Nurse-led emergency department avoidance model of care for patients receiving cancer therapy in the ambulatory setting: a health service improvement initiative.

AIMS: The Symptom and Urgent Review Clinic was a service improvement initiative, which consisted of the implementation and evaluation of a nurse-led emergency department (ED) avoidance model of care. The clinic was developed for patients experiencing symptoms associated with systemic anti-cancer therapy in ambulatory cancer settings. METHODS: The clinic was implemented in four health services in Melbourne, Australia across a six-month period in 2018. Evaluation was by prospective data collection of the frequency and characteristics of patients who used the service, pre- and post-survey of patient reported experience, and a post-implementation survey of clinician engagement and experience. RESULTS: There were 3095 patient encounters in the six-month implementation period; 136 patients were directly admitted to inpatient healthcare services after clinic utilization. Of patients who contacted SURC (n = 2174), a quarter (n = 553) stated they would have otherwise presented to the emergency department and 51% (n = 1108) reported they would have otherwise called the Day Oncology Unit. After implementation, more patients reported having a dedicated point of contact (OR 14.3; 95% CI 5.8-37.7) and ease of contacting the nurse (OR 5.5; 95% CI 2.6-12.1). Clinician reported experience and engagement with the clinic was highly favorable. CONCLUSION: The nurse-led emergency department avoidance model of care addressed a gap in service delivery, while optimizing service utilization by reducing ED presentations. Patients reported improved levels of satisfaction with ease of access to a dedicated nurse and advice provided.

Economic Assessment of a New Model of Care to Support Patients With Cancer Experiencing Cancer- and Treatment-Related Toxicities.

PURPOSE: The aim of this economic assessment was to evaluate the impact of a new nurse-led model of care, the Symptom and Urgent Review Clinic (SURC), for patients with cancer experiencing disease- or treatment-related symptoms. METHODS: An economic assessment was undertaken to estimate costs of the SURC from the service funder perspective and to compare the cost with cost offsets stemming from the implementation of the SURC. The cost offsets focused on the changes in emergency department (ED) presentations and inpatient admissions during a comparable 6-month period before and after the SURC implementation. Costs were analyzed in 2018 Australian dollars, and return on investment was calculated by comparing the cost offsets in the ED and inpatient units with the cost of the SURC. RESULTS: After the implementation of the SURC, patients were less likely to present to the ED (7.2% v 8.5%; P = .01), and patients who did present to the ED were more likely to be admitted to inpatient units (78% v 71%; P = .03) for additional treatment. The post-SURC period had a net cost savings of $37,090 compared with the pre-SURC period. From the service funder perspective, the SURC achieved an investment return of $1.73 for every dollar invested in the new service. CONCLUSION: Our study establishes the economic credentials of a new care model using empirical linked hospital service data. The SURC presents a new cancer care service for policy consideration from an economic standpoint. It demonstrates an efficient approach to hospital resource allocation to deliver quality cancer care.

Integrating referral to community-based cancer information and support services in a hospital setting.

PURPOSE: To implement and evaluate a hospital-based referral mechanism to increase patient uptake of community-based cancer information and support services. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and education program was evaluated. Changes in usage of Cancer Council Victoria's cancer information and support telephone line were investigated. METHODS: A 6-month study was conducted in one metropolitan and one regional cancer treatment hospital. Clinicians attended an education session regarding referral mechanisms to Cancer Council support services. Clinicians completed a questionnaire, and consenting patients participated in a semi-structured telephone interview for the project evaluation. The number of calls made from patients at study sites was monitored. RESULTS: Fifty-two clinicians were trained and referred a total of 430 patients to the cancer information and support service during the study period. Calls from patients increased by up to 100% per month from baseline following the implementation of the referral mechanism. Staff evaluations showed support for the referral mechanism and its incorporation into routine practice. Interviews were conducted with 45 patients; most remembered receiving the referral and were positive towards the intervention. Common reasons patients gave for not acting on the referral included forgetting, lack of need, timing and burden of information. CONCLUSIONS: There is preliminary evidence that this intervention increases awareness and uptake of community-based cancer information and support services. Ongoing clinician education and improvements in patient-clinician communication are important for effective translation from referral to service uptake. Consideration of the most appropriate time in a patients' care trajectory to introduce a referral is warranted.

Prospective analysis of 30-day mortality following palliative chemotherapy at a tertiary cancer centre.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-day mortality after chemotherapy has been suggested as a marker of quality in oncology care. Retrospective audits worldwide have put this figure at between 8.1% and 43%, with previous retrospective Australian audits putting this figure at between 3.4% and 18%. To date, there has not been a prospective cohort study of patients receiving palliative intent chemotherapy at an Australian chemotherapy day unit. AIM: The aim of the study is to benchmark 30-day mortality for patients receiving palliative intent chemotherapy and identify associated factors at an Australian tertiary cancer centre. METHODS AND RESULTS: A prospective cohort study of all patients with a diagnosis of malignancy referred for palliative intent intravenous chemotherapy to the Sunshine Hospital Chemotherapy Day Unit over a 12-month period. The primary outcome was death within 30 days of receiving palliative intent chemotherapy. Other outcome measures included place of death and whether the patient received an outpatient palliative care referral. A total of 314 patients were enrolled in the study, and 98 patients died within the audit period. Of these, 21 (6.6%) died within 30 days of commencing palliative intent chemotherapy, and 60 (18.8%) died more than 30 days after receiving chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients that were referred, but did not start chemotherapy, 18 (52%) died. Multivariable logistic regression found that patients who received an outpatient palliative care referral and received chemotherapy were more likely to die within 30 days, although these did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION(S): This prospective cohort study demonstrated that 6.6% of patients died within 30 days of the administration of palliative intent chemotherapy; however, none of the prespecified factors were found to be statistically significantly associated with 30-day mortality.