Patients' Perspective of Timeliness and Usefulness of an Outpatient Supportive Care Referral at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic. METHODS: This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation. RESULTS: Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Advanced Cancer Patients Who Received Palliative Care at a Public Hospital Compared with Those at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer experience severe physical, psychosocial, and spiritual distress requiring palliative care (PC). There are limited literature regarding characteristics and outcomes of patients evaluated by PC services at public hospitals (PHs). Objective, Design, Setting/Subjects, and Measurements: To compare the outcomes of advanced cancer patients undergoing PC at a PH and those at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC). We reviewed 359 consecutive advanced cancer patients (PH, 180; CCC, 179) undergoing PC. Symptoms and outcomes at consultation and first follow-up visit were assessed. Summary statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and outcomes. RESULTS: The PH and CCC patients differed significantly according to race: 23% white, 39% black, and 36% Hispanic patients at the PH versus 66% white, 17% black, and 11% Hispanic patients at the CCC (p < 0.0001). Ninety-six (53%) patients at PH and 178 (99%) at the CCC had health insurance (p < 0.0001). Symptoms at consultation at PH and CCC were pain (85% and 91%, respectively; p = 0.0639), fatigue (81% and 94%, respectively; p = 0.0003), depression (51% and 69%, respectively; p = 0.0013), anxiety (47% and 75%, respectively; p < 0.0001), and well-being (63% and 93%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Multiple interventions provided: opioids, reviews for polypharmacy, constipation management, and interdisciplinary counseling. Median time from outpatient consultation to follow-up was 29 days(range, 1-119 days) at the PH and 21 days (range, 1-275 days) at the CCC (p = 0.0006). Median overall survival time from outpatient consultation was 473 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 205-699 days) at PH and 245 days (95% CI, 152-491 days) at CCC (p = 0.3408). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced cancer patients at both institutions frequently had multiple distressing physical and emotional symptoms, although the frequency was higher at CCC. The median overall survival duration was higher at the PH. More research is needed.

Decisional control preferences among patients with advanced cancer: An international multicenter cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' decision control preferences is important in providing quality cancer care. Patients' decisional control preference can be either active (patients prefer to make decisions themselves), shared (collaborative between patient, their physician, and/or family), or passive (patients prefer that the decisions are made by either the physician and/or their family). AIM: To determine the frequency and predictors of passive decision control preferences among advanced cancer patients. We also determined the concordance between actual decision-making and decision control preferences and its association with patient satisfaction. DESIGN: In this cross-sectional survey of advanced cancer patients referred to palliative care across 11 countries, we evaluated sociodemographic variables, Control Preference Scale, and satisfaction with the decisions and care. RESULTS: A total of 1490 participants were evaluable. Shared, active, and passive decision control preferences were 33%, 44%, and 23%, respectively. Passive decision control preferences (odds ratio, p value) was more frequent in India (4.34, <0.001), Jordan (3.41, <0.001), and France (3.27, <0.001). Concordance between the actual decision-making and decision control preferences was highest in the United States ( k = 0.74) and lowest in Brazil (0.34). Passive decision control preference was significantly associated with (odds ratio per point, p value) better performance status (0.99/point, 0.017), higher education (0.64, 0.001), and country of origin (Brazil (0.26, <0.0001), Singapore (0.25, 0.0003), South Africa (0.32, 0.0002), and Jordan (2.33, 0.0037)). CONCLUSION: Passive decision control preferences were less common (23%) than shared and active decision control preference even among developing countries. Significant predictors of passive decision control preferences were performance status, education, and country of origin.

Perception of Curability Among Advanced Cancer Patients: An International Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on illness understanding and perception of cure among advanced cancer patients around the world. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care across the globe. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Secondary analysis of a study to understand the core concepts in end-of-life care among advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care from 11 countries across the world. Advanced cancer patients were surveyed using a Patient Illness Understanding survey and Control Preference Scale. Descriptive statistics and multicovariate logistic regression analysis were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-five percent (763/1,390) of patients receiving palliative care inaccurately reported that their cancer is curable. The median age was 58, 55% were female, 59% were married or had a partner, 48% were Catholic, and 35% were college educated. Sixty-eight percent perceived that the goal of therapy was "to get rid of their cancer," and 47% perceived themselves as "seriously ill." Multicovariate logistic regression analysis shows that accurate perception of curability was associated with female gender (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, p = .027), higher education (OR 0.37, p < .0001), unemployment status (OR 0.69, p = .02), and being from France (OR 0.26, p < .0001) and South Africa (OR 0.52, p = .034); inaccurate perception of curability was associated with better Karnofsky performance status (OR 1.02 per point, p = .0005), and being from Philippines (OR 15.49, p < .0001), Jordan (OR 8.43, p < .0001), Brazil (OR 2.17, p = .0037), and India (OR 2.47, p = .039). CONCLUSION: Inaccurate perception of curability in advanced cancer patients is 55% and significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. Further studies are needed to develop strategies to reduce this misperception of curability in advanced cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study indicate that inaccurate perception of curability among advanced cancer patients is 55%. Inaccurate perception of curability significantly differs by gender, education, performance status, employment status, and country of origin. There is great need to facilitate improved patient-physician communication so as to improve health care outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Perception of Helpfulness of a Question Prompt Sheet Among Cancer Patients Attending Outpatient Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Data on the use of question prompt sheets (QPSs) in palliative care are limited. Our team previously developed a single-page QPS using a Delphi process. The main objective of this study was to determine the perception of helpfulness of a QPS in patient-physician communication among advanced cancer outpatients. METHODS: Hundred of 104 (96%) eligible patients and 68/68 (100%) caregivers received the QPS during their first palliative care clinic. Twelve palliative medicine specialists also participated in the study. Patient and physician perceptions about the QPS were assessed at the end of the visit. Patients' anxiety was also measured before and after consultation using the Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory. RESULTS: Among the responders, most agreed that the material was helpful in communicating with their doctor (77%), clear to understand (90%), had the right amount of information (87%), and they would use a similar material in the future (76%) and recommend it to other patients (70%). Overall, 92% were satisfied with their consultation visit. Physicians perceived that the QPS was helpful in 68% of the encounters and it did not prolong the consultation in 73% of the encounters. Physician agreement on helpfulness of the QPS was not significantly different from that of the patients (P = 0.3). Patient anxiety improved after consultation from a mean (SD) Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory score of 39.2 (12.8) to 33.8 (10.7), P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The QPS was perceived as helpful in patient-physician communication among advanced cancer outpatients and it did not increase patient anxiety. Physicians similarly reported that the QPS was helpful and it did not prolong clinic visits. Further research is needed for its widespread adoption and integration into routine clinical practice.

The Impact of an Educational Program on Patient Practices for Safe Use, Storage, and Disposal of Opioids at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Improper use, storage, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our previous study showed a large proportion of cancer patients have unsafe opioid practices. Our objective was to determine whether an improvement occurred in the patterns of use, storage, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients after the implementation of a patient educational program. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our palliative care (PC) clinic provides every patient with educational material (EM) on safe opioid use, storage, and disposal every time they receive an opioid prescription. We prospectively assessed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our PC clinic, who had received the EM, and compared them with 300 patients who had not received the EM. The previously used surveys pertaining to opioid use, storage, and disposal were administered, and demographic information was collected. Sharing or losing their opioids was defined as unsafe use. RESULTS: Patients who received EM were more aware of the proper opioid disposal methods (76% vs. 28%; p ≤ .0001), less likely to share their opioids with someone else (3% vs. 8%; p = .0311), less likely to practice unsafe use of opioids (18% vs. 25%; p = .0344), and more likely to be aware the danger of their opioids when taken by others (p = .0099). Patients who received the EM were less likely to have unused medication at home (38% vs. 47%; p = .0497) and more likely to keep their medications in a safe place (hidden, 75% vs. 70%; locked, 14% vs. 10%; p = .0025). CONCLUSION: The use of EM on opioid safety for patients with advanced cancer was associated with improved patient-reported safe opioid use, storage, and disposal. The Oncologist 2017;22:115-121Implications for Practice: Prescription opioid abuse is a fast-growing epidemic that has become more prominent recently, even in the cancer pain population. A previous study reported that 26% of cancer outpatients seen in the supportive care center either lose their pain medications or share their pain medications with someone else. This study demonstrates that the implementation of an opioid educational program and distribution of educational material on opioid safety brings about an improvement in opioid storage, use, and disposal practices in patients being prescribed opioids for cancer-related pain. Our study highlights the importance of consistent and thorough opioid education at every instance in which opioids are prescribed.

Patient Perception of Physician Compassion After a More Optimistic vs a Less Optimistic Message: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Information regarding treatment options and prognosis is essential for patient decision making. Patient perception of physicians as being less compassionate when they deliver bad news might be a contributor to physicians' reluctance in delivering these types of communication. OBJECTIVE: To compare patients' perception of physician compassion after watching video vignettes of 2 physicians conveying a more optimistic vs a less optimistic message, determine patients' physician preference after watching both videos, and establish demographic and clinical predictors of compassion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial at an outpatient supportive care center in a cancer center in Houston, Texas, including English-speaking adult patients with advanced cancer who were able to understand the nature of the study and complete the consent process. Actors and patients were blinded to the purpose of the study. Investigators were blinded to the videos observed by the patient. INTERVENTION: One hundred patients were randomized to observe 2 standardized, roughly 4-minute videos depicting a physician discussing treatment information (more optimistic message vs less optimistic message) with a patient with advanced cancer. Both physicians made an identical number of empathetic statements (5) and displayed identical posture. After viewing each video, patients completed assessments including the Physician Compassion Questionnaire (0 = best, 50 = worst). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients' perception of physician compassion after being exposed to a more optimistic vs an equally empathetic but less optimistic message. RESULTS: Patients reported significantly better compassion scores after watching the more optimistic video as compared with the less optimistic video (median [interquartile range], 15 [5-23] vs 23 [10-31]; P < .001). There was a sequence effect favoring the second video on both compassion scores (P < .001) and physician preference (P < .001). Higher perception of compassion was found to be associated with greater trust in the medical profession independent of message type: 63 patients observing the more optimistic message ranked the physician as trustworthy vs 39 after the less optimistic message (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients perceived a higher level of compassion and preferred physicians who provided a more optimistic message. More research is needed in structuring less optimistic message content to support health care professionals in delivering less optimistic news. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02357108.

Financial Distress and Its Associations With Physical and Emotional Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Advanced Cancer Patients.

OBJECTIVE: There are limited data on the effects of financial distress (FD) on overall suffering and quality of life (QOL) of patients with advanced cancer (AdCa). In this cross-sectional study, we examined the frequency of FD and its correlates in AdCa. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We interviewed 149 patients, 77 at a comprehensive cancer center (CCC) and 72 at a general public hospital (GPH). AdCa completed a self-rated FD (subjective experience of distress attributed to financial problems) numeric rating scale (0 = best, 10 = worst) and validated questionnaires assessing symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), psychosocial distress (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), and QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]). RESULTS: The patients' median age was 60 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 58.6-61.5 years); 74 (50%) were female; 48 of 77 at CCC (62%) versus 13 of 72 at GPH (18%) were white; 21 of 77 (27%) versus 32 of 72 (38%) at CCC and GPH, respectively, were black; and 7 of 77 (9%) versus 27 of 72 (38%) at CCC and GPH, respectively, were Hispanic (p < .0001). FD was present in 65 of 75 at CCC (86%; 95% CI: 76%-93%) versus 65 of 72 at GPH (90%; 95% CI: 81%-96%; p = .45). The median intensity of FD at CCC and GPH was 4 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-7) versus 8 (IQR: 3-10), respectively (p = .0003). FD was reported as more severe than physical distress, distress about physical functioning, social/family distress, and emotional distress by 45 (30%), 46 (31%), 64 (43%), and 55 (37%) AdCa, respectively (all significantly worse for patients at GPH) (p < .05). AdCa reported that FD was affecting their general well-being (0 = not at all, 10 = very much) with a median score of 5 (IQR: 1-8). FD correlated (Spearman correlation) with FACT-G (r = -0.23, p = .0057); HADS-anxiety (r = .27, p = .0014), ESAS-anxiety (r = .2, p = .0151), and ESAS-depression (r = .18, p = .0336). CONCLUSION: FD was very frequent in both groups, but median intensity was double among GPH patients. More than 30% of AdCa rated FD to be more severe than physical, family, and emotional distress. More research is needed to better characterize FD and its correlates in AdCa and possible interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Financial distress is an important and common factor contributing to the suffering of advanced cancer patients and their caregivers. It should be suspected in patients with persistent, refractory symptom expression. Early identification, measurement, and documentation will allow clinical teams to develop interventions to improve financial distress and its impact on quality of life of advanced cancer patients.

Patterns of storage, use, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients.

PURPOSE: Improper storage, use, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our objective was to determine the patterns of storage, utilization, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We surveyed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our supportive care center and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal, along with scores on the CAGE (cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye-opener) alcoholism screening questionnaire. Unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids; unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight. RESULTS: The median age was 57 years. CAGE was positive in 58 of 300 patients (19%), and 26 (9%) had a history of illicit drug use. Fifty-six (19%) stored opioids in plain sight, 208 (69%) kept opioids hidden but unlocked, and only 28 (9%) locked their opioids. CAGE-positive patients (p = .007) and those with a history of illicit drug use (p = .0002) or smoking (p = .03) were more likely to lock their opioids. Seventy-eight (26%) reported unsafe use by sharing (9%) or losing (17%) their opioids. Patients who were never married or single (odds ratio: 2.92; 95% confidence interval: 1.48-5.77; p = .006), were CAGE positive (40% vs. 21%; p = .003), or had a history of illicit drug use (42% vs. 23%; p = .031) were more likely to use opioids unsafely. Overall, 223 of 300 patients (74%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, and 138 (46%) had unused opioids at home. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of cancer patients improperly and unsafely use, store, and dispose of opioids, highlighting the need for establishment of easily accessed patient education and drug take-back programs.