A Retrospective Study Analyzing a Palliative Care-Hospital Medicine Collaboration to Improve Quality of Care of Patients With Advanced Illness.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care seeks to improve outcomes for patients with advanced illness (AI). Advocacy exists for making it part of mainstream care for hospitalized patients with AI. AIM: To determine if a partnership between hospital-medicine and specialized palliative care would increase identification of AI patients with palliative care needs requiring palliative consultation. Secondary outcomes: Decreasing 30-day readmission, length of stay (LOS) and pain scores, increasing documentation reflecting goals and advanced care planning. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of patients with AI admitted to a hospitalist-resident run unit divided into Care Models, "A" and "B," and analyzed over two ten-month periods, "1" and "2." Triggers for palliative needs were provided for "A." During biweekly rounding, needs were assessed and generalist vs. specialist level palliative care concepts were used for consultation. SETTING: Quaternary-level teaching center in the New York Metropolitan area. PATIENTS: 3,395 AI patients were analyzed, 1,707 from "1," and 1,688 from "2." RESULTS: Comparing care models and time frames, palliative care consultation increased in "A" (P-value = .0013, P-value = .0005). When investigating "A" in "1" to "2," CMI was higher. Comparing "B" between "1" and "2," found older age and lower LACE. When adjusting for confounders (LACE and CMI), our models did not show a difference. Data on discharge disposition was significant for subacute rehab but not for mortality. There were no differences between care models and time-periods for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated the demand for palliative care services integrated into hospital medicine and highlighted areas of focus for future studies.

Risk of New or Recurrent Cancer in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Previous Cancer Exposed to Immunosuppressive and Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Agents.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Our understanding of malignancy associated with immunosuppression in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) comes from studies of individuals with no history of cancer. We investigated whether patients with IBD and a history of cancer who were subsequently immunosuppressed have an increased risk of developing incident cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 333 patients with IBD treated at 8 academic medical centers who developed cancer and subsequently received treatment with anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF), anti-TNF with an antimetabolite (thiopurines, methotrexate), antimetabolites, or no subsequent exposure to immunosuppressive agents (controls). We collected data on their primary outcomes of incident cancers (new or recurrent). Hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated by using Cox proportional hazards and Kaplan-Meier survival curves; study groups were compared by using the log-rank test. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 90 patients (27%) developed an incident cancer. Patient characteristics between groups differed, but matching was not possible because of the relatively small sample sizes. There was no difference in time to incident cancer (P = .14) or type of incident cancer (P = .61) among the 4 groups. After adjusting for recurrence risk for type of prior cancer, there was no difference in risk of incident cancer (HR for anti-TNF, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09-1.09; HR for anti-TNF with an antimetabolite, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.26-1.59; HR for an antimetabolite, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-2.15) or time to subsequent cancer between study arms (P = .22). CONCLUSION: On the basis of a retrospective study, in patients with IBD and a history of cancer, exposure to an anti-TNF agent or an antimetabolite after cancer was not associated with an increased risk of incident cancer, compared with patients who did not receive immunosuppression. Larger, matched, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.