25 Years: Looking Back, Looking Forward.

Palliative medicine and the practice of palliative care has disseminated around the world for the past 25 years. In many countries, palliative medicine is a formally recognized specialty of medicine. Yet, there is a high variability, due in part to the variable resources devoted to its development. New research is needed to improve our ability to control symptoms and to know how best to implement the existing science so that the patients who need palliative care can get it easily and equitably. Achieving this level of access requires expertise in organizational structure and system change strategies. Building the evidence base for best practices requires us to forge research collaborations with collegues from all medical subspecialities, including experts from allied health disciplines, and partner closely with patients and families. It also compels us to look critically at ourselves to overcome the barriers we put in our own way to becoming a routine part of standard health care in all countries.

Symptom Control Research.

The need for symptom control research has never been greater. Yet, this is an underdeveloped area in hospice and palliative care. Expert symptom control researchers point out a number of issues that show the way forward over the next 25 years. Chief among them is the need to do the research, rather than being content with the evidence we have. A barrier is to have the self-discipline to honestly evaluate the state of the palliative care science where the gold standard of randomized controlled trials has not been used to establish current practice. Commitment to organized symptom control research groups and clinical trials networks is important. Combining symptom control research with disease-directed research is a promising way forward. Investing in training junior clinicians and researchers is critical. All palliative care fellows and clinicians must receive training in the basics of research methods so that they can effectively support and advance research and evidence-based best practices.

Incentives for Palliative Care.

The past 25 years have proved that palliative care is effective in improving care of seriously ill patients. Research attention must pivot to focus on policy changes and systems and models of care that ensure easy access to quality palliative care to all patients who need it. Education, alone, has not worked. Leaving it to individual organizations to decide has not worked. The question of whether incentives should be used has arisen. Should we design treatment algorithms, such as for cardiopulmonary resuscitation, where palliative care is part of standard care and requires an "opt out"? Should payers pay more to health care organizations who demonstrate they provide universal access to palliative care and how can we control for unintended consequences? Should provision of specialist palliative care be required for a health care organization to be accredited? How can we advance the state of the science and best support the workforce?

Mid-Career Training to Advance Palliative Care.

The demand for specialist palliative medicine physicians, advanced practice providers, and other team members outstrips supply. Traditional paths to specialty practice will not meet projected need. Therefore, innovation and research are required. One innovation is the training of midcareer professionals; those who have been in practice and want to change to palliative care. Barriers to leaving practice and returning to traditional training are high; not the least of which is the opportunity cost. In this roundtable, experts discuss what they have learned from current research, and point the way to additional needed research.

Evaluation of a Virtual Learning Collaborative to Integrate Palliative Care Into Routine Oncology Practice.

PURPOSE: The integration of palliative care into usual oncology care is a best practice, but implementation can be challenging. METHODS: We convened a virtual learning collaborative (VLC) of oncology practices with a focus on integrating palliative care. The entire program was virtual, with teams meeting via online Webinar and conference call and accessing content via an online portal. Because of the need to pause and retool after the first 5 months, the VLC evolved into 2 phases, with feedback after the first phase informing the second. We primarily evaluated the reaction of participants and project team members after the completion of the VLC using 2 quantitative surveys (after each phase) and semistructured interviews with participants. RESULTS: A total of 24 oncology practices entered the VLC. Evaluation after each of 2 phases was conducted. For the first evaluation, 67% of respondents agreed a quality improvement coach was helpful to complete the program; 61% agreed a palliative care expert was helpful. The most common reasons for withdrawal involved organizational and VLC factors. Organizational factors included: time constraints, personnel changes (turnover), loss of the champion, and lack of team engagement. Twenty-two active participants and 8 former participants completed the second survey. Of those, 79% agreed the experience with the VLC was valuable, and 74% agreed the virtual delivery mode was useful. We identified 3 themes to drive future improvements related to structure, engagement, and content. CONCLUSION: VLCs are a potential mechanism to disseminate information and facilitate learning in oncology. Further study of program characteristics that promote acceptance of VLCs are needed.