Opportunities for Improving the Transplant Assessment and Education Process in British Columbia: Patient and Health Care Provider Perspective.

Background: There are several steps patients and their health care providers must navigate to access kidney transplantation in British Columbia (BC). Objective: We explored perceptions and experiences with the pretransplant process across BC to determine where process improvements can be made to enhance access to transplantation. Design: Anonymous surveys were sent online and via post to health care providers (including nephrologists, registered nurses, and coordinators) and patients across BC. Setting: Kidney care clinics, transplant regional clinics, and provincial transplant centers in BC. Measurements: Surveys included Likert scale questions on the current pretransplant process and transplant education available in BC. The health provider survey focused on understanding the pretransplant process, knowledge, roles, and communication while the patient survey focused on patient education and experience of the pretransplant processes. Results: A total of 100 health care providers and 146 patients responded. Seventy-six percent of health care providers understood their role and responsibility in the pretransplant process, while only 47% understood others' roles in the process. Fifty-nine percent of health care respondents felt adequately supported by the provincial donor and transplant teams. Seventy-one percent of registered nurses and 92% of nephrologists understood transplant eligibility. About 68% and 77% of nurses and nephrologists, respectively, reported having enough knowledge to discuss living donation with patients. Fifty percent of patients had received transplant education, of which 60% had a good grasp of the pretransplant clinical processes. Sixty-three percent felt their respective kidney teams had provided enough advice and tools to support them in finding a living donor. Fifty percent of patients reported feeling up to date with their status in the evaluation process. Limitations: This analysis was conducted between December 2021 and June 2022 and may need to account for practice changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses are from a selection of health care providers, thus acknowledging a risk of selection bias. Furthermore, we are not able to verify patients who reported receiving formal transplant education from their health care providers. Conclusions: Exploring these themes suggests communication with regional clinics and transplant centers can be improved. In addition, patient and staff education can benefit from education on kidney transplantation and the pretransplant clinical processes. Our findings provide opportunities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable barriers in a patient's kidney transplantation journey.

Contexte: En Colombie-Britannique (C.-B.), pour accéder à la transplantation, les patients et leurs prestataires de soins doivent traverser plusieurs étapes. Objectif: Nous avons exploré les perceptions et expériences en lien avec le processus de pré-transplantation dans toute la Colombie-Britannique, afin de cibler les améliorations qui pourraient y être apportées pour faciliter l'accès à la transplantation. Conception: Des sondages anonymes ont été envoyés en ligne et par la poste aux prestataires de soins de santé (notamment des néphrologues, des infirmières autorisées et des coordonnateurs) et aux patients de partout en Colombie-Britannique. Cadre de l'étude: Cliniques de soins rénaux, cliniques régionales de transplantation et centres provinciaux de transplantation en Colombie-Britannique. Mesures: Les sondages comprenaient des questions à échelles de Likert portant sur le processus actuel de pré-transplantation et l'éducation offerte sur la transplantation en Colombie-Britannique. Le sondage destiné aux prestataires de soins portait sur leur compréhension du processus de pré-transplantation, leurs connaissances, leurs rôles et la communication; le sondage destiné aux patients portait sur l'éducation reçue et leur expérience des processus de pré-transplantation. Résultats: En tout, 100 prestataires de soins et 146 patients ont répondu au sondage. Parmi les prestataires de soins, 76 % comprenaient leur rôle et leurs responsabilités dans le processus de pré-transplantation, mais 47 % seulement comprenaient le rôle des autres prestataires de soins dans le processus. Une proportion de 59 % des intervenants en santé se sentait adéquatement appuyée par les équipes provinciales de dons d'organes et de transplantation. Une grande majorité des infirmières autorisées (71 %) et des néphrologues (92 %) comprenaient les critères d'admissibilité à la transplantation. Les infirmières (68 %) et les néphrologues (77 %) estimaient avoir suffisamment de connaissances pour discuter du don vivant avec les patients. Quant aux patients, 50 % avaient reçu de l'éducation sur la transplantation et, de ceux-ci, 60 % avaient une bonne compréhension des processus cliniques de pré-transplantation. La majorité des patients (63 %) estimaient avoir reçu suffisamment de conseils et d'outils de la part de leurs équipes de soins rénaux pour les aider à trouver un donneur vivant. La moitié des patients (50 %) pensaient connaître leur statut dans le processus d'évaluation. Limites: Cette étude a été réalisée entre décembre 2021 et juin 2022 et pourrait devoir tenir compte des changements de pratiques survenus pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Les réponses provenant d'une sélection de prestataires de soins de santé, nous reconnaissons ainsi un possible biais de sélection. Enfin, nous ne sommes pas en mesure d'évaluer les patients qui ont déclaré avoir reçu de l'éducation formelle sur la transplantation de la part de leurs prestataires de soins. Conclusion: L'exploration de ces thèmes a suggéré que la communication avec les cliniques régionales et les centres de transplantation peut être améliorée. De plus, les patients et le personnel soignant pourraient tirer profit d'éducation sur la transplantation rénale et les processus cliniques de pré-transplantation. Nos résultats offrent des occasions d'élaborer des stratégies pour s'attaquer activement aux obstacles modifiables dans le parcours de transplantation rénale d'un patient.

Assessing the Delivery of Coordinated Care to Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease in Ontario, Canada: A Survey of Patients and Healthcare Professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with advanced Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) have complex health needs, and thus require care that is coordinated across professionals and organizations. This study aimed to describe the extent of coordinated care delivery for patients with advanced CKD from the perspectives of both patients and healthcare professionals. METHODS: The Coordination Scale of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-26) survey was administered to a random sample of 14,257 patients on maintenance dialysis or receiving care in end-stage kidney disease preparation clinics in Ontario, Canada. A five-item survey was administered to 596 multidisciplinary nephrology professionals. RESULTS: Among the 1,925 patient respondents, 67% reported they had been referred to an allied health professional; 19% had been encouraged to attend programs in the community; and 34% had been told how their visits with other types of doctors helped their treatment (% reporting "always" or "most of the time"). Patient responses were significantly different by treatment modality/setting, but not by gender or geographic location of treatment facility. Among the 276 professional respondents, 37% reported their patients' care was well-coordinated across settings; 56% reported participating in interdisciplinary care planning discussions; and 53% reported they are aware of appropriate home and community services to support their patients (% reporting "always" or "most of the time"). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that care for patients with advanced CKD in Ontario is not consistently coordinated. Healthcare professionals may enhance patient perceptions of coordinated care through explicit communication with patients about how the professionals they see and treatments or services they receive influence their overall health and well-being. At a systems level, there is a need to improve professional awareness of and linkages to home- and community-based services.

Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings: Mixed-methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention aimed at building capacity to deliver palliative care in primary care settings. DESIGN: The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year pilot project involving interprofessional palliative care education and an integrated care model to promote early identification and support of patients with palliative care needs. A concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using descriptive data, provider surveys before and after implementation, and interviews with providers and managers. SETTING: Four primary care practices in Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All providers in each practice were invited to participate. Providers used the "surprise question" as a prompt to determine patient eligibility for inclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Provider attitudes toward and confidence in providing palliative care, use of palliative care tools, delivery of palliative care, and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care. RESULTS: A total of 294 patients were identified for early initiation of palliative care, most of whom had multiple comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care (30% mean increase, P < .05) and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services (25% mean increase, P < .05). There was substantial variation across practices regarding the percentage of patients identified using the surprise question (0.2% to 1.5%), the number of advance care planning conversations initiated (50% to 90%), and mean time to conversation (13 to 76 days). This variation is attributable, in part, to contextual differences across practices. CONCLUSION: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care to patients can be integrated into the routine practice of primary care practitioners with appropriate training and support. Additional research is needed to understand the practice factors that contribute to the success of palliative care interventions in primary care and to examine patient outcomes.

Assessing the Impact of Early Identification of Patients Appropriate for Palliative Care on Resource Use and Costs in the Final Month of Life.

PURPOSE: This study evaluates whether an intervention to identify Canadian patients eligible for a palliative approach changes the use of health care resources and costs within the final month of life. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians identified 1,187 patients in family practice units and cancer centers who were likely to die within 1 year based on diagnosis, symptom assessment, and performance status. A multidisciplinary intervention that included activation of community resources and initiation of palliative planning was started. By using propensity-score matching, patients in the intervention group were matched 1:1 with nonintervention controls selected from provincial administrative data. We compared health care use and costs (using 2017 Canadian dollars) for 30 days before death between patients who died within the 1-year follow-up and matched controls. RESULTS: Groups (n = 629 in each group) were well-balanced in sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and previous health care use. In the last 30 days, there was no differences in proportions between the two groups of patients regarding emergency department visits, intensive care unit admissions, or inpatient hospitalizations. However, patients in the intervention group had greater use of palliative physician encounters, community home care visits, and/or physician home visits (92.8% v 88.4%; P = .007). In the 507 pairs with cancer, more patients in the intervention group underwent chemotherapy (44% v 33%; P < .001) and radiation (18.7% v 3.2%; P = .043) in the last 30 days. Mean cost per patient was similar for the intervention group (mean, $17,231; 95% CI, $16,027 to $18,436) and for the control group (mean, $16,951; 95% CI, $15,899 to $18,004). CONCLUSION: Even with the limitations in our observational study design, identification of palliative patients did not significantly change overall costs but may shift resources toward palliative services.

Does early palliative identification improve the use of palliative care services?

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care impacts on the use of palliative, community and acute-based care services. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, physicians from eight sites were encouraged to systematically identify patients who were likely to die within one year and would were thought to benefit from early palliative care. Patients in the INTEGRATE Intervention Group were 1:1 matched to controls selected from provincial healthcare administrative data using propensity score-matching. The use of palliative care, community-based care services (home care, physician home visit, and outpatient opioid use) and acute care (emergency department, hospitalization) was each evaluated within one year after the date of identification. The hazard ratio (HR) in the Intervention Group was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Of the 1,185 patients in the Intervention Group, 951 (80.3%) used palliative care services during follow-up, compared to 739 (62.4%) among 1,185 patients in the Control Group [HR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.82)]. The Intervention Group also had higher proportions of patients who used home care [81.4% vs. 55.2%; HR 2.07 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.27)], had physician home visits [35.5% vs. 23.7%; HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.92)] or had increased outpatient opioid use [64.3% vs. 52.1%); HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.57]. The Intervention Group was also more likely to have a hospitalization that was not primarily focused on palliative care (1.42 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.58)) and an unplanned emergency department visit for non-palliative care purpose (1.47 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.64)). CONCLUSION: Physicians actively identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care resulted in increased use of palliative and community-based care services, but also increased use of acute care services.

Integrating early palliative care into routine practice for patients with cancer: A mixed methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project.

OBJECTIVE: With increasing evidence from controlled trials on benefits of early palliative care, there is a need for studies examining implementation in real-world settings. The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year real-world project that promoted early identification and support of patients with cancer who may benefit from palliative care. This study assesses feasibility, stakeholder experiences, and early impact of the INTEGRATE Project METHODS: The INTEGRATE Project was implemented in four cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, and consisted of interdisciplinary provider education and an integrated care model. Providers used the Surprise Question to identify patients for inclusion. A mixed methods evaluation of INTEGRATE was conducted using descriptive data, interviews with providers and managers, and provider surveys. RESULTS: A total of 760 patients with cancer (lung, glioblastoma, head and neck, gastrointestinal) were included. Results suggest improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care and to initiate the Advanced Care Planning (ACP) conversation. The majority of patients (85%) had an ACP or goals of care (GOC) conversation initiated within a mean time to conversation of 5-46 days (SD 20-93) across centers. A primary care report was transmitted to family doctors 48-100% of the time within a mean time to transmission of 7-54 days (SD 9-27) across centers. Enablers and barriers influencing success of the model were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care for patients with cancer can be integrated into the routine practice of oncology providers, with appropriate education, integration into existing clinical workflows, and administrative support.

Integrated Care Planning for Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a growing emphasis on the use of integrated care plans to deliver cancer care. However little is known about how integrated care plans for cancer patients are developed including featured core activities, facilitators for uptake and indicators for assessing impact. METHODS: Given limited consensus around what constitutes an integrated care plan for cancer patients, a scoping review was conducted to explore the components of integrated care plans and contextual factors that influence design and uptake. RESULTS: Five types of integrated care plans based on the stage of cancer care: surgical, systemic, survivorship, palliative and comprehensive (involving a transition between stages) are described in current literature. Breast, esophageal and colorectal cancers were common disease sites. Multi-disciplinary teams, patient needs assessment and transitional planning emerged as key features. Provider buy-in and training alongside informational technology support served as important facilitators for plan uptake. Provider-level measurement was considerably less robust compared to patient and system-level indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in design features, components and facilitators across the various types of integrated care plans indicates opportunities to leverage shared features and enable a management lens that spans the trajectory of a patient's journey rather than a phase-specific silo approach to care.