Dataset Information

Oncologist factors that influence referrals to subspecialty palliative care clinics.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Recent research and professional guidelines support expanded use of outpatient subspecialty palliative care in oncology, but provider referral practices vary widely. We sought to explore oncologist factors that influence referrals to outpatient palliative care.

Methods

Multisite, qualitative interview study at three academic cancer centers in the United States with well-established palliative care clinics. Seventy-four medical oncologists participated in semistructured interviews between February and October 2012. The interview guide asked about experiences and decision making regarding outpatient palliative care use. A multidisciplinary team analyzed interview transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop and refine themes related to palliative care referral decisions.

Results

We identified three main oncologist barriers to subspecialty palliative care referrals at sites with comprehensive palliative care clinics: persistent conceptions of palliative care as an alternative philosophy of care incompatible with cancer therapy, a predominant belief that providing palliative care is an integral part of the oncologist's role, and a lack of knowledge about locally available services. Participants described their views of subspecialty palliative care as evolving in response to increasing availability of services and positive referral experiences, but emphasized that views of palliative care as valuable in addition to standard oncology care were not universally shared by oncologists.

Conclusions

Improving provision of palliative care in oncology will likely require efforts beyond increasing service availability. Raising awareness of ways in which subspecialty palliative care complements standard oncology care and developing ways for oncologists and palliative care physicians to collaborate and integrate their respective skills may help.

SUBMITTER: Schenker Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3948709 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Cancer survival and stage of disease at diagnosis and treatment vary widely across Europe. These differences may be partly due to variations in access to investigations and specialists. However, evidence to explain how different national health systems influence primary care practitioners' (PCPs') referral decisions is lacking.This study analyses health system factors potentially influencing PCPs' referral decision-making when consulting with patients who may have cancer, and how these vary between European countries. DESIGN:Based on a content-validity consensus, a list of 45 items relating to a PCP's decisions to refer patients with potential cancer symptoms for further investigation was reduced to 20 items. An online questionnaire with the 20 items was answered by PCPs on a five-point Likert scale, indicating how much each item affected their own decision-making in patients that could have cancer. An exploratory factor analysis identified the factors underlying PCPs' referral decision-making. SETTING:A primary care study; 25 participating centres in 20 European countries. PARTICIPANTS:1830 PCPs completed the survey. The median response rate for participating centres was 20.7%. OUTCOME MEASURES:The factors derived from items related to PCPs' referral decision-making. Mean factor scores were produced for each country, allowing comparisons. RESULTS:Factor analysis identified five underlying factors: PCPs' ability to refer; degree of direct patient access to secondary care; PCPs' perceptions of being under pressure; expectations of PCPs' role; and extent to which PCPs believe that quality comes before cost in their health systems. These accounted for 47.4% of the observed variance between individual responses. CONCLUSIONS:Five healthcare system factors influencing PCPs' referral decision-making in 20 European countries were identified. The factors varied considerably between European countries. Knowledge of these factors could assist development of health service policies to produce better cancer outcomes, and inform future research to compare national cancer diagnostic pathways and outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThere have been very few published studies of referral management among commercially insured populations and none on referral management from employer-sponsored health centers.ObjectiveDescribe the referral management system of an integrated employer-sponsored health care system and compare specialist referral rates and costs of specialist visits between those initiated from employer-sponsored health clinics and those initiated from community providers.DesignRetrospective, comparative cohort study using multivariate analysis of medical claims comparing care initiated in employer-sponsored health clinics with propensity-matched controls having specialist referrals initiated by community providers.PatientsAdult patients (≥ 18 years) eligible for employer-sponsored clinical services incurring medical claims for specialist referrals between 12/1/2018 and 12/31/2020. The study cohort was comprised of 3129 receiving more than 75% of their care in the employer-sponsored clinic matched to a cohort of 3129 patients receiving care in the community.InterventionSpecialist referral management program implemented by Crossover Health employer-sponsored clinics.Main measuresRates and costs of specialist referrals.Key resultsThe relative rate of specialist referrals was 22% lower among patients receiving care in employers-sponsored health clinics (35.1%) than among patients receiving care in the community (45%, p <0.001). The total per-user per-month cost for patients in the study cohort was $372 (SD $894), compared to $401 (SD $947) for the community cohort, a difference of $29 (p<0.001) and a relative reduction of 7.2%. The lower costs can be attributed, in part, to lower specialist care costs ($63 (SD $140) vs $76 (SD $213) (p<0.001).ConclusionsEmployer-sponsored health clinics can provide effective integrated care and may be able to reduce avoidable specialist utilization. Standardized referral management and care navigation may drive lower specialist spend, when referrals are needed.

Project description:BackgroundPromoting integrated care is a key goal of the NHS Long Term Plan to improve population respiratory health, yet there is limited data-driven evidence of its effectiveness. The Morecambe Bay Respiratory Network is an integrated care initiative operating in the North-West of England since 2017. A key target area has been reducing referrals to outpatient respiratory clinics by upskilling primary care teams. This study aims to explore space-time patterns in referrals from general practice in the Morecambe Bay area to evaluate the impact of the initiative.MethodsData on referrals to outpatient clinics and chronic respiratory disease patient counts between 2012-2020 were obtained from the Morecambe Bay Community Data Warehouse, a large store of routinely collected healthcare data. For analysis, the data is aggregated by year and small area geography. The methodology comprises of two parts. The first explores the issues that can arise when using routinely collected primary care data for space-time analysis and applies spatio-temporal conditional autoregressive modelling to adjust for data complexities. The second part models the rate of outpatient referral via a Poisson generalised linear mixed model that adjusts for changes in demographic factors and number of respiratory disease patients.ResultsThe first year of the Morecambe Bay Respiratory Network was not associated with a significant difference in referral rate. However, the second and third years saw significant reductions in areas that had received intervention, with full intervention associated with a 31.8% (95% CI 17.0-43.9) and 40.5% (95% CI 27.5-50.9) decrease in referral rate in 2018 and 2019, respectively.ConclusionsRoutinely collected data can be used to robustly evaluate key outcome measures of integrated care. The results demonstrate that effective integrated care has real potential to ease the burden on respiratory outpatient services by reducing the need for an onward referral. This is of great relevance given the current pressure on outpatient services globally, particularly long waiting lists following the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for more innovative models of care.