Dataset Information

The experience of providing hospice care concurrent with cancer treatment in the VA.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Veterans with advanced cancer can receive hospice care concurrently with treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy. However, variations exist in concurrent care use across Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs), and overall, concurrent care use is relatively rare. In this qualitative study, we aimed to identify, describe, and explain factors that influence the provision of concurrent cancer care (defined as chemotherapy or radiation treatments provided with hospice) for veterans with terminal cancer. METHODS:From August 2015 to April 2016, we conducted six site visits and interviewed 76 clinicians and staff at six VA sites and their contracted community hospices, including community hospices (n?=?16); VA oncology (n?=?25); VA palliative care (n?=?17); and VA inpatient hospice and palliative care units (n?=?18). RESULTS:Thematic qualitative content analysis found three themes that influenced the provision of concurrent care: (1) clinicians and staff at community hospices and at VAs viewed concurrent care as a viable care option, as it preserved hope and relationships while patient goals are clarified during transitions to hospice; and (2) the presence of dedicated liaisons facilitated care coordination and education about concurrent care; however, (3) clinicians and staff concerns about Medicare guideline compliance hindered use of concurrent care. CONCLUSIONS:While concurrent care is used by a small number of veterans with advanced cancer, VA staff valued having the option available and as a bridge to hospice. Hospice staff felt concurrent care improved care coordination with VAMCs, but use may be tempered due to concerns related to Medicare compliance.

SUBMITTER: Haverhals LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6391175 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The experience of providing hospice care concurrent with cancer treatment in the VA.

Haverhals Leah M LM Manheim Chelsea E CE Mor Vincent V Ersek Mary M Kinosian Bruce B Lorenz Karl A KA Faricy-Anderson Katherine E KE Gidwani-Marszowski Risha A RA Levy Cari C

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20181122 4

<h4>Purpose</h4>Veterans with advanced cancer can receive hospice care concurrently with treatments such as radiation and chemotherapy. However, variations exist in concurrent care use across Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers (VAMCs), and overall, concurrent care use is relatively rare. In this qualitative study, we aimed to identify, describe, and explain factors that influence the provision of concurrent cancer care (defined as chemotherapy or radiation treatments provided with hospice) fo ...[more]

PMID: 30467792

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMedicare hospice beneficiaries discontinue disease-modifying treatments because the hospice benefit limits access. While veterans have concurrent access to hospice care and Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC)-provided treatments, the association of this with changes in treatment and costs of veterans' end-of-life care is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether increasing availability of hospice care, without restrictions on disease-modifying treatments, is associated with reduced aggressive treatments and medical care costs at the end of life.Design, setting, and participantsA modified difference-in-differences study design, using facility fixed effects, compared patient outcomes during years with relatively high vs lower hospice use. This study evaluated 13 085 veterans newly diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from 113 VAMCs with a minimum of 5 veterans diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC per year, between 2006 and 2012. Data analyses were conducted between January 2017 and July 2018.ExposuresUsing VA inpatient, outpatient, pharmacy claims, and similar Medicare data, we created VAMC-level annual aggregates of all patients who died of cancer for hospice use, cancer treatment, and/or concurrent receipt of both in the last month of life, dividing all VAMC years into quintiles of exposure to hospice availability.Main outcomes and measuresReceipt of aggressive treatments (2 or more hospital admissions within 30 days, tube feeding, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit [ICU] admission) and total costs in the first 6 months after diagnosis.ResultsOf the 13 085 veterans included in the study, 12 858 (98%) were men; 10 531 (81%) were white, and 5949 (46%) were older than 65 years. Veterans with NSCLC treated in a VAMC in the top hospice quintile (79% hospice users), relative to the bottom quintile (55% hospice users), were more than twice as likely to have concurrent cancer treatment after initiating hospice care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.28; 95% CI, 1.67-3.31). Nonetheless, for veterans with NSCLC seen in VAMCs in the top hospice quintile, the AOR of receiving aggressive treatment in the 6 months after diagnosis was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53-0.81), and the AOR of ICU use was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.99) relative to patients seen in VAMCs in the bottom hospice quintile. The 6-month costs were lower by an estimated $266 (95% CI, -$358 to -$164) per day for the high-quintile group vs the low-quintile group. There was no survival difference.Conclusions and relevanceIncreasing the availability of hospice care without restricting treatment access for veterans with advanced lung cancer was associated with less aggressive medical treatment and significantly lower costs while still providing cancer treatment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health care services internationally are refocussing care delivery towards patient centred, integrated care that utilises effective, efficient and innovative models of care to optimise patient outcomes and system sustainability. Whilst significant efforts have been made to examine and enhance patient experience, to date little has progressed in relation to provider experience. This review aims to explore this knowledge gap by capturing evidence of clinician experience, and how this experience is defined and measured in the context of health system change and innovation. METHODS:A rapid review of published and grey literature review was conducted utilising a rapid evidence assessment methodology. Seventy-nine studies retrieved from the literature were included in the review. Fourteen articles were identified from the grey literature search and one article obtained via hand searching. In total, 94 articles were included in the review. This study was commissioned by and co-designed with the New South Wales, Ministry of Health. RESULTS:Clinician experience of delivering health care is inconsistently defined in the literature, with identified articles lacking clarity regarding distinctions between experience, engagement and work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction. Clinician experience was commonly explored using qualitative research that focused on experiences of discrete health care activities or events in which a change was occurring. Such research enabled exploration of complex experiences. In these contexts, clinician experience was captured in terms of self-reported information that clinicians provided about the health care activity or event, their perceptions of its value, the lived impacts they experienced, and the specific behaviours they displayed in relation to the activity or event. Moreover, clinician's experience has been identified to have a paucity of measurement tools. CONCLUSION:Literature to date has not examined clinician experience in a holistic sense. In order to achieve the goals identified in relation to value-based care, further work is needed to conceptualise clinician experience and understand the nature of measurement tools required to assess this. In health system application, a broader 'clinician pulse' style assessment may be valuable to understand the experience of clinical work on a continuum rather than in the context of episodes of change/care.

Project description:BackgroundIntegration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care improves patients' quality of life and survival. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer treatment guidelines are instrumental in standardizing cancer care, yet it is unclear how palliative and hospice care are integrated in these guidelines. In this study, we examined the frequency of occurrence of "palliative care" and "hospice care" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines.Materials and methodsWe reviewed all 53 updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer. We documented the frequency of occurrence of "palliative care" and "hospice care," the definitions for these terms if available, and the recommended timing for these services.ResultsWe identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic malignancy guidelines. Palliative care was mentioned in 30 (57%) guidelines (24 solid tumor, 6 hematologic). Palliative care was mentioned more frequently in solid tumor than hematologic guidelines (median, 2 vs. 0; p = .04). Among the guidelines that included palliative care in the treatment recommendation, 25 (83%) only referred to NCCN palliative care guideline. Specialist palliative care referral was specifically mentioned in 5 of 30 (17%) guidelines. Only 14 of 24 (58%) solid tumor guidelines and 2 of 6 (33%) hematologic guidelines recommended palliative care in the front line setting for advanced malignancy. Few guidelines (n = 3/53, 6%) mentioned hospice care.Conclusion"Palliative care" was absent in almost half of NCCN cancer treatment guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. Our findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.Implications for practiceIntegration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care is associated with improved patient outcomes. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology have an important role to standardize palliative care involvement for cancer patients. It is unclear how often palliative care referral is recommended in these guidelines. In this study involving 53 NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer, the researchers found that palliative care was not mentioned in over 40% of NCCN guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. These findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines.

Dataset Information

The experience of providing hospice care concurrent with cancer treatment in the VA.

Publications

The experience of providing hospice care concurrent with cancer treatment in the VA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure