Search

OBJECTIVE: Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services. METHODS: Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission-on-Cancer-accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence-based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer centers mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). Top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy-in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards. CONCLUSION: Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence-based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

Background: The adoption of palliative care as an integral component of health care has led to the need for generalist level providers, especially important in serious illnesses such as cancer. Objectives: The goals of this National Cancer Institute-funded training program were to (1) identify the eight domains of quality palliative care applied to oncology practice, (2) demonstrate skills for oncology advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) in the domains of palliative care, and (3) develop goals for implementing the skills training in practice through process improvement, staff education, and clinical care. Design: The training program led by the End of Life Nursing Education Consortium (ELNEC) project included oncology APRNs in a three-day training course with one-year follow-up for ongoing support and to assess impact. Settings: Five training courses included 430 APRNs from 46 U.S states including both pediatric and adult oncology settings. The project included 25% minority participants. Measurement: Measures included participant goal implementation, course evaluations, and surveys to assess implementation and palliative care practices (precourse, 6 and 12 months postcourse). Results: The ELNEC oncology APRN training course resulted in changes in practice across domains, improved perceived effectiveness in clinical practice, and valuable insight regarding the challenges in generalist level palliative care implementation. Conclusion: The ELNEC oncology APRN course serves as a model for the palliative care field to advance generalist level practice. Future training efforts can build on this project to reach more oncology professionals and those in other areas of serious illness care.

BackgroundApproximately 5% of cancer patients in the United States presented with metastatic bone disease (MBD) at diagnosis. Current study explores the disparities in survival for patients with MBD.MethodsPatients with the diagnosis of MBD at presentation for the five most common primary anatomical sites were extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Census tract-level dataset (2010-2016). Kaplan-Meier and Cox Proportional Hazard models were used to evaluate survival, and prognostic factors for each cohort. Prognostic significance of socioeconomic status (SES) and insurance status were ascertained.ResultsThe five most common anatomical-sites with MBD at presentation included "lung" (n = 59 739), "prostate" (n = 19 732), "breast" (n = 16 244), "renal and urothelium" (n = 7718) and "colon" (n= 3068). Lower SES was an independent risk factor for worse disease-specific survival (DSS) for patients with MBD originating from lung, prostate, breast and colon. Lack of insurance was an independent risk factor for worse DSS for MBD patients with primary tumors in lung and breast.ConclusionsMBD patients from the five most common primary sites demonstrated SES and insurance-related disparities in disease-specific survival. This is the first and largest study to explore SES and insurance-related disparities among patients specifically afflicted with MBD. Our findings highlight vulnerability of patients with MBD across multiple primary sites to financial toxicity.

BackgroundWe have analyzed sex, race/ethnicity or socioeconomic disparities in the incidence of metastatic bone disease (MBD).MethodsPatients with the diagnosis of MBD at presentation for five most common primary anatomical sites was extracted from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Census tract-level dataset. Mean incidence of MBD for different sex, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic groups were compared.ResultsThe five most common anatomical sites with MBD at presentation include "lung: (n = 59 739), "prostate" (n = 19 732), "breast" (n = 16 244), "renal" (n = 7718) and "colon" (n = 3068). There was an increase in incidence of MBD among cancers originating from prostate (annual percentage change [APC] 4.94), renal (APC 2.55), and colon (APC 3.21) (p

BackgroundFailure to deliver care near the end of life that reflects the needs, values and preferences of patients with advanced cancer remains a major shortcoming of our cancer care delivery system.MethodsA mixed-methods comparative effectiveness trial of in-person advance care planning (ACP) discussions versus web-based ACP is currently underway at oncology practices in Western Pennsylvania. Patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers are invited to enroll. Participants are randomized to either (1) in-person ACP discussions via face-to-face visits with a nurse facilitator following the Respecting Choices® Conversation Guide or (2) web-based ACP using the PREPARE for your care™ web-based ACP tool. The trial compares the effect of these two interventions on patient and family caregiver outcomes (engagement in ACP, primary outcome; ACP discussions; advance directive (AD) completion; quality of end-of-life (EOL) care; EOL goal attainment; caregiver psychological symptoms; healthcare utilization at EOL) and assesses implementation costs. Factors influencing ACP effectiveness are assessed via in-depth interviews with patients, caregivers and clinicians.DiscussionThis trial will provide new and much-needed empirical evidence about two patient-facing ACP approaches that successfully overcome limitations of traditional written advance directives but entail very different investments of time and resources. It is innovative in using mixed methods to evaluate not only the comparative effectiveness of these approaches, but also the contexts and mechanisms influencing effectiveness. Data from this study will inform clinicians, payers and health systems seeking to adopt and scale the most effective and efficient ACP strategy in real-world oncology settings.

ContextIn 2010, California launched Partners for Children (PFC), a pediatric palliative care pilot program offering hospice-like services for children eligible for full-scope Medicaid delivered concurrently with curative care, regardless of the child's life expectancy.ObjectivesWe assessed the change from before PFC enrollment to the enrolled period in 1) health care costs per enrollee per month (PEPM), 2) costs by service type and diagnosis category, and 3) health care utilization (days of inpatient care and length of hospital stay).MethodsA pre-post analysis compared enrollees' health care costs and utilization up to 24 months before enrollment with their costs during participation in the pilot, from January 2010 through December 2012. Analyses were conducted using paid Medicaid claims and program enrollment data.ResultsThe average PEPM health care costs of program enrollees decreased by $3331 from before their participation in PFC to the enrolled period, driven by a reduction in inpatient costs of $4897 PEPM. PFC enrollees experienced a nearly 50% reduction in the average number of inpatient days per month, from 4.2 to 2.3. Average length of stay per hospitalization dropped from an average of 16.7 days before enrollment to 6.5 days while in the program.ConclusionThrough the provision of home-based therapeutic services, 24/7 access to medical advice, and enhanced, personally tailored care coordination, PFC demonstrated an effective way to reduce costs for children with life-limiting conditions by moving from costly inpatient care to more coordinated and less expensive outpatient care. PFC's home-based care strategy is a cost-effective model for pediatric palliative care elsewhere.

ImportanceFor patients with limited prognosis, some medication risks may outweigh the benefits, particularly when benefits take years to accrue; statins are one example. Data are lacking regarding the risks and benefits of discontinuing statin therapy for patients with limited life expectancy.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety, clinical, and cost impact of discontinuing statin medications for patients in the palliative care setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a multicenter, parallel-group, unblinded, pragmatic clinical trial. Eligibility included adults with an estimated life expectancy of between 1 month and 1 year, statin therapy for 3 months or more for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, recent deterioration in functional status, and no recent active cardiovascular disease. Participants were randomized to either discontinue or continue statin therapy and were monitored monthly for up to 1 year. The study was conducted from June 3, 2011, to May 2, 2013. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat approach.InterventionsStatin therapy was withdrawn from eligible patients who were randomized to the discontinuation group. Patients in the continuation group continued to receive statins.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included death within 60 days (primary outcome), survival, cardiovascular events, performance status, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, number of nonstatin medications, and cost savings.ResultsA total of 381 patients were enrolled; 189 of these were randomized to discontinue statins, and 192 were randomized to continue therapy. Mean (SD) age was 74.1 (11.6) years, 22.0% of the participants were cognitively impaired, and 48.8% had cancer. The proportion of participants in the discontinuation vs continuation groups who died within 60 days was not significantly different (23.8% vs 20.3%; 90% CI, -3.5% to 10.5%; P=.36) and did not meet the noninferiority end point. Total QOL was better for the group discontinuing statin therapy (mean McGill QOL score, 7.11 vs 6.85; P=.04). Few participants experienced cardiovascular events (13 in the discontinuation group vs 11 in the continuation group). Mean cost savings were $3.37 per day and $716 per patient.Conclusions and relevanceThis pragmatic trial suggests that stopping statin medication therapy is safe and may be associated with benefits including improved QOL, use of fewer nonstatin medications, and a corresponding reduction in medication costs. Thoughtful patient-provider discussions regarding the uncertain benefit and potential decrement in QOL associated with statin continuation in this setting are warranted.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01415934.

Objective: Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services. Methods: Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission‐on‐Cancer‐accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence‐based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer center's mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). Top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy‐in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards. Conclusion: Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence‐based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]