Search

We present a case study on the design and implementation of a value-based bundled package of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in the private health sector in Australia. Value-based healthcare is an essential change to how we deliver healthcare, shifting the focus from paying for individual services provided to a focus on the health outcomes gained over a full cycle of care. The Australian health system has unintentionally created barriers to value-based cancer care through fragmented care pathways and complex funding arrangements where patients can unexpectedly encounter high out-of-pocket costs. A team of clinicians, service providers, health systems and funding experts, private health insurers and consumers have collaborated to design and pilot a complete bundled package of care for breast cancer patients which aims to address these challenges. With 40 patients recruited to date, early evaluation results show positive patient experience of 'joined-up' care and financial transparency. This case study provides a high-level overview of the approach taken to design and implement the Breast Cancer Bundle and the lessons learned for its expansion in both public and private settings. What is known about this topic? Enabling value-based healthcare is essential to improve healthcare, focusing on outcomes gained over a full cycle of care. Patients diagnosed with cancer frequently report care to be disjointed and the cause of financial stress, thus can particularly benefit from value-based care models. What does this paper add? This case study describes the design and implementation of a bundled package of care for patients with early-stage breast cancer treated in the private health sector in Australia. What are the implications for practitioners? Lessons learned through this process provide considerations for expansion of this model of care. This article belongs to the Special Issue: Value-based Healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: High-quality end-of-life care involves addressing patients' physical, psychosocial, cultural and spiritual needs. Although the measurement of the quality of care associated with dying and death is an important component of health care, there is a lack of evidence-based, systematic processes to examine the quality of dying and death of patients in hospital settings. Our purpose was to develop a systematic appraisal framework (QualDeath) for reviewing the quality of dying and death for patients with advanced cancer. The objectives were to: (1) explore the evidence regarding existing tools and processes related to appraisal of end-of-life care; (2) examine existing practices related to appraisal of quality of dying and death in hospital settings; and (3) develop QualDeath with consideration of potential acceptability and feasibility factors. Methods: A co-design multiple methods approach was used. For objective 1, a rapid literature review was undertaken; for objective 2 we carried out semi-structured interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders in four major teaching hospitals; and for objective 3 we interviewed key stakeholders and held workshops with the project team to reach consensus. Results: We developed QualDeath, a framework to assist hospital administrators and clinicians to systematically and retrospectively review the quality of dying and death for patients expected to die from advanced cancer. It offers four levels of potential implementation for hospitals to select from and incorporates medical record review, multidisciplinary meetings, quality of end-of-life care surveys and bereavement interviews with family carers. Conclusions: The QualDeath framework provides hospitals with recommendations to formalise processes to evaluate end-of-life care. Although QualDeath was underpinned by several research methods, further research is needed to rigorously explore its impact and test its feasibility. What is known about the topic? The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care explicitly directs Australian hospitals and healthcare services to review the quality of end-of-life care provided against planned goals of care. However, there is a lack of evidence-based, systematic processes to examine the quality of dying and death of cancer patients in hospital settings. What does this paper add? QualDeath provides a framework that enables hospitals to implement a systematic approach to appraising the quality of dying and death for cancer patients. What are the implications for practitioners? QualDeath is underpinned by the principle that hospital clinicians should be evaluating the quality of care provided for every patient who dies. This provides an opportunity for reflecting on and improving the quality of care provided, as well as acknowledging examples of high-quality end-of-life care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess whether compliance with the nationally endorsed Optimal Care Pathways is evident in 75% of patients treated with curative intent treatment and if this compliance was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic (hereinafter COVID-19). Methods: This retrospective study included patients undergoing curative treatment with radiotherapy in head and neck (HN), breast, lung and gastrointestinal malignancies between January 2019 and June 2021 in a single NSW outer metropolitan cancer service. For care delivered within the remit of cancer services, the primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients whose treatment complied with the Optimal Care Pathways recommended time frame. Secondary outcome measures included evaluating the effect of COVID-19 on the proportion of patients being treated within the recommended time frame. Results: There were n = 733 eligible patients across the five tumour streams with the majority being breast cancer patients comprising 65% (n = 479) of the cohort, followed by HN cancer patients (n = 125, 17%). None of the tumour subsites abided by the 75% compliance rate. Oesophageal cancer patients had the lowest compliance rate of 4% (P < 0.001), with a similarly low compliance rate for rectal cancer patients at 33% (P = 0.002). None of the hypothesis tests to assess for detriment in treatment time during COVID-19 were statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Despite the availability of best practice guidelines, there is limited compliance throughout all cancer subtypes, which has not been negatively influenced by COVID-19. Improved awareness of the Optimal Care Pathways, and implementation of the associated infrastructure and systems, are required to support compliance. What is known about the topic? The Optimal Care Pathways are the only nationally endorsed guideline that provides key timeframes from diagnosis to commencement of treatment and beyond for 25 different tumour subtypes. What does the paper add? There is limited compliance throughout the entire care pathway, with limitations in data availability to benchmark the entire pathway. These compliance rates were not affected by COVID-19. What are the implications for practitioners? Adjustments should be made to incorporate the Optimal Care Pathways into cancer service performance, with robust data collection mechanisms, to ensure patients across Australia receive equitable cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. It has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs. Methods. Patients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records. Results. Across both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23--98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake. Conclusion. This study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: This study describes the model of care provided by an integrated respiratory and palliative care service for patients with advanced lung disease, and assesses the potential impact of the service on acute hospital utilisation and cost. Methods: This study implemented an integrated specialist care service at a single tertiary teaching hospital in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The service provided disease-orientated care, alongside symptom management and advance care planning, and comprised both outpatient clinic (OPC) and home visit (HV) capacity for those with barriers to accessing OPC. Acute hospital utilisation and hospital cost were analysed with a paired t -test 90 days before/after the first physician review. Results: Between April 2017 and 2019, 51 patients received 59 HVs, whereas between July 2018 and 2020, 58 patients received 206 OPC reviews. Acute hospital admissions decreased by 51% in the HV cohort (P < 0.05) and by 46% in the OPC cohort (P = 0.01); total bed days of acute admissions decreased by 29% in the HV cohort (P = n.s.), and by 60% in the OPC cohort (P < 0.05); and specialist outpatient clinic attendances decreased in the OPC cohort by 55% (P < 0.01). There was a decrease in hospital cost for the HV cohort by 3% (cost savings of A$18 579), and in the OPC cohort by 23% (cost savings of A$109 149). Conclusions: This model of care provided specialist respiratory management with seamless integration of palliative care, with the capacity for home visits. There was a decrease in acute hospital utilisation and overall cost savings observed in both HV and OPC cohorts. What is already known about the topic? International guidelines recommend palliative care for patients with advanced lung disease, although the ideal model for this care is uncertain. What does this paper add? This model of integrated respiratory and palliative care provided disease-orientated care, alongside symptom management and advance care planning, with unique physician home visit capacity, which addressed barriers to receiving specialist care. What are the implications for practitioners? This study describes a model of integrated respiratory and palliative care that can positively impact acute hospital utilisation and provide cost savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study aimed to estimate the public hospital costs associated with primary liver cancer (PLC) in the first and second years following the cancer diagnosis. Methods: This study linked administrative datasets of patients diagnosed with PLC in Victoria, Australia, from January 2008 to December 2015. The health system perspective was adopted to estimate the direct healthcare costs associated with PLC, based on inpatient and emergency costs. Costs were estimated for the first 12 months and 12–24 months after the PLC diagnosis and expressed in 2017 Australian dollars (A$). The cost estimated was then extrapolated nationally. The linear mixed model with a Box–Cox transformation of the costs was used to explore the relationship between costs and patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Results: For the first 12 months, the total and annual per-patient cost was A$211.4 million and A$63 664, respectively. Costs for the subsequent year were A$49.7 million and A$46 751, respectively. Regarding the cost extrapolation to Australia, the total cost was A$137 million for the first 12 months after notification and A$42.6 million for the period from 12 to 24 months. Higher costs per episode of care were mostly associated with older age, hepatocellular carcinoma type of PLC, metropolitan hospitals, and Asian birth region. Conclusion: This study showed the public hospital admission and emergency costs associated with PLC and the substantial economic burden this cancer has placed on the Australian health system. What is known about the topic? There are limited data on the economic burden of primary liver cancer in Australia. What does this paper add? This study showed the cost in the second year after cancer diagnosis was substantially lower than that of the first year. Higher costs per episode of care were mostly associated with older age, metropolitan hospitals, and Asian birth region. What are the implications for practitioners? Results from this study can be used as a baseline for comparison with other initiatives to mitigate cancer risk factors or inputs for future economic evaluations of cancer surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Access to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital. Results: In all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (± s.d.) age 59 ± 15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n = 271; 80%). Conclusion: This study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product. What is known about the topic?: Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes. What does this paper add?: In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed. What are the implications for practitioners?: Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the extent of medical and non-medical out-of-pocket expenses (OOPE) among regional/rural and outer metropolitan Western Australian patients diagnosed with cancer, and the factors associated with higher costs. Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected from adult patients living in four regional/rural areas and two outer metropolitan regions in Western Australia who had been diagnosed with breast, prostate, colorectal or lung cancer. Consenting participants were mailed demographic and financial questionnaires, and requested to report all OOPE related to their cancer treatment. Results: The median total OOPE reported by 308 regional/rural participants and 119 outer metropolitan participants were A$1518 (interquartile range (IQR): A$581–A$3769) and A$2855 (IQR: A$958–A$7142) respectively. Participants most likely to experience higher total OOPE were younger than 65 years of age, male, resided in the outer metropolitan area, worked prior to diagnosis, had private health insurance, were in a relationship, and underwent surgery. Multivariate analysis of regional/rural participants revealed that receiving care at a rural cancer centre was associated with significantly lower non-medical OOPE (estimated mean A$805, 95% confidence interval (CI): A$735–A$875, P = 0.038; compared with other rural participants (A$1347, 95% CI: A$743–A$1951, P < 0.001)). Conclusion: The cancer patients who participated in this study experienced variation in OOPE, with outer metropolitan participants reporting higher OOPE compared with their regional/rural counterparts. There is a need for cost transparency and access to care close to home, so that patients can make informed choices about where to receive their care. What is known about the topic?: In recent years, OOPE for health care in general and cancer in particular have been widely debated by consumers and not-for-profit organisations; the topic has attracted much political attention because it affects both equity and access to care and has wider financial implications for the community. Research studies and reports from both consumer organisations and a Ministerial Advisory Committee found that cancer patients can face exorbitant out-of-pocket costs, and that individuals with private health insurance and those with prostate and breast cancer reported higher costs. In Western Australia, a cancer centre providing comprehensive cancer care was established in the second most populous region to ameliorate the high costs for travel and accommodation that regional cancer patients are known to experience. What does this paper add?: This study is unique because it collected detailed cost information from patients and reports on the OOPE of regional/rural and outer metropolitan Western Australian patients receiving care for one of the four most common cancers; it therefore offers novel insight into the experiences of these groups. This study demonstrates that outer metropolitan cancer patients are experiencing much higher OOPE compared with regional/rural cancer patients. Additionally, regional/rural study participants who accessed a Regional Cancer Centre experienced significantly lower non-medical OOPE, compared with regional/rural study participants receiving care elsewhere. What are the implications for practitioners?: First, there is a need for improved communication of OOPE to minimise costs to the patient, for example, by facilitating access to local cancer care. Health service providers and insurance companies can improve cost transparency for cancer patients by making this information more readily available, allowing patients to make informed financial choices about where to seek care. Second, the needs of working patients deserve specific attention. These patients face significant work uncertainty and additional distress following a cancer diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe patterns of health service utilisation among the Australian population with cancer compared with the general population. Methods: Data for all respondents aged ≥25 years from two successive National Health Surveys conducted between 2011 and 2014 were analysed. Respondents with a history of cancer were identified as the cancer group, whereas all other respondents who did not report having had a cancer were included in the non-cancer control group. Comparisons were made between the two groups using logistic regression models. Results: The population with cancer was more likely to report having consulted their general practitioner, specialist, chemist, dietician, naturopath, nurse, optometrist, dentist, audiologist and other health professionals than the non-cancer population. The cancer population was also more likely to be admitted to hospital and to have visited an out-patient clinic, emergency department and day clinic. The presence of comorbidity and a current cancer were associated with a greater likelihood of receiving health services among the population with cancer. Conclusion: The population with cancer used health services significantly more than the non-cancer population. Further studies are urgently needed to identify optimal approaches to delivery of care for this population, including barriers and enablers for their implementation. What is known about the topic?: Multimorbidity is highly prevalent among the cancer population due to risk factors shared between cancer and other chronic diseases, and the development of new conditions resulting from cancer treatment and cancer complications. However, the Australian healthcare system is not set up optimally to address issues related to multimorbidity. What does this paper add?: This study is the first step in quantifying health services use by the population with cancer compared with the general population without cancer. Cancer survivors have an increased need for specific health services, particularly among those with multimorbidity. What are the implications for practitioners?: The development of integrated care models to manage multiple chronic diseases aligned with the Australian National Strategic Framework for Chronic Conditions is warranted. Further studies are urgently needed to identify optimal approaches to delivery of care for this population, including barriers and enablers for their implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesAccess to medicinal cannabis is a timely and important issue in cancer care. Recent legislative changes in Australia have increased access to medicinal cannabis, but the views of people with cancer on this topic are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the prevalence of the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis among people with cancer.MethodsA cross-sectional study was performed using an anonymous, 15-item study-specific paper-based survey. The survey was administered over a 2-week period in August 2017 in the waiting rooms of a specialist cancer hospital.ResultsIn all, 339 patients completed the survey (mean (±s.d.) age 59±15 years; 52% male). Fourteen respondents (4%) were currently using cannabis medicinally. Only one of these respondents had a prescription for their cannabis product. Most respondents would consider using a medicinal cannabis product if recommended by their doctor (n =271; 80%).ConclusionThis study is the first of its kind to survey the use of and attitudes towards medicinal cannabis in a broad sample of Australian people with cancer. Few respondents were currently using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but an overwhelming majority were in favour of increasing access and would consider using a prescribed product.What is known about the topic?Cannabis may have a wide variety of medicinal uses, particularly in the cancer setting. Currently, people with cancer in Victoria have limited access to medicinal cannabis despite recent legislative changes.What does this paper add?In a general sample of people with cancer, few were using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but most were in favour of widening access and would consider using a product their doctor prescribed.What are the implications for practitioners?Despite supporting access, patients indicated that the recommendations of doctors and increasing the evidence base are necessary requirements to their use of medicinal cannabis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past half century, medical care has become less institutionalised, more autonomous, equitable and less costly. This has led to a shift from hospital-based delivery to community care. This paper examines the experiences of Canberra-based carers following this shift using interview data from a longitudinal qualitative study of 32 informal carers of a spouse with cancer. Cancer patients experienced poorly coordinated care. When carers observed the effects of errors and miscommunication on patients, they felt compelled to coordinate patient care. Interview data suggest that informal carers of cancer patients are relied upon to manage patient care at home and in hospitals, but are not supported in undertaking this responsibility. This implies that carers should be a far more central focus in cancer care reform strategies. What is known about the topic? Shifts in Australian models of care mean much of the care-work associated with cancer has moved from hospitals to home. Little is known about the implications of this shift on carers of cancer patients, a population at high risk of stress, depression and anxiety. What does this paper add? This study offers a rare qualitative approach to understanding the experiences of carers of spouses with cancer in Canberra-based hospitals. Their accounts suggest that cancer carers are relied on to coordinate care for their spouse on a long-term basis at home, in hospitals and across multiple medical modalities. What are the implications for practitioners? This high reliance on an informal caregiving population with a well-documented risk of stress, anxiety and depression suggests that strategic changes need to be made to support carers. As states and territories begin to implement cancer care coordinators as part of a cancer reform strategy, carers should be a central focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To date, there is limited research to inform an understanding of cancer patients' choice as to location of treatment. This paper makes a contribution by providing findings on a group of regional, rural and remote cancer patients, namely those diagnosed with a haematological malignancy, who have to relocate for specialist care in Queensland, Australia. Methods: Adescriptive qualitative method was used based on 45 in-depth interviews with haematology patients living in Queensland who were supported by the Leukaemia Foundation of Queensland. Results: Four key factors were found to affect the decision making of patients who prefer to travel to metropolitan hospitals for specialist haematology treatments, namely access to own doctor, bonds and familiarity with metropolitan staff, desire for 'quality' specialist care and a distrust of local clinical care and, for some, the absence of usual barriers to visiting the metropolitan area. Conclusions: There are a group of patients who have experiences that lead them to distrust non-metropolitan hospitals and motivate them to travel long distances to attend specialist treating centres for 'quality' care. The literature affirms the concerns of this group. It is the hope and expectation in publishing this article that these patients' concerns will be taken into consideration in the development of health services and policy so that eventually all regional, rural and remote patients will be provided with equitable choice with regard to the location of accessing specialist care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited published evidence about how psychosocial services should be organised or routinely integrated into cancer services to ensure that cancer patients receive appropriate psychological, social and emotional support during periods of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. This paper reports on a survey of 26 oncology services in New South Wales, Australia, to examine the current provision of psychosocial oncology services. The aim of the study was to gather baseline data and information about the provision of services and to identify significant challenges associated with the development and implementation of psychosocial oncology services. A total of 42% of staff at psycho-oncology services reported they could provide adequate psycho-oncology services, but 58% of sites said they could provide either only limited (27%) or very limited (31%) services. We found that services frequently identified challenges such as insufficient funding to employ skilled staff to provide psychosocial interventions, inadequate data to demonstrate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions and, at times, lack of space to allow privacy for patient consultations. Future needs identified were strategic planning of psychosocial oncology services as part of broader cancer service plans, leadership of psychosocial oncology services, cohesive teams using agreed patient pathways or tools and integration into multi-disciplinary cancer teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]