Outpatient Palliative Care Research Articles

Prognoses Associated With Palliative Performance Scale Scores in Modern Palliative Care Practice

The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) is one of the most widely used prognostic tools for patients with serious illness. However, current prognostic estimates associated with PPS scores are based on data that are over a decade old. To generate updated prognostic estimates by PPS score, care setting, and illness category, and examine how well PPS predicts short- and longer-term survival. This prognostic study was conducted at a large academic medical center with robust inpatient and outpatient palliative care practices using electronic health record data linked with data from California Vital Records. Eligible participants included patients who received a palliative care consultation between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2020. Data analysis was conducted from November 2022 to February 2024. Palliative care consultation with a PPS score documented. The primary outcomes were predicted 1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality and median survival of patients by PPS score in the inpatient and outpatient settings, and performance of the PPS across a range of survival times. In subgroup analyses, mortality risk by PPS score was estimated in patients with cancer vs noncancer illnesses and those seen in-person vs by video telemedicine in the outpatient setting. Overall, 4779 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.5 [14.8] years; 2437 female [51.0%] and 2342 male [49.0%]) had a palliative care consultation with a PPS score documented. Of these patients, 2276 were seen in the inpatient setting and 3080 were seen in the outpatient setting. In both the inpatient and outpatient settings, 1-, 6-, and 12-month mortality were higher and median survival was shorter for patients with lower PPS scores. Prognostic estimates associated with PPS scores were substantially longer (2.3- to 11.7-fold) than previous estimates commonly used by clinicians. The PPS had good ability to discriminate between patients who lived and those who died in the inpatient setting (integrated time-dependent area under the curve [iAUC], 0.74) but its discriminative ability was lower in the outpatient setting (iAUC, 0.67). The PPS better predicted 1-month survival than longer-term survival. Mortality rates were higher for patients with cancer than other serious illnesses at most PPS levels. In this prognostic study, prognostic estimates associated with PPS scores were substantially longer than previous estimates commonly used by clinicians. Based on these findings, an online calculator was updated to assist clinicians in reaching prognostic estimates that are more consistent with modern palliative care practice and specific to the patient's setting and diagnosis group.

Clinical practice review: outpatient palliative care for the geriatric chronic kidney disease population.

With a growing geriatric population in the United States, there is an increased need for healthcare resources and collaborative care for serious illnesses. Patients with chronic illnesses including chronic kidney disease (CKD) often experience severe symptoms and face complex decisions, many of which develop or occur in the outpatient setting. Though many of these symptoms overlap between different chronic illnesses, the CKD population remains largely untapped in terms of access to said resources; until recently, the focus in palliative care has been largely in the oncologic population. Older patients with CKD may benefit from additional tools and resources provided from collaborative care models specifically involving palliative care, especially as this population is high risk for experiencing lack of support. In this review, we use case vignettes to discuss the key concepts and roles of outpatient palliative care and how they can be integrated into the nephrology care of older patients with advanced kidney disease. These highlighted concepts include shared decision-making, selective deprescribing and symptom management, psychosocial support, and advance care planning. We also review different outpatient models for integrative palliative care, and the roles and resources of the palliative multidisciplinary team within these models and how these models can potentially be implemented in the care of CKD patients.

Optimale Versorgung am Lebensende aus der Angehörigenperspektive – eine qualitative Interviewstudie in zwei niedersächsischen Landkreisen

BackgroundEstablished as health insurance benefit in 2007, Specialized Palliative Home Care (SPHC) has been continuously expanded. At the same time, health policy initiatives intended to promote general outpatient palliative care. In comparison to urban centers, the development of palliative care networks in rural areas appears to be more difficult. In addition, there is an increasing shortage of family doctors in primary care. Family members play a key role in the home care for seriously ill patients. This paper therefore investigated the experiences of relatives with the end-of-life (EoL) care for family members with life-limiting chronic diseases in more rural regions. The aim was to determine aspects that, from the relatives’ point of view, are essential for optimizing EoL care. MethodsQualitative after-death interviews with relatives in two districts were conducted in the first six months of 2019, who were recruited by the deceased patients’ family doctor. Relatives (age ≥18 years) of patients who died in 2018 were included. The interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. ResultsIn the first half of 2019, 28 after-death interviews were conducted with 30 relatives (77% female, age: 32 to 83 years) from rural (n=8) and urban communities (n=22) in two Lower Saxonian counties. They were mostly in a partnership or parent-child relationship with the deceased person.The central categories and needs that emerged in the analysis were: (1) communication about dying and death, (2) information and enabling, (3) support of and relief for relatives, and (4) continuity and cooperation of the services involved in EoL care. The results underline the fact that family caregivers in particular find open communication, information to provide them with the confidence to act, recognizing and responding to support needs and continuity in the course helpful in coping with EoL care situations. Access problems to specialist medical care, deficiencies in care coordination and bureaucratic hurdles in the provision of medical aids proved to be an additional burden. DiscussionThe results underline the importance of open communication and the integration of relatives into the care process for optimal care at the end of life. Close cooperation between the services involved and proactive support for relatives are essential, too, especially in rural areas where the challenges of accessing and coordinating care services are a major concern. ConclusionThe identification and communication of complex problems, the needs of patients and their relatives and possible barriers to accessing care services are prerequisites for the timely initiation of palliative care measures and support for family caregivers. In addition to needs-based care structures, the optimization of EoL care in home settings requires cooperation and networking between professional stakeholders.

Outpatient Training During Hospice and Palliative Medicine Fellowship: A National Survey

ContextOutpatient palliative care (PC) has strong evidence demonstrating impact across serious illnesses, resulting in growing demand for skilled outpatient PC clinicians. However, there is limited literature examining the existing state and quality of outpatient PC education during postgraduate training. ObjectivesCharacterize the current state of outpatient training in United States (US) Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) physician fellowships and elicit perceptions regarding quality of outpatient PC education. MethodsA cross-sectional survey of US adult HPM fellowship program directors (PDs) or their designee conducted between March and July, 2023. ResultsOf 161 programs, 85 participated (53% response rate) with representation across all US regions. HPM fellows spend a median of 4.8 weeks in outpatient PC compared to 24 weeks inpatient PC and 10.5 weeks in hospice settings. Over half (51%) of fellows saw outpatients from primarily one disease type with limited exposure to patients with other serious illnesses. Across programs, fellows’ clinic structure, interdisciplinary team composition, and didactic experiences varied. On a 5-point rating scale, PDs reported significantly lower quality outpatient versus inpatient training (mean rating: 3.58 vs. 4.62, P<0.001) and perceived fellows as less prepared for independent outpatient practice upon graduation (mean: 4.06 vs. 4.73, P<0.001). ConclusionOur survey of US HPM fellowships identified multiple gaps between outpatient and inpatient PC education and training during fellowship and raises concern about the adequacy of outpatient PC training. To prepare the HPM workforce to meet the diverse needs of seriously ill populations and ensure adequate access, outpatient PC training requires reform.

Oncologic outpatient specialty palliative care referral utilization: A single institution quality improvement project.

e23205 Background: ASCO recommends that late-stage and/or recurrent disease patients with a prognosis of 6-24 months receive specialty palliative care within eight weeks of diagnosis. Prior studies suggest only 30% of eligible patients are referred to outpatient palliative care. Little is known about existing referral patterns to direct quality improvement initiatives. Our aim was to characterize outpatient palliative care referral sources, timeliness, and completion rates across our cancer center. More broadly, this investigation may serve as a model for outpatient palliative care utilization improvement at other cancer centers. Methods: A single institution retrospective quality improvement study was conducted of patients in the seven oncology subspecialties with the most palliative care referrals from 2019 – 2022. Data collected included demographics, referral source, and utilization metrics. Outcomes were rate of referral completion and time from referral to first palliative care visit, hospice enrollment, and/or death. Descriptive statistics were performed. Results: 1671 outpatient specialty palliative care referrals were placed. 57% were initiated by medical oncologists, 21% by inpatient palliative care consulting service at hospital discharge, and 14% by surgical oncology. 27% of referred patients did not schedule an appointment. Gynecologic and breast cancer patients had the highest rates of being scheduled. Median time from referral to appointment was 20 days (interquartile range 9 – 30 days). Reasons patients did not utilize palliative care included transition to hospice (41%), lack of interest (41%), or death prior to visit (7%). 79% of patients seen by palliative care who died were enrolled in hospice. Median time from palliative care referral to hospice enrollment was 66 days (IQR 22 – 164 days), and median time from hospice enrollment to death was 13 days (IQR 5 – 31 days). Conclusions: In a single institution self-evaluation, most patients referred to outpatient specialty palliative care completed referral within thirty days. Within the context of this institution, relevant goals for quality improvement interventions include increasing palliative care referrals among surgical oncologists and shifting palliative care referrals earlier in the disease course and prior to need for inpatient hospital admission. Understanding the elements of the creation of our palliative care referral database and relevant data tracking may serve as a method for other institutions to target interventions that may improve uptake of outpatient palliative care referrals at cancer centers more broadly.

Evolution of quality of life (QoL) and symptom burden (SB) in patients receiving inpatient palliative care (PC) following one week of care in a specialized palliative care unit (PCU): A comparison of two groups, with one receiving specialized outpatient palliative care prior to admission.

e23160 Background: This study sought to investigate changes in QoL and SB among PC Pt undergoing one week of inpatient care in a specialized PCU. The Pt population was stratified into two groups (Gp), with one Gp pretreated from pre-admission PC provided by an outpatient multidisciplinary PC team, while the other Gp did not receive such support prior to admission. Although the average duration of treatment at a PCU in Germany is 1-2 weeks, the question also arises as to whether a significant improvement in SB/QoL can be expected after just one week of PC in a PCU. Methods: PC Pt with various cancer entities were prospectively included in a non-randomized study. Pt in Gp 1 received outpatient specialized PC prior to admission, while Pt in Gp 2 did not. Over an 8-month period, we gathered data from one academic cancer center, utilizing the EORTC QLQ-C30, one of the most widely used Pt reported outcome (PRO) instruments to assess health-related QoL in cancer Pt. Pt completed the QLQ-C30 at T0 (admission) and T1 (day 7), enabling the assessment of potential changes in their QoL and SB over time. Results: A total of 103 pt (51.5% male) were enrolled (Gr 1: 42%, Gr 2: 58%). At T0, there were no significant differences regarding QLQ-C30 scores between Gp 1 and 2. Over the course of one week several significant and clinically relevant changes in QoL and SB were found: Emotional functioning demonstrated an uplift in both Gp (Gp 1: mean (M) 41.5 IQR 33 vs. 53.1 IQR 50, p 0.014, Gp 2: M 48.2 IQR 46 vs. 56.8 IQR 58, p 0.029), as did the global health status (Gp 1: M 20.7 IQR 17 vs. 36.2 IQR 33, p &lt; 0.001, Gp 2: M 25.6 IQR 25 vs. 35.3 IQR 33, p &lt; 0.001). Nausea and vomiting showed a reduction (Gp 1: M 29.9 IQR 17 vs. 6.8 IQR 0, p &lt; 0.001, Gp 2: M 22.6 IQR 17 vs. 8.2 IQR 0, p &lt; 0.001), along with a notable decline in pain (Gp 1: M 67.4 IQR 67 vs. 25.3 IQR 17, p &lt; 0.001, Gp 2: M 73.1 IQR 83 vs. 29.7 IQR 17, p &lt; 0.001). A decrease was observed in insomnia (Gp 1: M 63.6 IQR 67 vs. 27.6 IQR 33, p &lt; 0.001, Gp 2: M 60.1 IQR 67 vs. 27.6 IQR 33, p &lt; 0.001). There were no significant differences between Gp 1 and 2 in the extent of improvement in the various symptom scales from T0 to T1, except for cognitive functioning, where Gp 1 exhibited an increase while Gp 2 demonstrated a decrease (p 0.044). Conclusions: The findings of our study demonstrate that QoL and several symptoms prevalent in cancer Pt cared for in the PCU experienced significant enhancement over the span of just one week of PCU care. Both Gp, Pt receiving specialized outpatient PC prior to admission and those without, equally benefited from inpatient PC. All mentioned changes from T0 to T1 are considered not only significant, but clinically relevant.

Advance care planning and predictive factors among Brazilian patients with cancer from an outpatient palliative care program.

e24062 Background: Advance care planning (ACP) is crucial for informed decision-making in patient care. However, barriers such as time constraints and discomfort with discussions hinder widespread ACP adoption. A previous study (Cohen et al. JNCCN 2023) indicated a low ACP engagement rate (17%), but participation in a palliative care program has shown potential to increase this proportion. Therefore, we sought to determine the prevalence of ACP and identify associated predictor factors among patients with cancer in Brazil enrolled in an outpatient palliative care (OPC) program. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed from November 2022 to December 2023. Eligible patients were those who passed away during the study period and had received care from an OPC program at one of the largest private joint cancer centers in Latin America. We assessed the prevalence of ACP and explored its potential associations with clinical characteristics (age, gender and type of cancer), OCP support (follow-up period, appointments and family support), and end-of-life care (treatment in the past month, intensive care unit (ICU) admission in the past month, home care service referrals, and place of death).Comparative analyses involved two groups: those who had undergone ACP and those who had not (no-ACP). Logistic models were employed. Results: A total of 849 patients were included in the final analyses. Patients’ characteristics were well balanced between groups. Most patients were women (56%), with an average of 68.2 years (SD =15.3). Patients were mostly diagnosed with gastrointestinal (36%), breast (13%), and lung (13%) cancers. Notably, 43% of patients had ACP, significantly higher than literature controls (95% confidence interval [CI]= 22-31%, P = 0.001). Among the factors associated with ACP, clinical characteristics were not significant. However, OCP support and end-of-life care were significantly predicted by ACP, including the follow-up period (MACP= 179 vs. Mno-ACP= 101; P = 0.001), family support (MACP= 0.6 vs. Mno-ACP= 0.3; P &lt; 0.001) , ICU admission at the last 30 days of life (ACP = 28% vs. no-ACP = 72%; P &lt; 0.001), and home care service referral (ACP = 72% vs. no-ACP = 28%; P &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: These findings underscore that prolonged engagement with the OPC program is associated with increased adoption of ACP among Brazilian patients with cancer. Given the scarcity of data from developing countries, our findings suggest that the OPC program plays a pivotal role in optimizing end-of life care support through ACP.

Technology-enhanced palliative care for patients with advanced cancer undergoing phase I therapies: A pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT).

12017 Background: Outpatient palliative care (PC) has been found to improve quality of life (QOL). It is not known if more frequent symptom monitoring and PC nursing contacts between clinic visits would offer additional benefits. We conducted a pilot RCT to examine the effect of a specialist PC referral with and without technology-enhancement (TEC) on symptoms in patients undergoing Phase I cancer therapies. Methods: This single-center parallel group RCT enrolled adult patients with advanced solid tumors prior to starting Phase I therapies and at least 1 Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) symptom ≥4/10 and ESAS Global Distress Score (GDS) ≥20/90. Patients were randomized to PC alone or PC + TEC in a 1:1 ratio. Over the 12 w period, the PC group had in person or virtual outpatient visits with a PC physician, nurse, and as needed psychotherapist every 4 weeks; the PC + TEC group also received weekly symptom monitoring with ESAS electronically and weekly nursing phone call. The primary outcome was within-group change of GDS from baseline to 2 w; secondary outcomes included change in GDS over 4, 8, and 12 w, and change in QOL (FACIT-Sp) over 2, 4, 8 and 12 w. We estimated that a sample size of 50 patients per group would provide 90% power to detect a within-group GDS difference of 6 units with a 2-sided α of 2.5% and 20% attrition. Results: Between 12/15/2020 and 12/21/2022, 115 patients were enrolled and 101 were randomized (PC + TEC n = 57, PC n = 44). By 2 w, PC + TEC showed a significant within-group improvement in GDS (mean change -5 [95% CI -8.9, -1.2]; P= 0.01) but not PC alone (Table). PC+TEC group also had a significant improvement in GDS at 8 w and 12 w and in FACIT-SP at 2 w, 8 w and 12 w. PC alone group had a significant within-group improvement in GDS at 4 w and 12 w but no significant differences in QOL were detected. This study was not powered for between group comparison; however, FACIT-SP at 12 w was significantly higher in PC+TEC vs. PC alone (Table; mean difference 13.9; P= 0.02). Conclusions: Higher intensity of PC with closer monitoring showed within-group improvement in symptoms and QOL, while PC alone had some symptom reduction but no QOL improvement. Further studies are needed to confirm the QOL benefit of PC + TEC over PC alone. Clinical trial information: NCT04989556 . [Table: see text]

Implementation and preliminary efficacy of a risk stratification system +/- patient-reported outcomes monitoring for patients with hospital-diagnosed advanced lung cancer.

11095 Background: Risk stratification systems may improve quality of care for patients with advanced lung cancer (ALC) by identifying those at high risk of rehospitalization and directing them to supportive care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation and preliminary efficacy of a risk-based system, with/without electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring, to trigger supportive care for patients with hospital-diagnosed ALC. Methods: In this single-site, non-randomized, pragmatic study, patients in an academic center with hospital-diagnosed ALC were stratified to low or high risk using an established tool. High-risk patients were referred to two-pronged supportive care: patient navigation and outpatient palliative care. Eligible patients were recruited for 3 months of ePRO symptom monitoring coupled with provider alerts. Healthcare utilization was assessed at 90 days post-discharge. Program feasibility and acceptability were assessed using percent of eligible supportive care referrals made and completed, enrollment rates in ePROs, ePRO completion, and notifications to providers of concerning symptoms. Preliminary efficacy was defined as percentage of concerning ePRO symptoms resulting in new clinical action and 90-day readmissions. Results: At the time of interim analysis, 49 patients had been assessed with 48/49 (98%) identified as high risk. Patients had a mean age of 66 years, and were non-Hispanic, 51% male, and 22% Black. Patient navigation referral (92%) and completion (88%) was high. Palliative care referral (89%) and completion (45%) was lower. 14/39 (36%) of eligible patients enrolled in ePRO symptom monitoring, with competing priorities or feeling overwhelmed as the primary reasons for non-participation. Patient-level ePRO completion ranged from 0-100% (mean 53%). Nearly all (97%) concerning symptoms were reported to the clinical team; 27% of these resulted in new clinical action. By 90 days, 16/37 (43%) had hospital readmissions. Conclusions: Patient navigation was feasible and acceptable in patients with hospital-diagnosed ALC. However, there are ongoing barriers to implementation of post-hospitalization ePRO symptom monitoring and palliative care. Additional evaluation is needed to understand the barriers and facilitators and to measure the impact of navigation on patient outcomes. Since nearly all patients met high-risk criteria, future programs will eliminate risk stratification and target all patients with hospital-diagnosed ALC. Clinical trial information: NCT05722847 . [Table: see text]

Impact of COVID-19 on referrals to outpatient palliative care for patients with advanced cancer in a safety-net health system.

e24071 Background: Medically underserved adults with cancer experience challenges with access to care and tend to present at later disease stage. Amidst the complex needs of safety-net patients, the value of early palliative care (PC) services can go unrecognized. Few studies have examined PC referral patterns in the outpatient setting among advanced cancer patients within a safety-net system, and none has studied how or whether referrals have evolved since the most acute stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined PC referrals for cancer patients seen as outpatients in the urban safety-net primary provider of cancer care for uninsured individuals in Dallas, TX, and assessed changes from before to after the acute pandemic phase. Methods: We used tumor registry records linked to outpatient PC referral data from the safety-net health system’s electronic health record from January 1, 2018 to July 31, 2023. The primary outcome was a binary indicator for receipt of PC referral among patients diagnosed with advanced-stage solid tumor cancer. Using a multivariate logistic regression model, we evaluated whether our independent variable – a binary indicator for pre-pandemic (January 1, 2018 to February 28, 2020) and post-pandemic (March 1, 2020 to July 31, 2023) time periods – was associated with PC referrals. We included age, sex, race/ethnicity, cancer type, preferred language, and insurance as covariates. Results: Among 1,590 eligible patients (mean age 58.1, range: 21-94), 44% were female and 75% were non-White. Diagnoses included lung (20%), gastrointestinal (17%), colorectal (14%), breast (9%), prostate (9%), head/neck (9%), pancreatic (8%), gynecologic (6%), and other (8%) cancers. Across both time periods, a total of 785 (49%) of patients received a PC referral. Whereas 53% of the 754 patients in the pre-pandemic cohort received a PC referral, 46% of the 836 in the post-pandemic cohort received a referral. In the adjusted regression model, pre-pandemic patients were 1.26 times more likely to have a PC referral than post-pandemic patients (95% CI, 1.02-1.56). Referrals varied by cancer type across both time periods – compared to breast cancer patients, gynecologic cancer patients had lower odds of PC referral (aOR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.10-0.36) and pancreatic cancer patients had higher odds of PC referral (aOR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.71-5.00). Conclusions: Our analysis showed that referrals declined during the COVID-19 pandemic and revealed differing underlying patterns of PC referral along disease groups. Understanding pre-existing referral patterns and lasting practice changes post-pandemic can support clinicians to integrate PC and improve cancer outcomes. Findings can be used to develop interventions, such as clinical triggers, to improve PC delivery for underserved cancer patients.

P.097 Glioblastoma treatment, end-of-life resource utilization, and outcomes in Ontario

Background: The end-of-life (EoL) phase of care is pivotal for glioblastoma (GBM) patients. While early integration of palliative care has shown benefits in various cancer types, its role in GBM care remains underexplored. This study aims to characterize EoL care patterns in GBM patients, assessing their temporal evolution, regional disparities, and socioeconomic influences. Methods: This is retrospective study of all patients with GBM treated in Ontario between 1994 and 2018 using the ICES data repository. Variables analyzed included patient demographics, comorbidities, palliative care utilization, and aggressive/supportive care components. Results: We identified 9,013 GBM patients within the study period. There was a gradual increase in palliative care utilization over time, accompanied by a decrease in in-hospital deaths. However, the proportion of patients receiving chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life increased. Multivariate logistic regression found socioeconomic status influenced palliative care access and rural patients also had a higher rate of in-hospital deaths, possibly due to limitations in outpatient palliative care services. Conclusions: The findings in this study clarify the status of EoL care for GBM patients within Ontario, and demonstrates key areas for future research, underscoring the need for standardized EoL care practices to enhance the quality of care for GBM patients.

Consensus-based recommendations for the development and expansion of palliative day care clinics in Germany: results of a Delphi study

BackgroundNeeds-based, patient-oriented palliative care includes palliative day care clinics as a specialized semi-inpatient care offer. However, the establishment and development of these facilities has been unsystematic. Research is needed to strengthen their transparency and ensure their accessibility, quality, and structural adequacy. A national Delphi study was conducted to generate appropriate recommendations for the establishment and development of palliative day care clinics in Germany.MethodsRecommendations were formulated from focus group data on the development and expansion of palliative day care clinics in Germany. Experts on in- and outpatient palliative care rated 28 recommendations for relevance and feasibility, respectively, using a 4-point Likert-type scale. Suggestions for improvement were captured via free text comments. Items were considered consented when more than 80% of the experts scored them 4 (strongly agree) or 3 (somewhat agree), regarding both relevance and feasibility.ResultsA total of 23 experts (32% response rate) completed three Delphi rounds. Following the first round, 10 of 28 recommendations were revised according to participants’ comments; 1 recommendation was rejected. After the second round, 3 of these 10 recommendations were revised, while 3 were rejected. Consensus was achieved after the third round for 22 of the initial recommendations.ConclusionsThe Delphi-consented recommendations provide a basis for the targeted evidence- and needs-based development of palliative day care clinics. The findings show a need for standards setting and the meaningful integration of these clinics into existing structures.Trial registrationThe present study was prospectively registered on April 20, 2020, with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00021446).

Improving Recognition of Caregiver Burnout in Outpatient Palliative Care: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Improving Recognition of Caregiver Burnout in Outpatient Palliative Care: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Relevance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Cancer: Detection of Underrated Psychological Distress of Palliative Care Patients in an Outpatient Setting.

The overall level of physical and psychological symptom burden of advanced cancer patients (ACP) in an outpatient setting is notoriously difficult to assess. Therefore, more efficient and objective assessment is needed to accomplish this important task. The aim of this study was to compare the physical and psychological symptom burden rated by palliative care nurse (PCN) versus patient's self-rating. This retrospective German cohort study analyzed symptom burden using an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM). After referral to an outpatient specialized palliative care team, a PCN assessed the patient's symptoms both up to three months before initial presentation (IP) and at IP.Group differences were identified using analyses of variance (ANOVA). Further descriptive analysis of patient characteristics was used. The study enrolled 164 ACP who were referred to a specialized palliative care (SPC) team. Mean age was 62 (± 12.6) years. Gastrointestinal (n = 46; 28.0%), lung (n = 32; 19.5%), and breast cancer (n = 34; 20.7%) were the most common entities. Most frequent reasons for referral were pain (n = 55; 33.5%) and social care problems (n = 36; 22.0%). Patients reported significantly higher grades on depression (n = 144; Z = -2.8, p = 0.005), anxiety (n = 144; Z = -2.376, p = 0.018), and worsened general condition (n = 139; Z = -7.005, p < 0.001). ACP in an outpatient setting were more frequently referred to SPC for pain management and assistance with social problems with regard to the cancer and its limitations. Psychological distress was underrated by the PCN in comparison with patient self-reporting through ePROM. This underlines the importance of self-reported outcome measurement.

The Scope of Practice of an Outpatient Pediatric Palliative Care Oncology Clinic

The Scope of Practice of an Outpatient Pediatric Palliative Care Oncology Clinic

Impact of an APRN Directed Workflow Change on Outpatient Palliative Care Referral Acceptance Rates

Impact of an APRN Directed Workflow Change on Outpatient Palliative Care Referral Acceptance Rates

Measuring the Impact of Outpatient Palliative Care

Measuring the Impact of Outpatient Palliative Care

Strategies to Integrate Outpatient Palliative Care in Parkinson's Foundation Centers of Excellence (RP312)

Strategies to Integrate Outpatient Palliative Care in Parkinson's Foundation Centers of Excellence (RP312)

Nurse-led Telephonic Case Management versus Outpatient Palliative Care in Older Adults with Serious Illness (SAPLEN 101)

Nurse-led Telephonic Case Management versus Outpatient Palliative Care in Older Adults with Serious Illness (SAPLEN 101)

Nurse-led Telephonic Case Management versus Outpatient Palliative Care in Older Adults with Serious Illness

Nurse-led Telephonic Case Management versus Outpatient Palliative Care in Older Adults with Serious Illness