that spans the trajectory of a patient's journey rather than a phase-specific silo approach to care.

Integrating cancer care beyond the hospital and across the cancer pathway: a patient-centred approach.

Cancer patients constitute one of the most complex, diverse and growing patient populations in Canada. Like other high-needs patient groups, cancer patients desire a more integrated approach to care delivery that spans organizational and professional boundaries. This article provides an overview of Cancer Care Ontario's experience in fostering a more integrated cancer system, and describes the organization's emerging focus on patient-centred models of integrated care through the whole cancer pathway, from prevention to end-of-life care and survivorship.

Increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening: results from a cluster randomized trial of directly mailed gFOBT kits to previous nonresponders.

Regular screening using guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study was to determine whether the addition of a gFOBT kit to a second mailed invitation compared to a second mailed invitation alone increases CRC screening among eligible persons who did not respond to an initial mailed invitation. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the physician as the unit of randomization. Participants were persons who had been invited but who had not responded to an invitation for CRC screening in an earlier pilot project. The intervention group received a mailed gFOBT kit and second mailed CRC screening invitation (n = 2,008) while the control group received a second mailed CRC screening invitation alone (n = 1,586). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT within 6 months of the second mailing. We found that the uptake of gFOBT was more than twice as high in the intervention group (20.1%) compared to the control group (9.6%). The absolute difference between the two groups was 10.5% (95% CI: 7.5-13.4%, p ≤ 0.0001). In a subsequent adjusted analysis, participants in the intervention group were twice as likely to complete the test as those in the control group (OR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.6-2.6). These findings suggest that directly mailed gFOBT kits increase CRC screening participation among previous nonresponders to a mailed invitation and that approximately 10 gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen 1 additional person. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01629004).