Clinical decision support system to optimise symptom management in palliative medicine: focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Suboptimal symptom control in patients with life-limiting illnesses is a major issue. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) that combines a patient-reported symptom assessment scale (SAS) and guideline-based individualised recommendations has the potential to improve symptom management. However, lacking end-user acceptance often prevents CDSS use in daily practice.We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of a palliative care CDSS according to its targeted end-users. METHODS: Six focus groups with different groups of stakeholders were conducted: (1) patient representatives; (2) community nurses; (3) hospital nurses; (4) general practitioners; (5) hospital physicians and (6) palliative care specialists. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-one stakeholders (6-12 per focus group) participated. Six themes were discussed: effect, validity, continuity, practical usability, implementation and additional features. All participants expected a CDSS to improve symptom management, for example, by reminding clinicians of blind spots and prompting patient participation. They feared interference with professional autonomy of physicians, doubted the validity of using a patient-reported SAS as CDSS input and thought lacking care continuity would complicate CDSS use. Clinicians needed clear criteria for when to use the CDSS (eg, life-limiting illness, timing in illness trajectory). Participants preferred a patient-coordinated system but were simultaneously concerned patients may be unwilling or unable to fill out an SAS. CONCLUSIONS: A palliative care CDSS was considered useful for improving symptom management. To develop a feasible system, barriers for successful implementation must be addressed including concerns about using a patient-reported SAS, lacking care continuity and unclear indications for use.

Barriers and facilitators to multidimensional symptom management in palliative care: A focus group study among patient representatives and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: It is widely acknowledged that co-occurring symptoms in patients with a psychosocial and spiritual aspects should also be considered. However, this multidimensional approach is difficult to integrate into daily practice, especially for generalist clinicians not specialized in palliative care. We aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to multidimensional symptom management. METHODS: Focus group meetings were conducted with the following stakeholders: (1) patient representatives, (2) generalist community nurses, (3) generalist hospital nurses, (4) general practitioners, (5) generalist hospital physicians, and (6) palliative care specialists. Audiotapes were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-one participants (6-12 per group) reported barriers and facilitators with 3 main themes: multidimensional symptom assessment, initiating management of nonphysical problems, and multidisciplinary collaboration. As barriers, generalist clinicians and palliative care specialists reported that generalist clinicians often lack the communication skills to address nonphysical problems and are unaware of available resources for multidimensional symptom management. Palliative care specialists felt that generalist clinicians may be unaware that assessing nonphysical problems is important and focus on pharmacological interventions. Generalist nurses and palliative care specialists indicated that hierarchical difficulties between them and generalist physicians are barriers to multidisciplinary collaboration. Reported facilitators included using symptom assessment scales and standardized questions on nonphysical problems. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Generalist clinicians can be supported by improving their communication skills, increasing their awareness of available resources for multidimensional symptom management, and by using a standardized approach to assess all 4 dimensions of palliative care.

The feasibility of a Bayesian network model to assess the probability of simultaneous symptoms in patients with advanced cancer.

Although patients with advanced cancer often experience multiple symptoms simultaneously, clinicians usually focus on symptoms that are volunteered by patients during regular history-taking. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a Bayesian network (BN) model to predict the presence of simultaneous symptoms, based on the presence of other symptoms. Our goal is to help clinicians prioritize which symptoms to assess. Patient-reported severity of 11 symptoms (scale 0-10) was measured using an adapted Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) in a national cross-sectional survey among advanced cancer patients. Scores were dichotomized (< 4 and ≥ 4). Using fourfold cross validation, the prediction error of 9 BN algorithms was estimated (Akaike information criterion (AIC). The model with the highest AIC was evaluated. Model predictive performance was assessed per symptom; an area under curve (AUC) of ≥ 0.65 was considered satisfactory. Model calibration compared predicted and observed probabilities; > 10% difference was considered inaccurate. Symptom scores of 532 patients were collected. A symptom score ≥ 4 was most prevalent for fatigue (64.7%). AUCs varied between 0.60 and 0.78, with satisfactory AUCs for 8/11 symptoms. Calibration was accurate for 101/110 predicted conditional probabilities. Whether a patient experienced fatigue was directly associated with experiencing 7 other symptoms. For example, in the absence or presence of fatigue, the model predicted a 8.6% and 33.1% probability of experiencing anxiety, respectively. It is feasible to use BN development for prioritizing symptom assessment. Fatigue seems most eligble to serve as a starting symptom for predicting the probability of experiencing simultaneous symptoms.

The self-perceived palliative care barriers and educational needs of clinicians working in hospital primary care teams and referral patterns: lessons learned from a single-center survey and cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Within the generalist-plus-specialist palliative care model, palliative care is mainly provided by nurses and physicians of hospital primary care teams. Palliative care consultation teams (PCCTs) support these clinicians in adequately caring for patients with advanced illnesses. Our team started in 2012. The aim of this study was to assess the self-perceived barriers, educational needs and awareness of available palliative care support options among our hospital primary care teams. In addition, palliative care referral patterns were evaluated. METHODS: Single-center mixed methods study. Outcomes of two surveys of primary care team clinicians (2012 and 2016) on barriers to palliative care, educational needs and awareness of palliative care support options were compared (chi-square, Mann-Whitney U tests, qualitative analysis). Palliative care referral characteristics were evaluated (2012-2017), including referral timing (survival since referral) (descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier methodology). Predictions of survival at referral were analyzed (weighted Kappa). RESULTS: In 2012 and 2016, the most frequently reported barrier was the late initiation of the palliative care approach. Clinicians reported a need for education on physical symptom management and basic palliative care principles. Awareness of support options increased from 2012 to 2016, including improved familiarity with the PCCT (56% vs. 85%, P<0.001) and positive appraisal of the team (8% vs. 40% gave an 'excellent' rating, P<0.001). The use of national symptom management guidelines also improved (23% vs. 53%, P<0.001). Of 1,404 referrals, 86% were for cancer patients. Referrals increased by 28% (mean) per year. Medical oncology clinicians referred most frequently (27%) and increasingly early in the disease trajectory (survival ≥3 months after referral) (P=0.016). Median survival after referral was 0.9 (range, 0-83.3) months. Referring physicians overestimated survival in 44% of patients (kappa 0.36, 95% CI: 0.30-0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care team clinicians persistently reported needing support with basic palliative care skills. PCCTs should continuously focus on educating primary care teams and promoting the use of guidelines. Because physicians tend to overestimate survival and usually referred patients late for specialist palliative care, consultation teams should support primary care teams to identify, treat and refer patients with palliative care needs in a timely manner.