Search

Background: Population-based research to identify underserviced populations and the impact of palliative care (PC) is limited as the validity of such data to identify PC services is largely unknown. Objective: To determine the validity of using such data to identify the involvement of specialized pediatric PC teams among children with cancer. Design: Retrospective cohort. Subjects: Ontario children with cancer who died between 2000 and 2012, received care through a pediatric institution with a specialized PC team and a clinical PC database. Measurements: All patients in the clinical databases were linked to population-based health services administrative databases. Six algorithms were created to indicate the use of formal pediatric PC teams based on the record type (physician billings vs. inpatient records vs. both) and number of eligible codes required (≥1 vs. ≥2). Each was validated against the pediatric PC clinical databases. Results: The cohort comprised 572 children; 243 were in the clinical databases. Algorithms using only inpatient records had high specificity (80%-95%) but poor sensitivity (21%-56%). Including physician billings increased sensitivity but lowered specificity. The algorithm with overall best performance required ≥2 physician billing or inpatient diagnosis codes indicating PC [sensitivity 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.84), specificity 0.58 (95% CI 0.53-0.64)]. Conclusions: Health administrative data identifies involvement of specialized pediatric PC teams with good sensitivity but low specificity. Studies using such data alone to compare patients receiving and not receiving specialized pediatric PC are at significant risk of misclassification and potential bias. Population-based PC databases should be established to conduct rigorous population-based PC research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Many adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) with cancer receive high intensity (HI) care at the end of life (EOL). Palliative care (PC) involvement in this population is associated with lower risk of HI-EOL care. Whether this association differs by specialized versus generalist PC (SPC, GPC) is unknown.Objectives: (1) To evaluate whether SPC had an impact on the intensity of EOL care received by AYAs with cancer; (2) to determine which subpopulations are at highest risk for reduced access to SPC.Methods: A decedent cohort of AYAs with cancer who died between 2000-2017 in Ontario, Canada was identified using registry and population-based data. The primary composite measure of HI-EOL care included any of: intravenous chemotherapy <14 days from death; more than one ED visit, more than one hospitalization or any ICU admission <30 days from death. Physician's billing codes were used to define SPC and GPC involvement.Results: Of 7,122 AYA decedents, 2,140 (30%) received SPC and 943 (13%) received GPC. AYAs who died in earlier years, those with hematologic malignancies, males and rural AYAs were least likely to receive SPC. No PC involvement was associated with higher odds of receiving HI-EOL care (odds ratio (OR) 1.5; p<0.0001). However, SPC was associated with the lowest risk of HI-EOL care (OR SPC versus GPC 0.8; p=0.007) and decreased odds of ICU admission (OR 0.7; p=0.006).Conclusion: SPC involvement was associated with the lowest risk of HI-EOL care in AYAs with cancer. However, access to SPC remains a challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Explain the impact of specialized palliative care on reducing high-intensity end-of-life care in adolescents and young adults with cancer 2. Identify subpopulations among adolescents and young adults with cancer who are at highest risk for reduced access to specialized palliative care A high proportion of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer (ages 15-39 years) receive high-intensity (HI) medical care at the end of life (EOL). We have previously shown that palliative care (PC) involvement in this population is associated with lower risk of HI-EOL care. Whether this association differs by specialized or general PC (SPC, GPC) is unknown. To evaluate the prevalence and predictors of SPC in AYAs with cancer and to evaluate the impact of SPC versus GPC on the intensity of EOL care for AYAs. A decedent cohort of AYAs with cancer who died between 2000 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada was assembled from registries and linked to population-based healthcare data. Based on prior studies, the primary composite measure HI-EOL care included any of intravenous chemotherapy <14 days from death, >1 ED visit, and >1 hospitalization or ICU admission <30 days from death. SPC and GPC were defined via previously validated algorithms based on physician billing codes (SPC if practice consisted of ≥50% PC-specific billing codes and GPC if PC-specific billing codes were between 10% and 50%). Of 7,122 AYAs, 2,140 (30%) received SPC and 942 (13.2%) received GPC. AYAs with hematologic malignancies, male AYAs, and rural AYAs were least likely to have access to SPC. No PC involvement compared to GPC was associated with higher odds of receiving HI-EOL care (OR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8; P <.001). However, SPC was associated with the lowest risk of HI-EOL care (OR vs GPC 0.8; 95% CI, 0.7-0.9; P = 0.007). SPC was also associated with decreased odds of ICU admission compared with GPC (OR 0.7; 95% CI, 0.5-0.9; P = 0.006). SPC is associated with a lower risk of HI-EOL care in AYAs with cancer as compared to GPC. However, access to SPC remains a challenge. Our study supports the widespread provision of SPC to AYAs with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Evidence suggests that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer (defined as age 15-39 years) receive high-intensity (HI) medical care at the end-of-life (EOL). Previous population-level studies are limited and lack information on the impact of palliative care (PC) provision. We evaluated prevalence and predictors of HI-EOL care in AYAs with cancer in Ontario, Canada. A secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of PC physicians on the intensity of EOL care in AYAs., Methods: A retrospective decedent cohort of AYAs with cancer who died between 2000 and 2017 in Ontario, Canada, was assembled using a provincial registry and linked to population-based health care data. On the basis of previous studies, the primary composite measure HI-EOL care included any of the following: intravenous chemotherapy < 14 days from death, more than one emergency department visit, and more than one hospitalization or intensive care unit admission < 30 days from death. Secondary measures included the most invasive (MI) EOL care (eg, mechanical ventilation < 14 days from death) and PC physician involvement. We determined predictors of outcomes using appropriate regression models., Results: Of 7,122 AYAs, 43.8% experienced HI-EOL care. PC physician involvement (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.63) and older age at death (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.74) were associated with a lower risk of HI-EOL care. AYAs with hematologic malignancies were at highest risk for HI and MI-EOL care. PC physician involvement substantially reduced the odds of mechanical ventilation at EOL (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.43)., Conclusion: A large proportion of AYAs with cancer experience HI-EOL care. Our study provides strong evidence that PC physician involvement can help mitigate the risk of HI and MI-EOL care in AYAs with cancer., Competing Interests: Adam RapoportStock and Other Ownership Interests: MedCurrentPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: I have intellectual property in a software called KidList. This software, which helps create patient lists, has been sold to a small health care institution in Vancouver, BC, Canada Sumit GuptaConsulting or Advisory Role: Jazz PharmaceuticalsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: The National Consensus Project (NCP) published a set of standards for quality palliative care delivery. A key step before applying these guidelines to pediatric oncology is to evaluate how much families and clinicians value these standards. We aimed to determine which elements of palliative care are considered important according to bereaved parents and pediatric oncology clinicians and to determine accessibility of these elements., Methods: We administered questionnaires to 75 bereaved parents (response rate, 54%) and 48 pediatric oncology clinicians (response rate, 91%) at a large teaching hospital. Outcome measures included importance ratings and accessibility of core elements of palliative care delivery., Results: Fifteen of 20 core elements were highly valued by both parents and clinicians (defined as > 60% of parents and clinicians reporting the item as important). Compared with clinicians, parents gave higher ratings to receiving cancer-directed therapy during the last month of life (P < .01) and involvement of a spiritual mentor (P = .03). Of the valued elements, only three were accessible more than 60% of the time according to clinicians and parents. Valued elements least likely to be accessible included a direct admission policy to hospital, sibling support, and parent preparation for medical aspects surrounding death., Conclusion: Parents and clinicians highly value a majority of palliative care elements described in the NCP framework. Children with advanced cancer may not be receiving key elements of palliative care despite parents and clinicians recognizing them as important. Evaluation of barriers to provision of quality palliative care and strategies for overcoming them are critical.