Dataset Information

Comprehensive and Equitable Care for Vulnerable Veterans With Integrated Palliative, Psychology, and Oncology Care

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Veterans who live with cancer need comprehensive care. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer guidelines recommend evaluating distress and providing appropriate follow-up to all patients with cancer.

Methods

We created patient-centered, collaborative clinics to screen for and address cancer-related distress. Medical oncologists received education about available supportive services and instructions on how to make referrals. Participants completed the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative screening questions.

Results

Patients in this outpatient US Department of Veterans Affairs medical oncology clinic were primarily older, African American men. Most veterans screened positive for ≥ 1 type of cancer-related distress. Patients screened for high levels of distress received in-person clinical follow-up for further evaluation and to make immediate referrals to supportive care services.

Conclusions

We evaluated patients’ needs, made referrals as needed, and helped bring care directly into the oncology clinic. Using a screening tool for cancer-related distress and managing distress with integrated psychosocial providers could improve care coordination and enhance patient-centered supportive oncology care, especially for high-risk patients. A full-time social worker was integrated into the medical oncology clinics based on our program’s success.

SUBMITTER: Martin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8560117 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsPatients with heart failure (HF) may have variable unrecognized symptom burdens. We sought to investigate the details, determinants, and prognostic significance of symptom burden in hospitalized patients with HF.Methods and resultsWe prospectively evaluated consecutive hospitalized patients with HF as primary diagnosis at our institution using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) both on admission and at discharge. The IPOS, which is a well-validated multi-dimensional symptom assessment scale among advanced illness, consists of 17 questions for enquiring about physical symptoms (10 items), emotional symptoms (4 items) and communication and practical issues (3 items) using a 5-point Likert scale (0 [best]-4 [worst] points). Clinically relevant symptoms were defined as ≥2 points for each IPOS item. Worsening symptom burden was defined as the total IPOS score at discharge being poorer than that on admission. Of 294 patients (mean age: 77.5 ± 12.0 years, male: 168 patients, New York Heart Association class IV: 96 patients, mean left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 44%, and median N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level: 4418 ng/L), the median (IQR) total IPOS score on admission was 19 (12, 27) and they were widely distributed (minimum: 0 - maximum: 52). The total IPOS score on admission was not correlated with the HF severity, including LVEF (Spearman's ρ = -0.05, P = 0.43), NT-proBNP levels (Spearman's ρ = 0.08, P = 0.20) or in-hospital mortality prediction model (GWTG-HF risk score) (Spearman's ρ = 0.01, P = 0.90). Total IPOS scores significantly decreased during hospitalization as a whole (median [IQR]: 13 [6, 21] at discharge; P < 0.001 vs. those on admission). All of the four emotional symptoms (patient anxiety, depression, family anxiety and feeling at peace) remained in the top 5 of clinically relevant symptoms at discharge, whereas none of 10 physical symptoms were nominated. Worsening symptom burden was noted in 28% of the patients during hospitalization, and was independently associated with higher all-cause mortality after discharge (hazard ratio: 2.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-5.09; P = 0.044) even after adjustment by age and HF mortality prediction model (MAGGIC risk score).ConclusionsWe revealed that hospitalized patients with HF had multi-dimensional symptom burdens which varied among individuals and were not correlated with the disease severity. Emotional symptoms, such as anxiety and depression, were the main clinically relevant symptoms at discharge. A worsening IPOS score was noted in a quarter of patients with HF and was associated with a poor prognosis, suggesting the importance of holistic symptom assessment during the course of hospitalization for HF.

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundDisability related to incurable cancer affects over a million Europeans each year and people with cancer rank loss of function among the most common unmet supportive care needs.ObjectivesTo test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an integrated short-term palliative rehabilitation intervention, to optimise function and quality of life in people affected by incurable cancer.DesignThis is a multinational, parallel group, randomised, controlled, assessor blind, superiority trial.MethodsThe INSPIRE consortium brings together leaders in palliative care, oncology and rehabilitation from partner organisations across Europe, with complementary expertise in health service research, trials of complex interventions, mixed-method evaluations, statistics and economics. Partnership with leading European civil society organisations ensures citizen engagement and dissemination at the highest level. We will conduct a multinational randomised controlled trial across five European countries, recruiting participants to assess the effectiveness of palliative rehabilitation for people with incurable cancer on the primary outcome - quality of life - and secondary outcomes including disability, symptom burden and goal attainment. To support trial conduct and enhance analysis of trial data, we will also conduct: comparative analysis of current integration of rehabilitation across oncology and palliative care services; mixed-method evaluations of equity and inclusivity, processes and implementation for the intervention, at patient, health service and health system levels. Finally, we will conduct an evidence synthesis, incorporating INSPIRE findings, and a Delphi consensus to develop an international framework for palliative rehabilitation practice and policy, incorporating indicators, core interventions, outcomes and integration methods.Scientific contributionIf positive, the trial could produce a scalable and equitable intervention to improve function and quality of life in people with incurable cancer and reduce the burden of care for their families. It could also upskill the practitioners involved and motivate future research questions. The intervention could be adapted and integrated into different health systems using existing staff and services, with little or no additional cost.

Project description:IntroductionEarly access to cancer palliative care is recommended. Descriptions of structures and processes of outpatient palliative care clinics operated within smaller hospitals are scarce. This paper presents the development and operation of a fully integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital in a rural region of Mid-Norway offering palliative care concurrent with cancer treatment. A standardized care pathway was applied.MethodsPalliative care is in Norway part of the public healthcare system. Official recommendations recent years point out action points to improve delivery of palliative care. An integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital and an innovative care delivery model was developed and operated in this setting. Patients were recruited for a descriptive study of the patient population. Clinical data were collected by clinical staff and 13 symptom intensities were reported by the patients.ResultsCancer and palliative care were provided by one team of healthcare professionals trained in both fields. There was a close collaboration with the other departments at the hospital, with its affiliated tertiary hospital, and with community health and care services to provide timely referral, enhanced continuity, and improved coordination of care. Eighty-eight patients were included. Mean age was 65.6 years, the most common cancer diagnoses were digestive organs (22.7%), male genital organs (20.5%) or breast (25.0%), 75.0% had metastatic or locally advanced cancer, 59.1% were treated with non-curative intention and 93.1% had Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80%. Median scores of individual symptoms ranged from 0 to 3 (numerical rating scale, 0-10) and 61.0% reported at least one clinically significant symptom rating (≥ 4).ConclusionThis delivery model of integrated outpatient cancer and palliative care is particularly relevant in rural regions allowing cancer patients access to palliative care earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to home.