Author of

• 12853

  +

  P3.24 - Poster Session 3 - Supportive Care (ID 160)

  • Event: WCLC 2013
  • Type: Poster Session
  • Track: Supportive Care
  • Presentations: 1
  • Moderators:
  • Coordinates: 10/30/2013, 09:30 - 16:30, Exhibit Hall, Ground Level

  • 12901

    +

    P3.24-049 - Palliative Care and Anti-Cancer Care Integration: Description of three models of care delivery at a tertiary medical center (ID 3182)

    09:30 - 09:30  |  Author(s): T. Morrison
    • Abstract

    Background
    The American Society of Clinical Oncology issued a Provisional Clinical Opinion on the integration of palliative care (PC) with anti-cancer care which states, “Based upon strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at time of initial diagnosis.” There is both a national shortage of PC providers, as well as a lack of guidelines on the best operational ways to integrate PC into oncologic care. Here we describe different models of palliative care integration into anti-cancer care models performed at the Stanford Cancer Institute.

    Methods
    Three methods of PC integration into oncology care at Stanford Hospital and Clinics, a tertiary medical center, are being tested. These include a low resource model using a social work (SW) only intervention for advance care planning and goals of care, as well as two high resource models using an MD, advance nurse practitioner, and social worker. The first high resource model is concurrent care with joint PC and oncology visits, and the second is a traditional model of separate PC and oncology visits. Observations around successes and barriers within these various models, as well as resources needed, will be described. Data evaluated include volume, referral patterns, advance care planning, symptom assessment, and resource utilization.

    Results
    The SW only intervention was run as a pilot in thoracic oncology. Resources required for appropriate implementation included information technology (IT) for appropriate cohort identification, operations support, data management support, and team cooperation from the physician and nursing team. Process outcomes measured included % of patients seen by SW within 3 visits, documentation of advance care planning within the medical record, and co-signature of advance care planning documentation by the physician. The joint visit model utilized a high resource team (physician, nurse practitioner, and social worker) which was present concurrently with the oncology visit for advance care planning and symptom management. In addition to the resources required for the SW only intervention, this model also included a care coordinator for visit coordination. Process outcomes measured included lead time to arrange for the joint visit and documentation of advance care planning. End outcomes included discharge to hospice, hospital utilization patterns, and effective symptom management. Other outcomes included volume and number of referring providers. Our third model was a traditional clinic visit with the PC team only, not coordinated with the oncology team. Resources and outcomes were the same as for the joint visit model. A total of 529 consults were seen in the first year. 61% were seen in a traditional clinic model and 39% were seen in the concurrent model. Volume of consults have increased over time. There were 10 consults per month in January of 2012. Currently over 100 consults are seen per month.

    Conclusion
    Appropriate integration of PC into oncology care for thoracic oncology patients is still under investigation. Here we describe the strengths and weaknesses of three separate models of integration of PC with oncology care at an academic medical center.