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.

Response to Oral Immediate-Release Opioids for Breakthrough Pain in Patients with Advanced Cancer with Adequately Controlled Background Pain.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the response of breakthrough pain (BTP) to the most commonly used oral immediate-release (IR) opioids. Our aim was to determine response rate to oral IR opioids for BTP control in patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, palliative care outpatients, with advanced cancer and adequately managed background pain, were asked to complete a self-administered survey. We assessed patients' baseline demographics, pain characteristics, alcoholism (CAGE questionnaire), tobacco and substance abuse, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scores (ESAS). We determined the effectiveness of oral IR BTP opioids by using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "very ineffective" to "very effective." "Effective" and "very effective" were defined a priori as a good response to IR opioids for BTP. RESULTS: Of 592 evaluable patients, 192 (32%) had background pain of ≤3 (ESAS pain scale 0-10). Among these 192 patients, 152 (79%) reported BTP, 143/152 (94%) took oral IR opioids for BTP, and 127/143 (89%) responded to a median dose of 10% of the total morphine equivalent daily dose. In univariate logistic regression analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.94 per year; p = .008), higher ESAS scores for pain (OR, 1.32; p = .012), anxiety (OR, 1.24; p = .017), and dyspnea (OR, 1.31; p = .007) had statistically significant association with poor response to IR opioids for BTP. In multicovariate logistic regression, adjusted for age, a higher ESAS dyspnea score was significantly associated with poor response to oral IR opioids (OR, 1.44; p = .002). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of patients with advanced cancer with adequately controlled background pain reported a good response to oral IR opioids for BTP, supporting their use in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oral immediate-release opioids are standard treatment for cancer breakthrough pain. However, information regarding treatment response to these commonly used opioids is limited. This study provides information that the vast majority of patients with advanced cancer, with adequately controlled background pain, reported good response to oral immediate release opioids for managing their breakthrough pain episodes. Results of this study support the use of conventional oral immediate release opioids that are relatively inexpensive and readily available for management of breakthrough pain in patients with advanced cancer.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Psychology Referrals in a Palliative Care Department.

CONTEXT: Psychologists can provide unique contributions to interdisciplinary palliative care. Despite research indicating high distress in palliative care cancer patients, little has been reported regarding the feasibility and practice of psychology in this setting. OBJECTIVES: To review the integration of clinical psychology practice in a palliative care department at a major comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of 1940 unique cancer patients (6451 total patient contacts) referred for psychology services provided by clinical psychologists in palliative care from September 1, 2013 to February 29, 2016. RESULTS: Psychologists provided services to 1644 inpatients (24% of palliative care inpatients) and 296 outpatients (19% of palliative care outpatients). Most of them (85%) received services in the inpatient setting. Most patients were females (57%) and white (68%) with a variety of cancer diagnoses. Adjustment disorders were the most prevalent in both settings with significant differences in other Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Edition) diagnoses by service location (P < 0.0001). Psychological assessment (86%) and supportive expressive counseling (79%) were the most frequent services provided in the initial consult. Duration of initial visit was significantly longer in outpatient (median 60 minutes) compared with inpatient setting (median 40 minutes) (P < 0.0001). No significant differences were noted between settings regarding the median number of counseling sessions per patient; however, most (70%) only received one or two sessions. Over time, total patient encounters increased in the inpatient setting (P < 0.0001), whereas session lengths in both settings significantly decreased (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Palliative care psychology services successfully integrated into an interdisciplinary palliative care department and rapidly grew in both inpatient and outpatient settings.

Characteristics of Unscheduled and Scheduled Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic Patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

CONTEXT: There is limited literature regarding outpatient palliative care and factors associated with unscheduled clinic visits. OBJECTIVES: To compare characteristics of patients with unscheduled vs. scheduled outpatient palliative care clinic visits. METHODS: Medical records of 183 unscheduled cancer new outpatients and 104 unscheduled follow-up (FU) patients were compared with random samples of 361 and 314 scheduled new patients and FU patients, respectively. We gathered data on demographics, symptoms, daily opioid usage, and performance status. RESULTS: Compared with scheduled new patients, unscheduled new patients had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale subscores for pain (P < 0.001), fatigue (P = 0.002), nausea (P = 0.016), depression (P = 0.003), anxiety (P = 0.038), drowsiness (P = 0.002), sleep (P < 0.001), and overall feeling of well-being (P = 0.001); had a higher morphine equivalent daily dose of opioids (median of 45 mg for unscheduled vs. 30 mg for scheduled; P < 0.001); and were more likely to be from outside the greater Houston area (P < 0.001). Most unscheduled and scheduled new and FU visits were for uncontrolled physical symptoms. Unscheduled FU patients, compared with scheduled FU patients, had worse Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale subscores for pain (P < 0.001), fatigue (P < 0.001), depression (P = 0.002), anxiety (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.010), appetite (P = 0.023), sleep (P = 0.022), overall feeling of well-being (P < 0.001), and higher morphine equivalent daily dose of opioid (median of 58 mg for unscheduled FU visits vs. 40 mg for scheduled FU visits; P = 0.054). CONCLUSION: Unscheduled new FU patients have higher levels of physical and psychosocial distress and higher opioid intake. Outpatient palliative care centers should consider providing opportunities for walk-in visits for timely management and close monitoring of such patients.

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.