The Costs of Waiting: Implications of the Timing of Palliative Care Consultation among a Cohort of Decedents at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Scibetta ◽  
Kathleen Kerr ◽  
Joseph Mcguire ◽  
Michael W. Rabow
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Care Consultation

Interval between first palliative care consultation and death among patients in a comprehensive cancer center in Saudi Arabia

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 61 ◽  
Author(s):  
SamiAyed Alshammary ◽  
Abdullah Alsuhail ◽  
BalajiP Duraisamy ◽  
Savithiri Ratnapalan ◽  
SaadHamad Alabdullateef
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Care Consultation

Clinical Findings of a Palliative Care Consultation Team at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Navneet Dhillon ◽  
Scott Kopetz ◽  
Be Lian Pei ◽  
Egidio Del Fabbro ◽  
Tao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Clinical Findings ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Consultation Team ◽  
Care Consultation

Interval between first palliative care consultation and death in patients with advanced cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9028-9028 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. El Osta ◽  
J. Palmer ◽  
T. Paraskevopoulos ◽  
B. Pei ◽  
L. Roberts ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Solid Cancer ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Care Consultation ◽  
Over Time

9028 Background: Most referrals to acute palliative care (PC) services occur late in the trajectory of the disease, although an earlier intervention can decrease patients’ (pts) symptoms distress. The purpose of this study was to determine the time interval between first palliative care consultation (PC1) and death (D) in pts diagnosed with advanced cancer (aCA) at our comprehensive cancer center and whether such interval has increased over time. Methods: The study group was 2,868 consecutive pts who had their PC1 during a 30-month period. We reviewed the charts for information about demographics, cancer type, date of cancer diagnosis, aCA diagnosis, PC1, and D. aCA was defined as locally recurrent or metastatic. Results: 1,404 pts (49%) were female, 1,791 (62%) were < 65 years old, 2,563 (89%) had solid cancer, and 2,004 (70%) were white. The median PC1-D, aCA- PC1, and aCA-D intervals were 40, 114, and 243 days respectively. The median PC1-D interval (days) was: 47 for pts with solid cancer vs 14 for pts with hematological malignancy (p < 0.0001); 44 for pts < 65 years old vs 36 for pts = 65 years old (p = 0.002); 45 for females vs 37 for males (p = 0.004); 40 for white pts vs 41 for pts from other ethnicities (p = 0.42). The median PC1-D interval in 5 consecutive half-years was 46, 56, 42, 41, and 34 days respectively (p = 0.02). The total number of pts referred for PC1 in this period increased 20%, from 544 to 654. The ratio of PC involvement period in the aCA-D interval (PC1-D/aCA-D) decreased from 0.30 to 0.26 over the 5 half-year periods (p = 0.0004) ( Table ). Conclusions: Patients with solid cancers, younger pts, and females pts were referred earlier to acute PC. Referral timing was not affected by ethnicity. The interval between first palliative care consult and death has decreased over time. Education is needed among referring physicians to increase this interval. Further research on increasing acute PC access and its impact on PC1-D interval is needed. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Perspectives on palliative care in a multisite oncology practice.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 52-52
Author(s):  
Kenneth D. Bishop ◽  
Angela Marie Taber
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Palliative Care Services ◽  
Care Consultation

52 Background: The Institute of Medicine reported that many cancer patients do not receive palliative care to manage symptoms. It is possible that practitioners do not identify palliative care as an important component of high-quality cancer care, or do not know how to most efficiently utilize available palliative care consultative services. Methods: An anonymous electronic survey was sent to physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and social workers (n=99) in our multi-site, single-institution Cancer Center. Results: Sixty-five responses were received (66% response rate). Eighty-three percent of respondents reported working primarily in the outpatient setting. Fifty-nine percent reported their patients ‘rarely use the ER for pain management’ while 16% reported their patients ‘frequently require ER visits for pain management’. Ninety-two percent considered palliative care ‘an integral part of a multidisciplinary team’ while 6% reported palliative care consultation to be ‘cumbersome to consult and coordinate with’. The most common reason for consultation was end-of-life discussions (38%) followed by chronic pain management (33%). Seventy-seven percent reported consulting between 1 and 5 times per month, 14% between 6-10 times per month, and 5% greater than 11 times per month. Thirteen percent reported that they were able to manage patient symptoms adequately themselves. The average rating for convenience of consulting palliative care was 3.8/5. Fifty-eight percent reported the most effective means of communication with palliative care consultants was through the medical record, whereas 42% reported that most effective communication took place in person. Sixty percent reported a preference for palliative care practitioners from within the division of hematology/oncology. Conclusions: Our survey suggests that the majority of oncology practitioners value palliative care consultation and are willing to incorporate palliative care services into patient management. It is possible that practitioners overestimate their utilization of palliative care services and that optimizing the convenience of consultation and communication would result in better integration of palliative care for cancer patients.

Molecular tumor profiling ordering trends in cancer patients.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 165-165
Author(s):  
Joseph D. Ma ◽  
Winnie S Wang ◽  
Warren Yau ◽  
Chelsea Hagmann ◽  
Carolyn Revta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Diagnosis Date ◽  
Tumor Profiling

165 Background: Molecular tumor profiling may provide information as to whether to initiate or not initiate a targeted therapy. As to the timing of when the tumor profiling is ordered relative to date of diagnosis, date of death, and palliative care (PC) consultations are unknown. The primary objective of this study was to examine molecular tumor profiling ordering trends in the course of cancer illness. Methods: A preliminary, retrospective chart review was conducted in a cohort of patients with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer at an academic, NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center. Patients were identified from a tumor registry and then matched to a next generation sequencing molecular tumor profiling database. The date of palliative care consultation was collected from the electronic medical record. Differences in the date of when tumor profiling was ordered and date of diagnosis, date of PC consultation, and/or date of death were determined. Data were compiled into a single database and descriptive statistical analyses were performed. Results: A cohort of 397 (205 women) cancer patients was included. Metastatic disease was present in 108 (27.2%) patients, with mean±SD age of 58.7 ± 13.5 yrs. One-hundred and nine (27.6%) patients received a PC consultation (n=60 inpatient, n = 49 outpatient). As of February 2016, 119 (30%) patients died, with 58 (48.7%) out of 119 receiving a PC consultation. The difference between date of cancer diagnosis and date of tumor profiling ordered was 2467.4 ± 6865.7 days (n = 376), while the difference between date of tumor profiling ordered and date of death was 229.1 ± 185.7 days (n = 111). The difference between date of cancer diagnosis and date of death was 1507.5 ± 2002.1 days (n = 119). In patients were the tumor profiling was ordered before the PC consultation (n = 29), the difference between date of PC consultation and date tumor profiling ordered was 157.3 ± 258.1 days. In contrast, in patients were the tumor profiling was ordered after the PC consultation (n = 76), the difference was 194.6 ± 168 days. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that molecular tumor profiling is ordered at the end and not at the beginning of a cancer illness. PC consultations are not routinely performed in patients who participate in tumor profiling.

Trends and Predictors of Palliative Care Consultation Among Patients Admitted for LVAD: A Retrospective Analysis From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database From 2006-2014

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912110218
Author(s):  
Karol Quelal ◽  
Olankami Olagoke ◽  
Anoj Shahi ◽  
Andrea Torres ◽  
Olisa Ezegwu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Nationwide Inpatient Sample ◽  
Metastatic Cancer ◽  
The United States ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Left Ventricular Assist Devices ◽  
Incidence Trends ◽  
Palliative Care Consultation ◽  
Care Consultation

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an essential part of advanced heart failure (HF) management, either as a bridge to transplantation or destination therapy. Patients with advanced HF have a poor prognosis and may benefit from palliative care consultation (PCC). However, there is scarce data regarding the trends and predictors of PCC among patients undergoing LVAD implantation. Aim: This study aims to assess the incidence, trends, and predictors of PCC in LVAD recipients using the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2006 until 2014. Methods: We conducted a weighted analysis on LVAD recipients during their index hospitalization. We compared those who had PCC with those who did not. We examined the trend in palliative care utilization and calculated adjusted odds ratios (aOR) to identify demographic, social, and hospital characteristics associated with PCC using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We identified 20,675 admissions who had LVAD implantation, and of them 4% had PCC. PCC yearly rate increased from 0.6% to 7.2% (P < 0.001). DNR status (aOR 28.30), female sex (aOR 1.41), metastatic cancer (aOR: 3.53), Midwest location (aOR 1.33), and small-sized hospitals (aOR 2.52) were positive predictors for PCC along with in-hospital complications. Differently, Black (aOR 0.43) and Hispanic patients (aOR 0.25) were less likely to receive PCC. Conclusion: There was an increasing trend for in-hospital PCC referral in LVAD admissions while the overall rate remained low. These findings suggest that integrative models to involve PCC early in advanced HF patients are needed to increase its generalized utilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document