scholarly journals PALLIA ‐10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study ( PREPA ‐10)

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 2950-2961 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Molin ◽  
Caroline Gallay ◽  
Julien Gautier ◽  
Audrey Lardy‐Cleaud ◽  
Romaine Mayet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Multicentric Study ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Screening for Palliative Care Needs: Pilot Data From German Comprehensive Cancer Centers

2021 ◽  
pp. OP.20.00698
Author(s):  
Carmen Roch ◽  
Maria Heckel ◽  
Birgitt van Oorschot ◽  
Bernd Alt-Epping ◽  
Mitra Tewes
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Human Resources ◽  
Structural Characteristics ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Palliative Care Needs

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend several screening tools to identify patients with complex palliative needs. This diversity and lack of structural recommendations offer a wide scope for implementing screening. Against this background, the current status of implementation at German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) funded by the German Cancer Aid has not yet been investigated. METHODS: e-mail survey of the 17 hospital sites of the 13 CCCs. The questionnaire asked for structural characteristics of the centers as well as preconditions of the screening process. Structurally established screening procedures (one item) and standardized workflows, modes of performance, screening tools (four items), modes of training how to screen, and responsibilities (two items) were assessed. RESULTS: In a 2-month period, 15 hospital sites responded; seven hospital sites conducted a palliative care needs (PCN) screening. Only one hospital site carried out PCN screening in almost all oncology departments, but only with the distress thermometer. Other hospital sites determined palliative needs by assessing physical symptoms using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale or the Minimal Documentation System, and two hospital sites combined tools to determine both physical and psychological stress. The type of screening varied from paper-pencil–based to tablet computer–based documentation. The main barriers to implementation were identified as a lack of human resources and a lack of structural conditions. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus among palliative care specialists and oncologists in the CCCs supported by the German Cancer Aid in PCN screening as well as of structured guidelines and the professional association. Structural requirements should be adapted to these needs, which include both technical and human resources. A combined psycho-oncologic and palliative care screening might help to formulate best practice recommendations.

Supportive care in cancer organization in France: State of the art.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19640-e19640
Author(s):  
Florian Scotte ◽  
Christian Herve ◽  
Roland Bugat ◽  
Fadila Farsi ◽  
Moise Namer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Treatment Side Effects ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Pain Care ◽  
Mean Time

e19640 Background: Second Cancer Act was defined in France in December 2009 including enhancement of supportive care in Cancer (SCC). How are supportive care organized in France? Are patients informed about supportive treatment side effects? Methods: The AFSOS (French Speaking Association for Supportive Care in Cancer) conducted this observational study to evaluate practices, organizations and informations given to patients (pts) about SCC. Among 1621 french medical doctors (MD) caring cancer pts who were sent an adhoc questionnaire, 20% (330 MD including 44% medical oncologists) answered. Results: Three different organizations were described: Single MD, transversal team and specific structure specialized in global care (specifically developed in comprehensive cancer centers-CCC). Psycho-oncology, palliative care, nutrition and pain care were the four main items considered as supportive care. During their disease, 68% of pts are receiving SCC, presented by their MD (88%) or nurse devoted to announcement of disease and SCC information (57%). Supportive care is more dispensed during palliative period (90%) than at diagnosis (44%). Patients information is rather supplied during palliative care (85%) than at diagnosis (52%) using a specific questionnaire for outpatient (20%) or specific supportive care session (17%). 71% of cancer department have a cross team to provide supportive care, with specific SCC team particularly in CCC (62%; p=0.01)). 37% have inpatient specific units. Only 40% have a specific organization in home care connection, more in CCC than in public or private centers (respectively 69%, 45%, 20%; p=0.01). 73% use specific financial valorization of CSC activity. Adverse events information is dispensed to 54% of the pts for erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ASE), 74% for biphosphonates and 94% for opioids treatments, rather by medical oncologist than other specialists (p=0.01). Conclusions: Specific organization developed especially in comprehensive cancer centers seems to facilitate SCC organization and information to pts. In the mean time, recommendations include this information, involvement in supportive care team and methods have to be enhanced. Further results compared with patient point of views are expected.

scholarly journals Integrating Palliative Care Into Comprehensive Cancer Centers: Consensus‐Based Development of Best Practice Recommendations

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 1241-1249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Berendt ◽  
Stephanie Stiel ◽  
Steffen T. Simon ◽  
Andrea Schmitz ◽  
Birgitt Oorschot ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

scholarly journals Effect of PARACT (PARAmedical Interventions on Patient ACTivation) on the Cancer Care Pathway: Protocol for Implementation of the Patient Activation Measure-13 Item (PAM-13) Version

10.2196/17485 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e17485
Author(s):  
Elise Verot ◽  
Wafa Bouleftour ◽  
Corinne Macron ◽  
Romain Rivoirard ◽  
Franck Chauvin
Keyword(s):  
Nursing Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Pathway ◽  
Patient Activation ◽  
Oncology Nurses ◽  
Multicentric Study ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Patient Activation Measure

Background The increase in the number of cancer cases and the evolution of cancer care management have become a significant problem for the French health care system, thereby making patient empowerment as a long sought-after goal in chronic pathologies. The implementation of an activation measure via the Patient Activation Measure-13 item (PAM-13) in the course of cancer care can potentially highlight the patient’s needs, with nursing care adapting accordingly. Objective The objectives of this PARACT (PARAmedical Interventions on Patient ACTivation) multicentric study were as follows: (1) evaluate the implementation of PAM-13 in oncology nursing practices in 5 comprehensive cancer centers, (2) identify the obstacles and facilitators to the implementation of PAM-13, and (3) produce recommendations for the dissemination of such interventions in other comprehensive cancer centers. Methods This study will follow the “Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance” framework and will consist of 3 stages. First, a robust preimplementation analysis will be conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) linked to the “Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior” model to identify the obstacles and facilitators to implementing new nursing practices in each context. Then, using the Behavior Change Wheel, we will personalize a strategy for implementing the PAM-13, depending on the specificities of each context, to encourage acceptability by the nursing staff involved in the project. This analysis will be performed via a qualitative study through semistructured interviews. Second, the patient will be included in the study for 12 months, during which the patient care pathway will be studied, particularly to collect all relevant contacts of oncology nurses and other health professionals involved in the pathway. The axes of nursing care will also be collected. The primary goal is to implement PAM-13. Secondary factors to be measured are the patient’s anxiety level, quality of life, and health literacy level. The oncology nurses will be responsible for completing the questionnaires when the patient is at the hospital for his/her intravenous chemotherapy/immunotherapy treatment. The questionnaires will be completed thrice in a year: (1) at the time of the patient’s enrollment, (2) at 6 months, and (3) at 12 months. Third, a postimplementation analysis will be performed through semistructured interviews using the TDF to investigate the implementation problems at each site. Results This study was supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (PHRIP PARACT 2016-0405) and the Lucien Neuwirth Institute of Cancerology of Saint-Etienne, France. Data collection for this study is ongoing. Conclusions This study would improve the implemented targeted nursing interventions in cancer centers so that a patient is offered a personalized cancer care pathway. Furthermore, measuring the level of activation and the implementation of measures intended to increase such activation could constitute a significant advantage in reducing social health inequalities. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03240341; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03240341 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/17485

Early palliative care: current status of integration within German comprehensive cancer centers

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 2577-2580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Berendt ◽  
Stephanie Stiel ◽  
Friedemann Nauck ◽  
Christoph Ostgathe
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Early Palliative Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Seventeen years of progress for supportive care services: A resurvey of National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer centers

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 917-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheila L. Hammer ◽  
Karen Clark ◽  
Marcia Grant ◽  
Matthew J. Loscalzo
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
National Cancer Institute ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
Current Status ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers ◽  
Question Survey

AbstractObjective:We replicated a 1994 study that surveyed the state of supportive care services due to changes in the field and the increased need for such services. We provide an updated assessment, comparing the changes that have occurred and describing the current status of supportive care services in comprehensive cancer settings.Method:We used Coluzzi and colleague's 60-question survey from their 1995 Journal of Clinical Oncology article to frame the 98-question survey employed in the current study. Medical and palliative care directors for the 2011 National Cancer Institute (NCI) comprehensive cancer centers were surveyed regarding their supportive care services and their subjective review of the overall effectiveness of the services provided.Results:We achieved a 76% response rate (n = 31). The data revealed increases in the number of cancer beds in the hospitals, the degree of integration of supportive care services, the availability of complementary services, and the number of pain and palliative care services offered. There was also an overall shift toward centers becoming more patient centered, as 65% reported now having a patient and family advisory council. Our findings revealed a growing trend to offer distress screening for both outpatients and inpatients. Medical and palliative care directors' evaluations of the supportive care services they offered also significantly improved. However, the results revealed an ongoing gap in services for end-of-life care and timely referrals for hospice services.Significance of results:Overall, both the quantity and quality of supportive care services in the surveyed NCI-designated cancer centers has improved.

scholarly journals Implementation of Best Practice Recommendations for Palliative Care in German Comprehensive Cancer Centers

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Susanne Gahr ◽  
Sarah Lödel ◽  
Julia Berendt ◽  
Michael Thomas ◽  
Christoph Ostgathe
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

scholarly journals Cancerpedia: A Framework for Implementing Comprehensive Cancer Centres

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 244s-244s
Author(s):  
N. Abdelmutti ◽  
A. Chudak ◽  
M. Merali ◽  
T. Sullivan ◽  
M. Escaf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Cancer Control ◽  
System Level ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Centers

Background and context: Comprehensive cancer centers or programs form a nucleus of cancer care delivery. Although there are frameworks for population cancer control, no similar published framework exists for cancer centers. Aim: We sought to develop a framework for designing and implementing a comprehensive cancer center or program within the context of a population-based model of cancer control that spans diagnosis, treatment, supportive care, and palliative care as well as integration with primary care and the community. Strategy/Tactics: The framework was constructed with the patient at the center and provides a system-level perspective as well as a granular view of the fundamental resources and structures needed to build and maintain individual cancer centers and programs. Due to its breadth, we focused the framework on essential information while linking to a wide range of vetted publications that detail additional standards, guidelines and best practices. Program/Policy process: “Cancerpedia” emerged as a cohesive framework for the delivery of high-quality cancer care within and beyond the cancer center. It provides an overview of the cancer control and care delivery framework, describes cancer care services (e.g., radiotherapy, chemotherapy, palliative care) and details infrastructure and core services (e.g., physical facilities, human resources). In addition to these services, the framework presents guidelines for governance that ensure oversight and quality, describes the critical need for integrating education and research and presents the best practices for engaging in philanthropy. Cancerpedia also outlines the role of the comprehensive cancer center in integration with the community and influencing policy and regulation. Over 30 chapters provide a detailed description of each element and include a description of the service or function, resources requirements such as people, equipment and facilities, management structures, quality performance guidelines and future trends in innovation. Outcomes: To our knowledge, no comparable published framework exists as a reference for developing comprehensive cancer centers. Cancerpedia was designed to serve as a global public good and is adaptable and applicable to diverse contexts and healthcare environments. It is relevant to high-, middle- and low-income countries alike and provides a reference point from which to structure a plan for growth. What was learned: While it is important to describe the various elements required for cancer care delivery, it is critical to consider and address the integration and interdependencies of these various elements. Future opportunities for learning include seeking input from a global audience to gauge the utility and applicability of Cancerperdia to local contexts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document