Anne M. Walling

Evidence-Based Standards for Cancer Pain Management

High-quality management of cancer pain depends on evidence-based standards for screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up for general cancer pain and specific pain syndromes. We developed a set of standards through an iterative process of structured literature review and development and refinement of topic areas and standards and subjected recommendations to rating by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Providers should routinely screen for the presence or absence and intensity of pain and should perform descriptive pain assessment for patients with a positive screen, including assessment for likely etiology and functional impairment. For treatment, providers should provide pain education, offer breakthrough opioids in patients receiving long-acting formulations, offer bowel regimens in patients receiving opioids chronically, and ensure continuity of opioid doses across health care settings. Providers should also follow up on patients after treatment for pain. For metastatic bone pain, providers should offer single-fraction radiotherapy as an option when offering radiation, unless there is a contraindication. When spinal cord compression is suspected, providers should treat with corticosteroids and evaluate with whole-spine magnetic resonance imaging scan or myelography as soon as possible but within 24 hours. Providers should initiate definitive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression) within 24 hours for diagnosed cord compression and should follow up on patients after treatment. These standards provide an initial framework for high-quality evidence-based management of general cancer pain and pain syndromes.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cancer Nausea and Vomiting

The experience of patients living with cancer and being treated with chemotherapy often includes the symptoms of nausea and vomiting. To provide a framework for high-quality management of these symptoms, we developed a set of key targeted evidence-based standards through an iterative process of targeted systematic review, development, and refinement of topic areas and standards and consensus ratings by a multidisciplinary expert panel as part of the RAND Cancer Quality-Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. For nausea and vomiting, key clinical standards included screening at the initial outpatient and inpatient visit, prophylaxis for acute and delayed emesis in patients receiving moderate to highly emetic chemotherapy, and follow-up after treatment for nausea and vomiting symptoms. In addition, patients with cancer and small bowel obstruction were examined as a special subset of patients who present with nausea and vomiting. The standards presented here for preventing and managing nausea and vomiting in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Information and Care Planning in Cancer Care

The practice of oncology is characterized by challenging communication tasks that make it difficult to ensure optimal physician-patient information sharing and care planning. Discussions of diagnosis, prognosis, and patient goals are essential processes that inform decisions. However, data suggest that there are deficiencies in this area. We conducted a systematic review to identify the evidence supporting high-quality clinical practices for information and care planning in the context of cancer care as part of the RAND Cancer Quality-Assessing Symptoms, Side Effects, and Indicators of Supportive Treatment Project. Domains of information and care planning that are important for high-quality cancer care include integration of palliation into cancer care, advance care planning, sentinel events as markers for the need to readdress a patients goals of care, and continuity of care planning. The standards presented here for information and care planning in cancer care should be incorporated into care pathways and should become the expectation rather than the exception.

The Quality of Care Provided to Hospitalized Patients at the End of Life

BACKGROUND Patients in American hospitals receive intensive medical treatments. However, when lifesaving treatments are unsuccessful, patients often die in the hospital with distressing symptoms while receiving burdensome care. Systematic measurement of the quality of care planning and symptom palliation is needed. METHODS Medical records were abstracted using 16 Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders quality indicators within the domains of end-of-life care and pain management designed to measure the quality of the dying experience for adult decedents (n = 496) hospitalized for at least 3 days between April 2005 and April 2006 at a university medical center recognized for providing intensive care for the seriously ill. RESULTS Over half of the patients (mean age, 62 years; 47% were women) were admitted to the hospital with end-stage disease, and 28% were 75 years or older. One-third of the patients required extubation from mechanical ventilation prior to death, and 15% died while receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Overall, patients received recommended care for 70% of applicable indicators (range, 25%-100%). Goals of care were addressed in a timely fashion for patients admitted to the intensive care unit approximately half of the time, whereas pain assessments (94%) and treatments for pain (95%) and dyspnea (87%) were performed with fidelity. Follow-up for distressing symptoms was performed less well than initial assessment, and 29% of patients extubated in anticipation of death had documented dyspnea assessments. CONCLUSION A practical, medical chart-based assessment identified discrete deficiencies in care planning and symptom palliation that can be targeted to improve care for patients dying in the hospital.

Evidence-Based Recommendations for Cancer Fatigue, Anorexia, Depression, and Dyspnea

PURPOSE The experience of patients with cancer often involves symptoms of fatigue, anorexia, depression, and dyspnea. METHODS We developed a set of standards through an iterative process of structured literature review and development and refinement of topic areas and standards and subjected recommendations to rating by a multidisciplinary expert panel. Results For fatigue, providers should screen patients at the initial visit, for newly identified advanced cancer, and at chemotherapy visits; assess for depression and insomnia in newly identified fatigue; and follow up after treatment for fatigue or a secondary cause. For anorexia, providers should screen at the initial visit for cancer affecting the oropharynx or gastrointestinal tract or advanced cancer, evaluate for associated symptoms, treat underlying causes, provide nutritional counseling for patients undergoing treatment that may affect nutritional intake, and follow up patients given appetite stimulants. For depression, providers should screen newly diagnosed patients, those started on chemotherapy or radiotherapy, those with newly identified advanced disease, and those expressing a desire for hastened death; document a treatment plan in diagnosed patients; and follow up response after treatment. For general dyspnea, providers should evaluate for causes of new or worsening dyspnea, treat or symptomatically manage underlying causes, follow up to evaluate treatment effectiveness, and offer opioids in advanced cancer when other treatments are unsuccessful. For dyspnea and malignant pleural effusions, providers should offer thoracentesis, follow up after thoracentesis, and offer pleurodesis or a drainage procedure for patients with reaccumulation and dyspnea. CONCLUSION These standards provide a framework for evidence-based screening, assessment, treatment, and follow-up for cancer-associated symptoms.

Cancer quality-ASSIST supportive oncology quality indicator set feasibility, reliability, and validity testing

Although measuring the quality of symptom management and end‐of‐life care could help provide a basis for improving supportive care for advanced cancer, few quality indicators in this area have been rigorously developed or evaluated.

Quality measures for supportive cancer care: the Cancer Quality-ASSIST Project.

Patients and physicians often cite symptom control as one of their most important goals in cancer care. Despite this, a previous systematic review found few tools for evaluating the quality of supportive cancer management. We developed a comprehensive set of quality indicators for evaluating pain and nonpain symptom management as well as care planning needs in cancer patients. Based on the prevalence and quality-of-life data, clinician-researchers prioritized pain, psychosocial distress, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting, fatigue and anorexia, treatment-associated toxicities, and information and care planning for quality-indicator development. Using search terms and selection criteria, we identified English-language documents from Medline (1997-2007) and Internet-based searches. Based on this evidence, clinician-reviewers proposed process quality indicators. We then used the VA Health Services Research and Development (VA HSR & D) appropriateness methods to compile the ratings of a multidisciplinary, international expert panel of the validity and feasibility of each indicator. The panel judged 92 out of 133 (69%) proposed quality indicators valid and feasible (15 out of 23 pain, 5 out of 6 depression, 8 out of 11 dyspnea, 15 out of 19 nausea and vomiting, 13 out of 26 fatigue and anorexia, 23 out of 32 other treatment-associated toxicities, and 13 out of 16 information and care planning). Of the final indicators, 67 are potentially useful for inpatient and 81 for outpatient evaluation, and 26 address screening, 12 diagnostic evaluation, 20 management, and 21 follow-up. These quality indicators provide evidence-explicit tools for measuring processes critical to ensuring high-quality supportive cancer care. Research is needed to characterize adherence to recommended practices and to evaluate the use of these measures in quality improvement efforts.

Patient beliefs that chemotherapy may be curative and care received at the end of life among patients with metastatic lung and colorectal cancer

Many patients with incurable cancer inaccurately believe that chemotherapy may cure them. Little is known about how such beliefs affect choices for care at the end of life. This study assessed whether patients with advanced cancer who believed that chemotherapy might offer a cure were more likely to receive chemotherapy in the last month of life and less likely to enroll in hospice care before death.

The Quality of Supportive Cancer Care in the Veterans Affairs Health System and Targets for Improvement

IMPORTANCE Characterizing the quality of supportive cancer care can guide quality improvement. OBJECTIVE To evaluate nonhospice supportive cancer care comprehensively in a national sample of veterans. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Using a retrospective cohort study design, we measured evidence-based cancer care processes using previously validated indicators of care quality in patients with advanced cancer, addressing pain, nonpain symptoms, and information and care planning among 719 veterans with a 2008 Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry diagnosis of stage IV colorectal (37.0%), pancreatic (29.8%), or lung (33.2%) cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES We abstracted medical records from diagnosis for 3 years or until death among eligible veterans (lived ≥ 30 days following diagnosis with ≥ 1 Veterans Affairs hospitalization or ≥ 2 Veterans Affairs outpatient visits). Each indicator identified a clinical scenario and an appropriate action. For each indicator for which a veteran was eligible, we determined whether appropriate care was provided. We also determined patient-level quality overall and by pain, nonpain symptoms, and information and care planning domains. RESULTS Most veterans were older (mean age, 66.2 years), male (97.2%), and white (74.3%). Eighty-five percent received both inpatient and outpatient care, and 92.5% died. Overall, the 719 veterans triggered a mean of 11.7 quality indicators (range, 1-22) and received a mean 49.5% of appropriate care. Notable gaps in care were that inpatient pain screening was common (96.5%) but lacking for outpatients (58.1%). With opioids, bowel prophylaxis occurred for only 52.2% of outpatients and 70.5% of inpatients. Few patients had a timely dyspnea evaluation (15.8%) or treatment (10.8%). Outpatient assessment of fatigue occurred for 31.3%. Of patients at high risk for diarrhea from chemotherapy, 24.2% were offered appropriate antidiarrheals. Only 17.7% of veterans had goals of care addressed in the month after a diagnosis of advanced cancer, and 63.7% had timely discussion of goals following intensive care unit admission. Most decedents (86.4%) were referred to palliative care or hospice before death. Single- vs multiple-fraction radiotherapy should have been considered in 28 veterans with bone metastasis, but none were offered this option. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These care gaps reflect important targets for improving the patient and family experience of cancer care.

Quality of Supportive Care for Patients with Advanced Cancer in a VA Medical Center

PURPOSE Using the Assessing Symptoms Side Effects and Indicators of Supportive Treatment (ASSIST) quality indicators (QIs), we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the quality of care provided in our institution to patients diagnosed with advanced cancer in 2006. METHODS Patients diagnosed with a Stage IV solid tumor were identified from the hospitals cancer registry. Using data abstracted from medical records, care was assessed using 41 explicit QIs. Mean percent adherence to QIs was calculated overall, as well as across five clinical domains: (1) Pain, (2) Depression and Psychosocial Distress, (3) Dyspnea, (4) Treatment Toxicity, (5) Other Symptoms, and (6) Information and Care Planning. RESULTS The study cohort (n = 118) was almost all male (2% female) and mean age was 65.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 9.9 years). The most common cancers were lung and head and neck cancer (23% each); 17% had prostate cancer; 13% had colorectal cancer; and the rest (24%) had breast, esophageal, stomach, genitourinary, liver/biliary, or pancreas cancer. Patients received 51% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48%-54%) of recommended care. Adherence to recommended care within domains ranged from 38% (95% CI 35%-42%) for Other Symptoms to 79% (95% CI 73%-86%) for Information and Care Planning. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that the quality of supportive care for patients with advanced cancer can be greatly improved. Future efforts should use the ASSIST indicators to evaluate the quality of supportive care in larger and more diverse cohorts of advanced cancer patients.