GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 33, No. 29_suppl ( 2015-10-10), p. 108-108
    Abstract: 108 Background: When integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to subspecialty palliative medicine for referral. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices. Methods: An expert steering committee developed a list of 966 palliative care service items, divided into nine domains, each describing an aspect of palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer. Using a modified Delphi methodology, 31 multi-disciplinary panelists ranked each service item according to importance, feasibility and scope. Results: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision-Making (79%); and Care Planning (78%). Lowest proportions were in: Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea and pain. Under the domain of Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients with an expected survival of under 3 months or poor performance status (Zubrod 3-4) to hospice. Conclusions: This statement describes high-quality palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find the guidance useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 42, No. 16_suppl ( 2024-06-01), p. 1550-1550
    Abstract: 1550 Background: With improvements in the early detection and treatment of cancer, there is a growing population of cancer survivors; with a corresponding increase in acute care use among cancer survivors. However, models of inpatient care delivery for cancer survivors differ between hospitals and regions, which may impact resource use and outcomes. Understanding how different models influence outcomes may help define optimal models for inpatient care delivery for this population. Methods: We created a multicenter cohort of all cancer patients admitted to medical wards across 26 hospitals in Ontario, Canada from 2015 to 2022, and deterministically linked population-level administrative data including ambulatory oncology data, with each hospital’s patient-level electronic information (pharmacy, orders, notes, laboratory/imaging and results). Multivariable regression models compared characteristics and outcomes between patients admitted on oncology wards vs non-oncology wards adjusting for age, sex and co-morbidity scores. Results: In total, there were 370,118 hospitalizations from 191,990 unique patients. Among these hospitalizations, 38,075 episodes (10.3%) were on an oncology ward. The median time from cancer diagnosis to hospitalization was 4 years. The most common disease sites were genitourinary (21%), gastrointestinal (20%), breast (12%), and lung (10%). The most discharge diagnoses from oncology wards were inpatient chemotherapy (9%), febrile neutropenia (7%), non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (4%), acute myeloid leukemia (4%), myeloma (3%); while for non-oncology wards were heart failure (5%), palliative care (4%), UTI (2%), pneumonia (2%), acute renal failure (2%). In general, cancer patients admitted on oncology wards were younger (64 vs 76), had shorter length of stay (LOS; 9.6 vs 10.1 days), less in-hospital mortality (7.5% vs 11.4%), greater 30-day re-admission rates (29% vs 14%) and were also more likely to undergo CTs (28% vs 21%), MRIs (11% vs 9%) and interventional procedures (8% vs 6%) (all comparisons, p 〈 0.001). Subgroup analysis focusing on the top 5 discharge diagnoses from non-oncology wards, showed that despite higher in-hospital mortality rates (aOR 1.27 95% CI [1.15-1.40] p 〈 0.001), admission to a non-oncology ward for those diagnoses was associated with a shorter LOS (aOR 0.96 [0.92-1.00] p=0.03), reduced 30-day re-admission rates (aOR 0.77 [0.69-0.87] p 〈 0.001), and reduced use of CTs (aOR 0.74 [0.68-0.82] p 〈 0.001), MRIs (aOR 0.80 [0.68-0.95] p=0.01), and interventional procedures (aOR 0.84 [0.69-1.01] p=0.07). Conclusions: There are differences in both resource use and outcomes for cancer survivors hospitalized on oncology versus non-oncology wards, including for patients with the same discharge diagnosis. To optimize inpatient cancer care delivery for hospitalized cancer survivors, further exploration is needed.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2024
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) ; 2016
    In:  Journal of Clinical Oncology Vol. 34, No. 15_suppl ( 2016-05-20), p. e18220-e18220
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 34, No. 15_suppl ( 2016-05-20), p. e18220-e18220
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 33, No. 15_suppl ( 2015-05-20), p. e14641-e14641
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2015
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 32, No. 15_suppl ( 2014-05-20), p. 3567-3567
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2014
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 31, No. 26_suppl ( 2013-09-10), p. 128-128
    Abstract: 128 Background: A recent study suggests that cardiotoxicity from adjuvant trastuzumab (T-mab) is associated with inadequate cardiac monitoring (Ng et al. SABCS 2012). Few studies have examined the impact of centre or physician (MD) case volume (vol) on the quality of care in systemic therapy, including the adequacy of cardiac monitoring during T-mab treatment. Methods: All breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant T-mab in Ontario between 2003-2009 were identified through a provincial drug funding program. Patient demographics, hospitalizations, cardiac risk factors, cardiac imaging, comorbidities, treatment centres and MDs were ascertained. Annual case vol was calculated as the number of patients treated per year with adjuvant T-mab by each MD and centre. Cumulative case vol was calculated as the total number of patients treated with adjuvant T-mab. Centre and MD vol were divided into terciles (T1, T2 and T3) by the year of diagnosis. Inadequate cardiac monitoring was defined as per recent guidelines and per Ng et al. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine factors associated with inadequate cardiac monitoring. Results: Our cohort consisted of 3,777 patients, 214 MDs and 68 centres. Of the total patients, 16.5% were over age 65; 30.3%, 9.4%, and 1.2% had previous diagnoses of hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure (HF), respectively; 24.3% did not receive adequate cardiac monitoring. Inadequate cardiac monitoring was associated with lower cumulative MD vol (T1: 27.9%, T2: 23.3%, T3: 20.8%, p 〈 0.0001) and lower annual centre vol (T1: 32.5%, T2: 19.7%, T3: 20.7%, p 〈 0.0001) in univariate analyses, and remained significant after adjusting for age, comorbidities, previous HF, socioeconomic status based on income, rural residence and calendar period. After adjusting for patient clustering at the MD, centre, and regional levels, lower cumulative MD vol (p=0.012), but not annual centre vol, remained a significant predictor for inadequate cardiac monitoring. Conclusions: Our findings suggest improved cardiac monitoring with greater MD experience, supporting the notion of centralization of systemic therapy to high vol MDs to optimize outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2013
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 34, No. 7_suppl ( 2016-03-01), p. 105-105
    Abstract: 105 Background: Chemotherapy (chemo) is associated with a significant risk of toxicity, which often peaks between ambulatory visits. Consequently, effective remote symptom management support is essential to optimize self-management and resource use, including emergency department visits and hospitalizations (ED+H) during chemo. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and effects of a telephone management intervention on symptomatic toxicity and resource use during chemo for early stage breast cancer (EBC). Methods: A prospective study of telephone-based toxicity management among women receiving neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemo for EBC was undertaken at one urban and one rural site in Ontario, Canada. The intervention consisted of two standardized calls by nurses assessing common toxicities after each chemo (call 1 within 3 days and call 2 within 8-10 days). Primary outcome measures were feasibility and acceptability based on patient (pt) and clinician feedback. Efficacy was evaluated by self-reported ED+H. Results: Between 09/2013 and 12/2014, 77 women with EBC were enrolled (mean age 55 years). Most commonly used regimens were AC-paclitaxel (58%) and FEC-docetaxel (16%). 78% of pts received primary GCSF prophylaxis. Adherence with calls was 82%; mean call duration was 9 minutes. The intervention was well received by both pts and clinicians. 97% of pts indicated they liked receiving the calls and 94% would recommend this protocol be offered to all pts receiving chemo. Clinicians and pts felt the calls reduced pt anxiety by providing just-in-time education and counselling. Twenty five (33%) pts reported at least one ED+H during chemo, lower than the historical rate of 44% for this population in Ontario. Challenges included introducing an intervention that involved both routine clinical personnel and research staff and incorporating the calls into existing work responsibilities. Conclusions: Telephone-based toxicity management during ESB chemo is feasible, perceived as valuable by clinicians and pts, and may be associated with lower rates of acute care use. Larger scale evaluations of this approach focusing on effectiveness are warranted.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 37, No. 27_suppl ( 2019-09-20), p. 173-173
    Abstract: 173 Background: Symptom management is a cornerstone of quality oncology practice. ASCO established a Working Group to develop patient-reported outcome performance measures (PRO-PMs) for assessing symptom management. We describe multi-center testing funded by PCORI. Methods: Multi-stakeholder consensus and literature review identified 11 symptoms for testing as potential PRO-PMs. For these symptoms, questions from the NCI’s PRO-CTCAE tool were administered at 6 US academic and community oncology practices. Patients across cancer types completed questions electronically on days 5-15 of chemotherapy cycles. PRO-CTCAE mapped scores were dichotomized to delineate clinically meaningful thresholds (0-1 vs ≥2), and rates were tabulated between practices. Symptoms were selected to become PRO-PMs if clinically actionable and with prevalence ≥20%; between-practice variation was evaluated using χ 2 . Twelve candidate sociodemographic and clinical risk adjustment (RA) variables were evaluated via Akaike information criterion testing. Risk-adjusted PRO-PM rates were calculated using observed:expected ratios via generalized linear mixed modeling. Results: Among 653 enrolled patients, 607 (93%) completed questionnaires. Four of 11 symptoms met criteria for PRO-PM development: nausea, constipation, insomnia, pain. Four RA variables met inclusion criteria: age, gender, cancer type, insurance type. The Table shows raw and risk-adjusted rates of symptom burden (scores ≥2) for each PRO-PM across practices. Risk-adjustment yielded a modest impact on scores. Conclusions: Oncology PRO-PMs have been developed to quantify the burden of actionable symptoms at the practice level. Collection from patients is feasible. Further refinement is underway prior to submission for endorsement by the National Quality Forum. [Table: see text]
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2019
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 42, No. 16_suppl ( 2024-06-01), p. 12138-12138
    Abstract: 12138 Background: Cancer prevalence is rising, with a corresponding increase in hospitalizations across the cancer continuum. However, little is known about how in-hospital patterns of care and outcomes of cancer survivors compare with non-cancer survivors as administrative data may not capture in-hospital details (e.g., investigations and medications) required for characterization. Understanding differences in how cancer and non-cancer inpatients are managed and their outcomes can help optimize their acute care delivery. Methods: In a multicenter registry of all patients (pts) admitted to medical wards across 26 hospitals (Ontario, Canada) from 2015-2022, we deterministically linked population-level administrative data, including ambulatory oncology data for cancer survivors, with each hospital’s electronic information (pharmacy, orders, notes, laboratory, imaging) at the patient level. Multivariable regression models compared resource use and outcomes between cancer and non-cancer pts for the top 5 discharge diagnoses among non-cancer pts. Results: Of 1,221,067 hospitalizations belonging to 666,569 pts, 30% of medical ward hospitalizations were for pts with a cancer history, with median admission date 4 years post-diagnosis; most common cancer sites were genitourinary (21%), gastrointestinal (20%), breast (12%), lung (10%). Most common discharge diagnoses among cancer pts were heart failure (HF) (5%), palliative care (5%), urinary tract infection (UTI) (2%), pneumonia (2%) renal failure (2%); while for non-cancer pts were HF (5%), myocardial infarction (3%), coronary artery disease (3%), COPD (2%) and UTI (2%). Compared to non-cancer pts, cancer pts were older (72 vs 66), had greater length of stay (LOS; 10 vs 8.7 days), in-hospital mortality (11% vs 6%) and 30 day re-admission rates (16% vs 11%) and were more likely to receive CTs (21% vs 15%), MRIs (9% vs 8%) and interventional procedures (6% vs 4%) (p 〈 0.001, all comparisons). When evaluating the top 5 discharge diagnoses among non-cancer patients, cancer survivors had higher LOS (aOR=1.06 95% [1.05-1.07] p 〈 0.001), in-hospital mortality (aOR=1.20 [1.14-1.26] p 〈 0.001), and 30 day re-admission rates (aOR=1.24 [1.14-1.35] p 〈 0.001) and were more likely to receive CTs (aOR=1.25 [1.21-1.30] p 〈 0.001), MRIs (aOR=1.36 [1.25-1.48] p 〈 0.001) and interventional procedures (aOR=1.36 [1.25-1.47] p 〈 0.001). Subgroup analyses focusing on cancer survivors admitted 3 and 5 years out from their diagnosis showed resource use and outcomes were closer to non-cancer patients. Conclusions: Cancer survivors represent a unique population on medical wards and have higher resource use, mortality and LOS compared to non-cancer patients, even for the same non-cancer diagnoses. Specialized models of care for hospitalized cancer survivors may be warranted, in particular for those admitted closer to their diagnosis date.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2024
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: Journal of Oncology Practice, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 12, No. 9 ( 2016-09), p. e828-e838
    Abstract: Integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to specialist palliative medicine. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices. Methods: An expert steering committee outlined 966 palliative care service items, in nine domains, each describing a candidate element of primary palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden. Using modified Delphi methodology, 31 multidisciplinary panelists rated each service item on three constructs: importance, feasibility, and scope within medical oncology practice. Results: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision Making (79%); and Advance Care Planning (78%). The lowest proportions were in Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level, with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea, and pain. Within the Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral domain, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients appropriately. Conclusion: This statement describes the elements comprising high-quality primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find this information useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1554-7477 , 1935-469X
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2016
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2236338-5
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...