Expert consensus-based guidance on approaches to opioid management in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating cancer-related pain with opioids regularly encounter nonmedical stimulant use (i.e., methamphetamine, cocaine), yet there is little evidence-based management guidance. The aim of the study is to identify expert consensus on opioid management strategies for an individual with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain with nonmedical stimulant use according to prognosis. METHODS: The authors conducted two modified Delphi panels with palliative care and addiction experts. In Panel A, the patient's prognosis was weeks to months and in Panel B the prognosis was months to years. Experts reviewed, rated, and commented on the case using a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (very inappropriate) to 9 (very appropriate) and explained their responses. The authors applied the three-step analytical approach outlined in the RAND/UCLA to determine consensus and level of clinical appropriateness of management strategies. To better conceptualize the quantitative results, they thematically analyzed and coded participant comments. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for all management strategies. The 120 Experts were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 [78%]), and physicians (115 [96%]). For a patient with cancer-related and nonmedical stimulant use, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians managing cancer-related pain in the context of stimulant use and highlight a critical need to develop management strategies to address stimulant use disorder in people with cancer. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Among palliative care and addiction experts, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to continue opioids, increase monitoring, and avoid opioid tapering in the context of cancer-related pain and nonmedical stimulant use. Buprenorphine/naloxone transition as a harm reduction measure was inappropriate for a patient with a short prognosis and of uncertain appropriateness for a patient with a longer prognosis.

The Experience of Black Patients With Serious Illness in the United States: A Scoping Review.

CONTEXT: Black patients experience health disparities in access and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: To identify and characterize the literature on the experiences of Black patients with serious illness across multiple domains - physical, spiritual, emotional, cultural, and healthcare utilization. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of US literature from the last ten years using the PRISMA-ScR framework. PubMed was used to conduct a comprehensive search, followed by recursive citation searches in Scopus. Two reviewers screened the resulting citations to determine eligibility for inclusion and extracted data, including study methods and sample populations. The included articles were categorized by topic and then further organized using the Social-Ecological Model. RESULTS: From an initial review of 433 articles, a final sample of 160 were included in the scoping review. The majority of articles used quantitative research methods and were published in the last four years. Articles were categorized into 20 topics, ranging from Access to Hospice and Utilization (42 articles) to Community Outreach and Services (three articles). Three-quarters (76.3%) of the included studies provided evidence that racial disparities exist in serious illness care, while less than one-quarter examined causes of disparities. The most common Model levels were the Health Care System (102 articles) and Individual (71 articles) levels. CONCLUSION: More articles focused on establishing evidence of disparities between Black and White patients than on understanding their root causes. Further investigation is warranted to understand how factors at the patient, provider, health system, and society levels interact to remediate disparities.

Perceptions of Palliative Care Program Viability During the Pandemic: Qualitative Results From a National Survey.

Background: Palliative care programs have played a significant role during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the financial impact of the pandemic and operational challenges for palliative care programs have raised concerns for their future viability. Objectives: To explore palliative care program leaders' perceptions of the future viability of their programs in the context of the pandemic and inform future educational and program development. Methods: Surveys were sent to 1430 specialist palliative care program leaders, identified through the Center to Advance Palliative Care's contact lists, via email in May 2020 and January 2021. Leaders were asked why they were or were not concerned about the viability of their palliative care programs. Qualitative content analysis was applied to determine themes. Results: We received 440 responses. Most programs served hospital settings and were geographically located across all US regions. We identified four themes: 1) The importance of being valued by organizational leadership and peers, 2) The importance of adequate and supported palliative care staff, 3) The pandemic validated and accelerated the need for palliative care, and 4) The pandemic perpetuated organizational financial concerns. Conclusion: Findings provide insights about palliative care program viability from the perspective of program leaders during a global pandemic. Technical assistance to support palliative care teams and their relationships with stakeholders, methods to measure the impact of peer support, efforts to educate administrators about the value of palliative care, and efforts to reduce burnout are needed to sustain palliative care programs into the future.

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness: An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement.

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Specialty Palliative Care in COVID-19: Early Experiences from the Palliative Care Quality Collaborative.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has spurred unprecedented need for specialty palliative care. The Palliative Care Quality Collaborative (PCQC) provides unique infrastructure for rapid data collection and analysis. Objectives: To capture and describe real-time, real-world experiences of specialty palliative care professionals caring for patients with COVID-19 through a rapid reporting tool and registry. Setting: Palliative care clinicians consulted for patients either positive for COVID-19, under investigation for COVID-19, or recovered from COVID-19. Design: The PCQC created a 13-item COVID-19 case report form (CRF), modeled after the PCQC core dataset for specialty palliative care quality measurement. Twelve items offered discrete answer choices and one was open-ended. The CRF was publicized widely (e.g., social media, e-mail list serves) and completed through a link on the PCQC website. Results: Three hundred six reports (298 adult, 8 pediatric) were submitted between April 6, 2020 and October 7, 2020. The majority of patients (83%) were 50 years or older; 25% were 80 or older, and 78% were COVID-19 positive. Male gender identity was significantly more prevalent than female (58% vs. 40%, p < 0.002). The most common comorbidity was cardiovascular disease (23%). Of adult hospital-based patients, 69% were full code before palliative care consultation versus 28% after (p < 0.05). All pediatric patients were full code before and after palliative care consult. Qualitative themes were strained communication with patients, family visitation challenges, communication barriers between clinicians and families, rapid changes in palliative care medical management, community care options difficult to find, lack of testing in community-based settings, and guardianship and legal challenges. Conclusion: Preliminary data from the first 306 patients reported to the PCQC COVID-19 Registry describe palliative care use concentrated among older and higher risk patients and challenges to the provision of palliative care during this pandemic.

Palliative Care Specialist Access is Associated With Rankings of Hospital Quality.

CONTEXT: Increasing evidence has shown that access to specialty palliative care, particularly outpatient palliative care clinics, can yield improved health outcomes and be a marker of hospital quality. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an association exists between access to specialty palliative care programs and hospital rankings found in the 2020-2021 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals. METHODS: This study used publicly available data from the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) Provider Directory to determine access to in-patient and out-patient palliative care in the 2020-2021 U.S. News & World Report Best Hospitals Rankings. Descriptive statistics and chi-squares were performed. Data were also analyzed across the four U.S. Census Bureau regions (Northeast, South, Midwest, West). RESULTS: Around 100% of the Top 20 hospitals include hospital-based palliative care consultation teams, and 95% offered outpatient palliative care. Of the second cohort of 83 hospitals, 99% offered inpatient palliative care, and 65% offered outpatient palliative care. Of the third cohort of 75 hospitals ranked, 96% had inpatient palliative care services, while only 41.3% offered outpatient palliative care. This represents a significant association between rank position and access to outpatient palliative care (P < 0.01). Ranked hospitals also have significantly higher access to hospital-based palliative care teams compared to the national prevalence rate (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: These findings reflect the association of access to specialty palliative care with USNWR rankings for hospital quality. Further study is necessary to determine the specific influence of access to palliative care and USNWR rank position.

Palliative Care Team Perceptions of Standardized Palliative Care Referral Criteria Implementation in Hospital Settings.

Background: Standardized referral criteria can aid in identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care consultation. Little is known, however, on palliative care team members' perceptions of these criteria. Objective: Describe palliative care programs' reasons for referral criteria implementation and their perception of the benefits or disadvantages of its use. Design: Online survey of National Palliative Care Registry™ participants who use standardized referral criteria. Results: Fifty-three programs participated. Late referrals (64.2%) were the most commonly cited reason for referral criteria implementation. The majority (77.4%) felt that referral criteria lead to positive outcomes, including earlier referrals for palliative care-appropriate patients (71.7%). Increases in staff workload and inappropriate referrals were identified as disadvantages of referral criteria use.* Conclusion: Palliative care program members identified both benefits and disadvantages of referral criteria use, but felt they had mostly productive results. *Correction added on March 18, 2021 after first online publication of December 18, 2020: In the Results section of the abstract, the third sentence was changed from "Increases in clinical volume and inappropriate referrals were identified as disadvantages of referral criteria use." to "Increases in staff workload and inappropriate referrals were identified as disadvantages of referral criteria use."

Use of an Online Palliative Care Clinical Curriculum to Train U.S. Hospital Staff: 2015-2019.

Background: Most clinicians in the United States do not receive pre-professional education in pain and symptom management, communication skills, and caregiver support. The use of these skills by clinicians improves the quality of care for persons living with serious illness and enables the specialty-trained palliative care workforce to focus on patients whose needs are most complex. Objective: To review current trends in hospital use of the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) online clinical training curriculum. Description: Launched in 2015, CAPC clinical curriculum educates clinicians in the knowledge and skills necessary to improve care for patients with serious illness. CAPC currently offers 43 clinical courses and 4 Designations in recognition of successful completion of training by topic. Results: From January 15, 2015, to August 31, 2019, 26,535 clinicians working in hospitals completed 172,684 clinical courses. Registered nurses represented half of learners, and advanced practice providers were most likely to seek Designation. Physicians made up 22% of all learners; 85% of physician learners came from specialties beyond palliative care. Two of every five U.S. hospitals with more than 300 beds had at least one learner. In post-course evaluations, 84% reported that they will make practice changes as a result, and 70% reported that the content was new. Conclusions: The CAPC clinical curriculum is a widely used and valued method for education in clinical skills specific to the care of people living with serious illness. Findings suggest that an increasing number of hospital leaders recognize the importance of these skills in caring for patients with serious illness and support the necessary training.