Association between a name change from palliative to supportive care and the timing of patient referrals at a comprehensive cancer center

Purpose.

Palliative care consultation services are now available in the majority of cancer centers, yet most referrals to palliative care occur late. We previously found that the term “palliative care” was perceived by oncology professionals as a barrier to early patient referral. We aimed to determine whether a service name change to supportive care was associated with earlier referrals.

Patients and Methods.

Records of 4,701 consecutive patients with a first palliative care consultation before (January 2006 to August 2007) and after (January 2008 to August 2009) the name change were analyzed, including demographics and dates of first registration to hospital, advanced cancer diagnosis, palliative care consultation, and death. One-sample proportions tests, median tests, χ² tests, and log-rank tests were used to identify group differences.

Results.

The median age was 59 years, 50% were male, and 90% had solid tumors. After the name change, we found: (a) a 41% greater number of palliative care consultations (1,950 versus 2,751 patients; p < .001), mainly as a result of a rise in inpatient referrals (733 versus 1,451 patients; p < .001), and (b) in the outpatient setting, a shorter duration from hospital registration to palliative care consultation (median, 9.2 months versus 13.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; p < .001) and from advanced cancer diagnosis to palliative care consultation (5.2 months versus 6.9 months; HR, 0.82; p < .001), and a longer overall survival duration from palliative care consultation (median 6.2 months versus 4.7 months; HR, 1.21; p < .001).

Conclusion.

The name change to supportive care was associated with more inpatient referrals and earlier referrals in the outpatient setting. The outpatient setting facilitates earlier access to supportive/palliative care and should be established in more centers.     

The Frequency,Characteristics, and Outcomes Among Cancer Patients With Delirium Admitted to an Acute Palliative Care Unit

Background.

Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric condition seen in patients with severe illness, such as advanced cancer. Few published studies are available of the frequency, course, and outcomes of standardized management of delirium in advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care unit (APCU). In this study, we examined the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of delirium in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an APCU.

Methods.

Medical records of 609 consecutive patients admitted to the APCU from January 2011 through December 2011 were reviewed. Data on patients’ demographics; Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score; palliative care specialist (PCS) diagnosis of delirium; delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility; late development of delirium; and discharge outcome were collected. Delirium was diagnosed with MDAS score ≥7 and by a PCS using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria. All patients admitted to the APCU received standardized assessments and management of delirium per best practice guidelines in delirium management.

Results.

Of 556 patients in the APCU, 323 (58%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Of these, 229 (71%) had a delirium diagnosis on admission and 94 (29%) developed delirium after admission to the APCU. Delirium reversed in 85 of 323 episodes (26%). Half of patients with delirium (n = 162) died. Patients with the diagnosis of delirium had a lower median overall survival than those without delirium. Patients who developed delirium after admission to the APCU had poorer survival (p ≤ .0001) and a lower rate of delirium reversal (p = .03) compared with those admitted with delirium.

Conclusion.

More than half of the patients admitted to the APCU had delirium. Reversibility occurred in almost one-third of cases. Diagnosis of delirium was associated with poorer survival.

Implications for Practice:

Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric condition in patients with severe medical illness and those at the end of life. It can be a source of distress for patients, their families, and the medical team. When missed, or if symptoms are misinterpreted, delirium may also lead to unnecessary interventions. This underlines the importance of diagnosis and detection of delirium in populations that are at increased risk. This study has important implications in practice, as it can assist clinicians in making decisions regarding other medical interventions, advance care planning, and communicating with families relating to end-of-life issues.     

Access to Palliative Care Among Patients Treated at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Background.

Palliative care (PC) is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Previous studies on PC access have mostly examined the timing of PC referral. The proportion of patients who actually receive PC is unclear. We determined the proportion of cancer patients who received PC at our comprehensive cancer center and the predictors of PC referral.

Methods.

We reviewed the charts of consecutive patients with advanced cancer from the Houston region seen at MD Anderson Cancer Center who died between September 2009 and February 2010. We compared patients who received PC services with those who did not receive PC services before death.

Results.

In total, 366 of 816 (45%) decedents had a PC consultation. The median interval between PC consultation and death was 1.4 months (interquartile range, 0.5–4.2 months) and the median number of medical team encounters before PC was 20 (interquartile range, 6–45). On multivariate analysis, older age, being married, and specific cancer types (gynecologic, lung, and head and neck) were significantly associated with a PC referral. Patients with hematologic malignancies had significantly fewer PC referrals (33%), the longest interval between an advanced cancer diagnosis and PC consultation (median, 16 months), the shortest interval between PC consultation and death (median, 0.4 months), and one of the largest numbers of medical team encounters (median, 38) before PC.

Conclusions.

We found that a majority of cancer patients at our cancer center did not access PC before they died. PC referral occurs late in the disease process with many missed opportunities for referral.     

Symptom Burden and Palliative Care Needs of Patients with Incurable Cancer at Diagnosis and During the Disease Course

Background

Although current guidelines advocate early integration of palliative care, symptom burden and palliative care needs of patients at diagnosis of incurable cancer and along the disease trajectory are understudied.

Material and Methods

We assessed distress, symptom burden, quality of life, and supportive care needs in patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer in a prospective longitudinal observational multicenter study. Patients were evaluated using validated self-report measures (National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer [DT], Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy [FACT], Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life [SEIQoL-Q], Patients Health Questionnaire-4 [PHQ-4], modified Supportive Care Needs Survey [SCNS-SF-34]) at baseline (T0) and at 3 (T1), 6 (T2), and 12 months (T3) follow-up.

Results

From October 2014 to October 2016, 500 patients (219 women, 281 men; mean age 64.2 years) were recruited at 20 study sites in Germany following diagnosis of incurable metastatic, locally advanced, or recurrent lung (217), gastrointestinal (156), head and neck (55), gynecological (57), and skin (15) cancer. Patients reported significant distress (DT score ≥ 5) after diagnosis, which significantly decreased over time (T0: 67.2%, T1: 51.7%, T2: 47.9%, T3: 48.7%). The spectrum of reported symptoms was broad, with considerable variety between and within the cancer groups. Anxiety and depressiveness were most prevalent early in the disease course (T0: 30.8%, T1: 20.1%, T2: 14.7%, T3: 16.9%). The number of patients reporting unmet supportive care needs decreased over time (T0: 71.8 %, T1: 61.6%, T2: 58.1%, T3: 55.3%).

Conclusion

Our study confirms a variable and mostly high symptom burden at the time of diagnosis of incurable cancer, suggesting early screening by using standardized tools and underlining the usefulness of early palliative care.

Implications for Practice

A better understanding of symptom burden and palliative care needs of patients with newly diagnosed incurable cancer may guide clinical practice and help to improve the quality of palliative care services. The results of this study provide important information for establishing palliative care programs and related guidelines. Distress, symptom burden, and the need for support vary and are often high at the time of diagnosis. These findings underscore the need for implementation of symptom screening as well as early palliative care services, starting at the time of diagnosis of incurable cancer and tailored according to patients’ needs.

     

Factors Associated With Aggressiveness of End-of-Life Care for Lung Cancer Patients and Associated Costs of Care

BackgroundResults of previous studies demonstrated that high-intensity end-of-life (EOL) care improves neither cancer patients’ survival nor quality of life. Our objective was to assess the incidence of and factors associated with aggressiveness of care during the last 30 days of life (DOL) of lung cancer (LC) patients and the impacts of aggressiveness of care in EOL-care costs.Patients and MethodsUsing French national hospital database, all patients with LC who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2011, or between January 1, 2015, and January 31, 2016, were included. EOL-care aggressiveness was assessed using the following criteria: chemotherapy administered within the last 14 DOL; more than one hospitalization within the last 30 DOL; admission to the intensive care unit within the last 30 DOL; and palliative care initiated < 3 days before death. Expenditures were limited to direct costs, from a health care payer’s perspective.ResultsAmong 79,746 adult LC patients identified; 57% had at least one indicator of EOL-care aggressiveness (49% repeated hospitalizations, 12% intensive care unit admissions, 9% chemotherapy, 5% palliative care). It increased significantly between the 2 periods (56% vs. 58%, P < .001). Young age, male sex, shorter time since diagnosis, comorbidities, no malnutrition, type of care facility other than general hospital, social deprivation, and low-density population were independently associated with having one or more indicator of aggressive EOL care. The mean EOL cost was €8152 ± 5117 per patient, but the cost was significantly higher for patients with at least one EOL-care aggressiveness criterion (€9480 vs. €6376, P < .001).ConclusionIn France, a majority of LC patients had at least one criterion of aggressive EOL care that had a major economic impact on the health care system.     

Palliative care in adolescents

Specialist Palliative Care's involvement in adolescent cancer is relatively new. The challenges are not so much to do with the technicalities of symptom control, but in walking the fine line with patients and families as they wrestle with transitions into an adulthood that will not happen and attempts to pack a lost future into a few months or years whilst coping with arduous and often futile treatments that attempt to buy some more time. The article explores some underlying principles and the model of care that has emerged at this specialist centre for adolescent care.     

Attitudes and Beliefs Toward Supportive and Palliative Care Referral Among Hematologic and Solid Tumor Oncology Specialists

Background.

Palliative care (PC) referrals are often delayed for patients with hematologic malignancies. We examined the differences in attitudes and beliefs toward PC referral between hematologic and solid tumor specialists and how their perception changed with use of the service name “supportive care” (SC).

Materials and Methods.

We randomly surveyed 120 hematologic and 120 solid tumor oncology specialists at our tertiary care cancer center to examine their attitudes and beliefs toward PC and SC referral.

Results.

Of the 240 specialists, 182 (76%) responded. Compared with solid tumor specialists, hematologic specialists were less likely to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to PC (solid tumor, 43% vs. hematology, 21%; p = .002). A significantly greater proportion of specialists expressed that they would refer a patient with newly diagnosed cancer to SC than PC (solid tumor specialists: SC, 81% vs. PC, 43%; p < .001; hematology specialists: SC, 66% vs. PC, 21%; p < .001). The specialists perceived that PC was more likely than SC to be a barrier for referral (PC, 36% vs. SC, 3%; p < .001), to be synonymous with hospice (PC, 53% vs. SC, 6%; p < .001), to decrease hope (PC, 58% vs. SC, 8%; p < .001), and to be less appropriate for treatment of chemotherapy side effects (PC, 64% vs. SC, 19%; p < .001). On multivariate analysis, female clinicians (odds ratio [OR], 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-15.2; p = .02) and the perception that PC is a barrier for referral (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.2-7.6; p = .02) were associated with PC referral if the service name “SC” was used.

Conclusion.

Hematologic specialists were less likely to refer patients early in the disease trajectory and were conducive to referral with the service name SC instead of PC.

Implications for Practice:

The present survey of oncology specialists found that hematologic specialists were less likely than solid tumor specialists to report that they would refer symptomatic patients with newly diagnosed cancer to palliative care. However, both groups were significantly more willing to refer patients early in the disease trajectory if the service name “supportive care” were used instead of “palliative care.” These findings suggest that rebranding might help to overcome the stigma associated with palliative care and improve patient access to palliative care services.