Dataset Information

Using Process Indicators to Monitor Documentation of Patient-Centred Variables in an Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Pathway-Results from a Cluster Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite robust evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating clinical and patient-reported benefits of integrated oncology and palliative care, the tumour-centred focus is predominant. This single-centre process evaluation monitors documentation of required patient-centred variables during an RCT.

Methods

Performance status, patient self-reported symptoms, weight and summaries to general practitioners were assessed from June 2017 to July 2020 in three consultation types: first oncological after study inclusion and palliative and oncological consultations during chemotherapy. Descriptive statistics were used to monitor if the pre-defined program fulfilment of ≥85% documentation was reached.

Results

435 consultations were monitored in 76 patients; 60.5% males, 86.8% with GI cancers; 76 (17.5%) were from the first oncological consultations, 87 (20.0%) and 272 (62.5%) from palliative or subsequent oncological consultations. Program fulfilment differed across consultation types with 94.8% in the palliative consultations (83.3-100%), relative to 65.8% (62.5-75.0%) and 69.2% (57.0-84.3%) for first and subsequent oncological consultations over time, respectively. Use of self-reported symptoms was consistently lower in the oncological consultations.

Conclusions

The documentation level of required core variables was not satisfactory, notwithstanding their high clinical relevance and continuous reminders during study. Pre-trial optimization strategies are paramount to promote integration and reduce professional and personal barriers towards a more patient-centred focus.

SUBMITTER: Hjermstad MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8124531 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundScientific research has provided evidence on benefits of well developed primary care systems. The relevance of some of this research for the European situation is limited.There is currently a lack of up to date comprehensive and comparable information on variation in development of primary care, and a lack of knowledge of structures and strategies conducive to strengthening primary care in Europe. The EC funded project Primary Health Care Activity Monitor for Europe (PHAMEU) aims to fill this gap by developing a Primary Care Monitoring System (PC Monitor) for application in 31 European countries. This article describes the development of the indicators of the PC Monitor, which will make it possible to create an alternative model for holistic analyses of primary care.MethodsA systematic review of the primary care literature published between 2003 and July 2008 was carried out. This resulted in an overview of: (1) the dimensions of primary care and their relevance to outcomes at (primary) health system level; (2) essential features per dimension; (3) applied indicators to measure the features of primary care dimensions. The indicators were evaluated by the project team against criteria of relevance, precision, flexibility, and discriminating power. The resulting indicator set was evaluated on its suitability for Europe-wide comparison of primary care systems by a panel of primary care experts from various European countries (representing a variety of primary care systems).ResultsThe developed PC Monitor approaches primary care in Europe as a multidimensional concept. It describes the key dimensions of primary care systems at three levels: structure, process, and outcome level. On structure level, it includes indicators for governance, economic conditions, and workforce development. On process level, indicators describe access, comprehensiveness, continuity, and coordination of primary care services. On outcome level, indicators reflect the quality, and efficiency of primary care.ConclusionsA standardized instrument for describing and comparing primary care systems has been developed based on scientific evidence and consensus among an international panel of experts, which will be tested to all configurations of primary care in Europe, intended for producing comparable information. Widespread use of the instrument has the potential to improve the understanding of primary care delivery in different national contexts and thus to create opportunities for better decision making.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral publications have addressed the need for a systematic integration of oncological care focused on the tumor and palliative care (PC) focused on the patient with cancer. The exponential increase in anticancer treatments and the high number of patients living longer with advanced disease have accentuated this. Internationally, there is now a persuasive argument that introducing PC early during anticancer treatment in patients with advanced disease has beneficial effects on symptoms, psychological distress, and survival.MethodsThis is a national cluster-randomized trial (C-RCT) in 12 Norwegian hospitals. The trial investigates effects of early, systematic integration of oncology and specialized PC in patients with advanced cancer in six intervention hospitals compared with conventional care in six. Hospitals are stratified on the size of local catchment areas before randomization. In the intervention hospitals, a three-part complex intervention will be implemented. The backbone of the intervention is the development and implementation of patient-centered care pathways that contain early, compulsory referral to PC and regular and systematic registrations of symptoms. An educational program must be completed before patient inclusion. A total of 680 patients with advanced cancer and one caregiver per patient are included when patients come for start of last line of chemotherapy, defined according to national treatment guidelines. Data registration, clinical variables, and patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes take place every 2 months for 1 year or until death. The primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months of life by comparing the proportion of patients who receive this in the intervention and control groups. Primary outcome is use of chemotherapy in the last 3 months before death, i.e. number of patients. Secondary outcomes are initiation, discontinuation and number of cycles, last 3 months of life, administration of other medical interventions in the last month of life, symptom burden, quality of life (QoL), satisfaction with information and follow-up, and caregiver health, QoL, and satisfaction with care.DiscussionResults from this C-RCT will be used to raise the awareness about the positive outcomes of early provision of specialized palliative care using pathways for patients with advanced cancer receiving medical anticancer treatment. The long-term clinical objective is to integrate these patient-centered pathways in Norwegian cancer care. The specific focus on the patient and family and the organization of a predictable care trajectory is consistent with current Norwegian strategies for cancer care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03088202. Registered on 23 March 2017.

Project description:BackgroundDespite evidence demonstrating the utility of using Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care settings, implementing them into routine practice is challenging. Most research has described barriers to, without explaining the causal mechanisms underpinning, implementation. Implementation theories explain how, why, and in which contexts specific relationships between barriers/enablers might improve implementation effectiveness but have rarely been used in palliative care outcomes research.AimTo use Normalisation Process Theory to understand and explain the causal mechanisms that underpin successful implementation of Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care.DesignExploratory qualitative study. Data collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using a Framework approach.Setting/participants63 healthcare professionals, across 11 specialist palliative care services, were purposefully sampled by role, experience, seniority, and settings (inpatient, outpatient/day therapy, home-based/community).ResultsSeven main themes were developed, representing the causal mechanisms and relationships underpinning successful implementation of outcome measures into routine practice. Themes were: Subjectivity of measures; Frequency and version of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; Training, education, and peer support; Building and sustaining community engagement; Electronic system readiness; The art of communication; Reinforcing use through demonstrating value.ConclusionsRelationships influencing implementation resided at individual and organisational levels. Addressing these factors is key to driving the implementation of outcome measures into routine practice so that those using palliative care services can benefit from the systematic identification, management, and measurement of their symptoms and concerns. We provide key questions that are essential for those implementing and using outcome measures to consider in order to facilitate the integration of outcome measures into routine palliative care practice.

Project description:IntroductionOver the last decades, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been developed to better understand the patient's perspective and enable patient-centred care. In palliative care, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is recommended as a PRO tool. Its implementation in specialised palliative home care (SPHC) would benefit from an electronic version validated for the setting.Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance, the study Palli-MONITOR is developing (phase 1) and testing the feasibility (phase 2) of implementing the electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) in the SPHC setting to inform a cluster-randomised phase 3 trial.Methods and analysisPalli-MONITOR is a multicentre, sequential mixed-methods, two-phase development and feasibility study. The study consists of four substudies. In phase 1 (MRC development phase), qualitative patient interviews and focus groups with SPHC professionals are used to identify barriers and facilitators of eIPOS (substudy I). Substudy II tests the equivalence of eIPOS and IPOS in a crossover randomised controlled trial. Phase 2 (MRC feasibility/piloting phase) includes a quasi-experimental study with two control groups (substudy III), and qualitative interviews as well as focus groups to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the developed intervention (substudy IV).Qualitative data will be analysed with thematic analysis following the framework approach. Quantitative analysis uses a two-way intraclass correlation coefficients model for the equivalence testing. Quantitative analysis of the quasi-experimental study will focus on the primary outcomes, recruitment rates and completeness of eIPOS. Secondary outcomes will include intraindividual change in palliative symptoms and concerns, quality of life and symptom burden.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the ethics committee of the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich was received for all study parts. Results and experiences will be presented at congresses and in written form. Additionally, participating SPHC teams will receive summarised results.Trial registration numberNCT03879668.

Project description:ImportancePatients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) receiving intensive chemotherapy experience substantial decline in their quality of life (QOL) and mood during their hospitalization for induction chemotherapy and often receive aggressive care at the end of life (EOL). However, the role of specialty palliative care for improving the QOL and care for this population is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of integrated palliative and oncology care (IPC) on patient-reported and EOL outcomes in patients with AML.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted a multisite randomized clinical trial of IPC (n = 86) vs usual care (UC) (n = 74) for patients with AML undergoing intensive chemotherapy. Data were collected from January 2017 through July 2019 at 4 tertiary care academic hospitals in the United States.InterventionsPatients assigned to IPC were seen by palliative care clinicians at least twice per week during their initial and subsequent hospitalizations.Main outcomes and measuresPatients completed the 44-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia scale (score range, 0-176) to assess QOL; the 14-item Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), with subscales assessing symptoms of anxiety and depression (score range, 0-21); and the PTSD Checklist-Civilian version to assess posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms (score range, 17-85) at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 12, and 24. The primary end point was QOL at week 2. We used analysis of covariance adjusting and mixed linear effect models to evaluate patient-reported outcomes. We used Fisher exact test to compare patient-reported discussion of EOL care preferences and receipt of chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life.ResultsOf 235 eligible patients, 160 (68.1%) were enrolled; of the 160 participants, the median (range) age was 64.4 (19.7-80.1) years, and 64 (40.0%) were women. Compared with those receiving UC, IPC participants reported better QOL (adjusted mean score, 107.59 vs 116.45; P = .04), and lower depression (adjusted mean score, 7.20 vs 5.68; P = .02), anxiety (adjusted mean score, 5.94 vs 4.53; P = .02), and PTSD symptoms (adjusted mean score, 31.69 vs 27.79; P = .01) at week 2. Intervention effects were sustained to week 24 for QOL (β, 2.35; 95% CI, 0.02-4.68; P = .048), depression (β, -0.42; 95% CI, -0.82 to -0.02; P = .04), anxiety (β, -0.38; 95% CI, -0.75 to -0.01; P = .04), and PTSD symptoms (β, -1.43; 95% CI, -2.34 to -0.54; P = .002). Among patients who died, those receiving IPC were more likely than those receiving UC to report discussing EOL care preferences (21 of 28 [75.0%] vs 12 of 30 [40.0%]; P = .01) and less likely to receive chemotherapy near EOL (15 of 43 [34.9%] vs 27 of 41 [65.9%]; P = .01).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with AML, IPC led to substantial improvements in QOL, psychological distress, and EOL care. Palliative care should be considered a new standard of care for patients with AML.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02975869.