Search

Context: The need for hospice and palliative care is growing rapidly as the population increases and ages and as both hospice and palliative care become more accepted. Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) is a relatively new physician specialty, currently training 325 new fellows annually. Given the time needed to increase the supply of specialty-trained physicians, it is important to assess future needs to guide planning for future training capacity., Objectives: We modeled the need for and supply of specialist HPM physicians through the year 2040 to determine whether training capacity should continue growing., Methods: To create a benchmark for need, we used a population-based approach to look at the current geographic distribution of the HPM physician supply. To model future supply, we calculated the annual change in current supply by adding newly trained physicians and subtracting physicians leaving the labor force., Results: The current U.S. supply of HPM specialists is 13.35 per 100,000 adults 65 and older. This ratio varies greatly across the country. Using alternate assumptions for future supply and demand, we project that need in 2040 will range from 10,640 to almost 24,000 HPM specialist physicians. Supply will range from 8100 to 19,000., Conclusion: Current training capacity is insufficient to keep up with population growth and demand for services. HPM fellowships would need to grow from the current 325 graduates annually to between 500 and 600 per year by 2030 to assure sufficient physician workforce for hospice and palliative care services given current service provision patterns., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Context: A relatively new specialty, hospice and palliative medicine (HPM), is unusual in that physicians can enter from 10 different specialties. This study sought to understand where HPM physicians were coming from, where they were going to practice, and the job market for HPM physicians., Objectives: Describe characteristics of the incoming supply of HPM physicians, their practice plans, and experience finding initial jobs., Methods: In October 2015, we conducted an online survey of physicians who completed accredited HPM fellowships the previous June. We had electronic mail addresses for 195 of the 243 graduating fellows., Results: About 112 HPM fellows responded (58% of those invited). The most common prior training was internal medicine (45%), followed by family medicine (23%), pediatrics (12%), and emergency medicine (10%). More than 40% had practiced medicine before their HPM training. After graduation, 97% were providing 20 or more hours per week of patient care, with most hours in palliative care. About 72% devoted more than 20 hours per week to palliative care, whereas only 13% worked that much in hospice care. About 81% reported no difficulty finding a satisfactory practice position. About 98% said that they would recommend HPM to others, and 63% took the time to provide written comments that were highly positive about the specialty., Conclusion: New HPM physicians are finding satisfying jobs. They are enthusiastic in recommending the specialty to others. Most are going into palliative medicine, leaving questions about how the need for hospice physicians will be filled. Although jobs appear to be numerous, there are practice areas with more limited opportunities., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to specialist palliative medicine. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices., Methods: An expert steering committee outlined 966 palliative care service items, in nine domains, each describing a candidate element of primary palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden. Using modified Delphi methodology, 31 multidisciplinary panelists rated each service item on three constructs: importance, feasibility, and scope within medical oncology practice., Results: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision Making (79%); and Advance Care Planning (78%). The lowest proportions were in Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level, with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea, and pain. Within the Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral domain, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients appropriately., Conclusion: This statement describes the elements comprising high-quality primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find this information useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Context: Because of high symptom burden, numerous comorbidities, and shortened life expectancy, dialysis patients are increasingly recognized as appropriate candidates for early and continuous supportive care., Objectives: The objectives of this study were to describe dialysis professionals' perceptions of the adequacy of supportive care in dialysis centers, barriers to providing it, suggestions for improving it, and familiarity with the existing evidence-based resources for supportive care of dialysis patients., Methods: The Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients conducted an online survey of dialysis professionals and administrators solicited through the 18 End-Stage Renal Disease Networks and the Renal Physicians Association., Results: Only 4.5% of 487 respondents believed their dialysis centers were presently providing high-quality supportive care. They identified bereavement support, spiritual support, and end-of-life care discussions as the top three unmet needs. They reported that lack of a predictive algorithm for prognosis was the top barrier, and "guidelines to help with decision-making in seriously ill patients" was the top priority to improve supportive care. A majority of respondents were unaware that an evidence-based validated prognostic model and a clinical practice guideline to help with decision-making were already available., Conclusion: Dialysis professionals report significant unmet supportive care needs and barriers in their centers with only a small minority rating themselves as competently providing supportive care. There is an urgent need for education of dialysis professionals about available supportive care resources to provide quality supportive care to dialysis patients., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Context: Measuring quality of hospice and palliative care is critical for evaluating and improving care, but no standard U.S. quality indicator set exists., Objectives: The Measuring What Matters (MWM) project aimed to recommend a concise portfolio of valid, clinically relevant, cross-cutting indicators for internal measurement of hospice and palliative care., Methods: The MWM process was a sequential consensus project of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) and Hospice and Palliative Nurses Association (HPNA). We identified candidate indicators mapped to National Consensus Project (NCP) Palliative Care Guidelines domains. We narrowed the list through a modified Delphi rating process by a Technical Advisory Panel and Clinical User Panel and ratings from AAHPM and HPNA membership and key organizations., Results: We narrowed the initial 75 indicators to a final list of 10. These include one in the NCP domain Structure and Process (Comprehensive Assessment), three in Physical Aspects (Screening for Physical Symptoms, Pain Treatment, and Dyspnea Screening and Management), one in Psychological and Psychiatric Aspects (Discussion of Emotional or Psychological Needs), one in Spiritual and Existential Aspects (Discussion of Spiritual/Religious Concerns), and three in Ethical and Legal Aspects (Documentation of Surrogate, Treatment Preferences, and Care Consistency with Documented Care Preferences). The list also recommends a global indicator of patient/family perceptions of care, but does not endorse a specific survey instrument., Conclusion: This consensus set of hospice and palliative care quality indicators is a foundation for standard, valid internal quality measurement for U.S., Settings: Further development will assemble implementation tools for quality measurement and benchmarking., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Palliative medicine must prioritize the routine assessment of the quality of clinical care we provide. This includes regular assessment, analysis, and reporting of data on quality. Assessment of quality informs opportunities for improvement and demonstrates to our peers and ourselves the value of our efforts. In fact, continuous messaging of the value of palliative care services is needed to sustain our discipline; this requires regularly evaluating the quality of our care. As the reimbursement mechanisms for health care in the U.S. shift from fee-for-service to fee-for-value models, palliative care will be expected to report robust data on quality of care. We must move beyond demonstrating to our constituents (including patients and referrers), "here is what we do," and increase the focus on "this is how well we do it" and "let us see how we can do it better." It is incumbent on palliative care professionals to lead these efforts. This involves developing standardized methods to collect data without adding additional burden, comparing and sharing our experiences to promote discipline-wide quality assessment and improvement initiatives, and demonstrating our intentions for quality improvement on the clinical frontline., (Copyright © 2015 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Palliative care has been identified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a critical policy element for the relief of suffering, yet palliative care policy receives minimal attention in mainstream U.S. public health journals, conferences, or textbooks. In the '90s, documentation of the lack of attention to end-of-life and palliative care in medical and nursing curricula led to concerted efforts to improve medical and nursing education in palliative care. No such educational effort has yet been directed toward public health professionals., Objective: This study's objective was to quantify current course offerings covering palliative and end-of-life care from a public health and health policy perspective at accredited schools of public health., Design: Using a list of keywords about palliative and end-of-life care, the research team searched publicly accessible websites of all CEPH accredited and affiliated U.S. schools of public health to identify courses that included relevant content about palliative care., Results: For academic years 2011/12 and 2012/13, 3 (6%) of the 49 accredited U.S. schools of public health offered a full course covering public health issues in palliative care. Six schools (12%) included some palliative care content in related courses such as gerontology policy., Conclusions: Schools of public health are not preparing future policy experts with a basic knowledge of the components and systems of palliative care and hospice. Development and dissemination of appropriate curricular material to address the public health and policy aspects of palliative care is needed to address this gap.

Context: In the context of the establishment of a new medical specialty, rapid growth in hospices and palliative care programs, and many anecdotal reports about long delays in filling open positions for hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) physicians, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) appointed a Workforce Task Force in 2008 to assess whether a physician shortage existed and to develop an estimate of the optimal number of HPM physicians needed., Objectives: Develop estimates of the current supply and current need for HPM physicians. Determine whether a shortage exists and estimate size of shortage in full-time equivalents (FTEs) and individual physicians needed., Methods: The Task Force projected national demand for physicians in hospice- and in hospital-based palliative care by modeling hypothetical national demand on the observed pattern of physician use at selected exemplar institutions. The model was based on assumptions that all hospices and hospitals would provide an appropriate medical staffing level, which may not currently be the case., Results: Approximately 4400 physicians are currently HPM physicians, as defined by board certification or membership in the AAHPM. Most practice HPM part time, leading to an estimated physician workforce level from 1700 FTEs to 3300 FTEs. An estimated 4487 hospice and 10,810 palliative care physician FTEs are needed to staff the current number of hospice- and hospital-based palliative care programs at appropriate levels. The estimated gap between the current supply and the hypothetical demand to reach mature physician staffing levels is thus 2787 FTEs to 7510 FTEs, which is equivalent to 6000-18,000 individual physicians, depending on what proportion of time each physician devotes to HPM practice., Conclusion: An acute shortage of HPM physicians exists. The current capacity of fellowship programs is insufficient to fill the shortage. Changes in graduate medical education funding and structures are needed to foster the capacity to train sufficient numbers of HPM physicians., (Copyright © 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There is significant interest in seeking professional recognition of expertise in caring for people with serious life-threatening illness and their families through creation of a specialty in palliative medicine. Certification of physicians and accreditation of training programs are key elements for formal recognition. The American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine was established to achieve these goals. The next step in the maturation of the subspecialty of palliative medicine is to have both the certification and the accreditation recognized by the professional self-governing bodies in organized medicine. This paper answers common questions about obtaining recognition by the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education, the American Board of Medical Specialties and its member boards. Formal recognition of the subspecialty of palliative medicine is sought in order to extend the knowledge and skills inherent in the domains of palliative medicine. Such recognition will also encourage more physicians to enter the field and assure standards of care for those patients and their families who need it.

Initial voluntary standards for fellowship programs in palliative medicine were developed through a collaborative process involving the directors of fellowship training programs, the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM), and the American Board of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (ABHPM). These groups worked with a consultant and representatives from the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) to create a training structure for the programs that will maximize the likelihood for recognition and accreditation of the subspecialty. An accreditation group modeled after an ACGME residency review committee will be formed to review and adopt the standards, then accredit programs voluntarily.