Dataset Information

Gynecologic Oncologist Views Influencing Referral to Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:Early specialty palliative care is underused for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies. We sought to understand how gynecologic oncologists' views influence outpatient specialty palliative care referral to help inform strategies for improvement. METHODS/MATERIALS:We conducted a qualitative interview study at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with well-established outpatient palliative care services. Between September 2015 and March 2016, 34 gynecologic oncologists participated in semistructured telephone interviews focused on attitudes, experiences, and preferences related to outpatient specialty palliative care. A multidisciplinary team analyzed transcripts using constant comparative methods to inductively develop a coding framework. Through an iterative, analytic process, codes were classified, grouped, and refined into themes. RESULTS:Mean (SD) participant age was 47 (10) years. Mean (SD) interview length was 25 (7) minutes. Three main themes emerged regarding how gynecologic oncologists view outpatient specialty palliative care: (1) long-term relationships with patients is a unique and defining aspect of gynecologic oncology that influences referral, (2) gynecologic oncologists value palliative care clinicians' communication skills and third-party perspective to increase prognostic awareness and help negotiate differences between patient preferences and physician recommendation, and (3) gynecologic oncologists prefer specialty palliative care services embedded within gynecologic oncology clinics. CONCLUSIONS:Gynecologic oncologists value longitudinal relationships with patients and use specialty palliative care to negotiate conflict surrounding prognostic awareness or the treatment plan. Embedding specialty palliative care within gynecologic oncology clinics may promote communication between clinicians and facilitate gynecologic oncologist involvement throughout the illness course.

SUBMITTER: Hay CM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5315630 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gynecologic Oncologist Views Influencing Referral to Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care.

Hay Casey M CM Lefkowits Carolyn C Crowley-Matoka Megan M Bakitas Marie A MA Clark Leslie H LH Duska Linda R LR Urban Renata R RR Chen Lee-May LM Creasy Stephanie L SL Schenker Yael Y

International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society 20170301 3

<h4>Objective</h4>Early specialty palliative care is underused for patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies. We sought to understand how gynecologic oncologists' views influence outpatient specialty palliative care referral to help inform strategies for improvement.<h4>Methods/materials</h4>We conducted a qualitative interview study at 6 National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers with well-established outpatient palliative care services. Between September 2015 and March 2016, 34 ...[more]

PMID: 28060140

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, many patients with cancer, are infrequently referred to palliative care or are referred late. Oncologists and haematologists may act as gatekeepers, and their views may facilitate or hinder referrals to palliative care. This review aimed to identify, explore and synthesise their views on referrals systematically.MethodsDatabases of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane were searched for articles from 01/01/1990 to 31/12/2019. All studies were scored for their methodological rigour using Hawker's tool. Findings were synthesised using Popay's narrative synthesis method and interpreted using a critical realist lens and social exchange theory.ResultsOut of 9336 initial database citations, 23 studies were included for synthesis. Five themes were developed during synthesis. 1. Presuppositions of oncologists and haematologists about palliative care referral: Role conflict, abandonment, rupture of therapeutic alliance and loss of hope were some of the presuppositions that hindered palliative care referral. Negative emotions and perception of self-efficacy to manage palliative care need also hindered referral. 2. Power relationships and trust issues: Oncologists and haematologists preferred to gatekeep the referral process and wished to control and coordinate the care process. They had diminished trust in the competency of palliative care providers. 3. Making a palliative care referral: A daunting task: The stigma associated with palliative care, navigating illness and treatment associated factors, addressing patient and family attitudes, and overcoming organisational challenges made referral a daunting task. Lack of referral criteria and limited palliative care resources made the referral process challenging. 4. Cost-benefit of palliative care referral: Pain and symptom management and psychosocial support were the perceived benefits, whereas inconsistencies in communication and curtailment of care were some of the costs associated with palliative care referral. 5. Strategies to facilitate palliative care referral: Developing an integrated model of care, renaming and augmenting palliative care resources were some of the strategies that could facilitate a referral.ConclusionPresuppositions, power relationships, trust issues and the challenges associated with the task of referrals hindered palliative care referral. Oncologists and haematologists appraised the cost-benefit of making a palliative care referral. They felt that an integrated model of care, changing the name of palliative care and augmenting palliative care resources might facilitate a referral.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03325985; Pre-results.

Project description:Multiple payment reform efforts are under way to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, yet few directly address the interface between primary and specialty care.To describe regional variation in outpatient visits for individual specialties and the association between specialty physician-specific payments and patient-reported satisfaction with care and health status.Retrospective cross-sectional study.A 20 % random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in 2012.Regions were grouped into quartiles of specialist index, defined as the observed/expected regional likelihood of having an outpatient visit to a specialist, for ten common specialties, adjusting for age, sex, and race. Outcomes were per capita specialty-specific physician payments and Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey responses.The proportion of beneficiaries seeing a specialist varied the most for endocrinology and gastroenterology (3.7- and 3.9-fold difference between the highest and lowest quartiles, respectively) and least for orthopedics and urology (1.5- and 1.7-fold difference, respectively). Multiple analyses suggested that this variation was not explained by prevalence of disease. Average specialty-specific payments were strongly associated with the likelihood of visiting a specialist. Differences in per capita payments from lowest (Q1) to highest quartiles (Q4) were greatest for cardiology ($89, $135, $172, $251) and dermatology ($46, $64, $82, $124). Satisfaction with overall care (median [interquartile range] across specialties: Q1, 93.3 % [92.6-93.7 %]; Q4, 93.1 % [92.9-93.2 %]) and self-reported health status (Q1, 37.1 % [36.9-37.7 %]; Q4, 38.2 % [37.2-38.4 %]) was similar across quartiles. Satisfaction with access to specialty care was consistently lower in the lowest quartile of specialty index (Q1, 89.7 % [89.2-91.1 %]; Q4, 94.5 % [94.4-94.8 %]).Substantial regional variability in outpatient specialist visits is associated with greater payments with limited benefits in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with care or reported health status. Reducing outpatient physician visits may represent an important opportunity to improve the efficiency of care.

Project description:BackgroundThe Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial is a large, multicenter, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in emergency department (ED) patients comparing two models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. This report aims to: 1) report baseline demographic and quality of life (QOL) data for the EMPallA cohort, 2) identify the association between illness type and baseline QOL while controlling for other factors, and 3) explore baseline relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.MethodsPatients aged 50+ years with advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumor) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure, end stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/m2, or Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage III, IV, or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease defined as FEV1 < 50%) are eligible for enrollment. Baseline data includes self-reported demographics, QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), loneliness measured by the Three-Item UCLA Loneliness Scale, and symptom burden measured by the Edmonton Revised Symptom Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic variables, a linear regression model measured the importance of illness type in predicting QOL, and chi-square tests of independence were used to quantify relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.ResultsBetween April 2018 and April 3, 2020, 500 patients were enrolled. On average, end-stage organ failure patients had lower QOL as measured by the FACT-G scale than cancer patients with an estimated difference of 9.6 points (95% CI: 5.9, 13.3), and patients with multiple conditions had a further reduction of 7.4 points (95% CI: 2.4, 12.5), when adjusting for age, education level, race, sex, immigrant status, presence of a caregiver, and hospital setting. Symptom burden and loneliness were greater in end-stage organ failure than in cancer.ConclusionsThe EMPallA trial is enrolling a diverse sample of ED patients. Differences by illness type in QOL, symptom burden, and loneliness demonstrate how distinct disease trajectories manifest in the ED.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03325985 . Registered October 30, 2017.

Dataset Information

Gynecologic Oncologist Views Influencing Referral to Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care.

Publications

Gynecologic Oncologist Views Influencing Referral to Outpatient Specialty Palliative Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets