Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Palliative Care Tom Smith Thomas Palliative Care Program Massey Cancer Center Virginia Commonwealth University Health System Richmond, Virginia [email protected] *“It’s hard to define it, but you know it when you see it.” -George Parker, MD Objectives and plan • What is palliative care, and why do it? • How we did what we did, and • Some research opportunities The Tao of Cancer… Berrill Yushomerski Yankelowitz, modified by Smith Felson’s Law: to steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many is research. Why we did it The SUPPORT Study JAMA 1995;274:1591-98 • 46% of DNR orders were written within 2 days of death. • Of patients preferring DNR, <50% of their MDs were aware of their wishes. • 38% of those who died spent >10 days in ICU. • Half of patients had moderate-severe pain >50% of last 3 days of life. • Local needs assessment: 6+ cancer patients dying at any one time, many in need of better care Pain data from SUPPORT Desbiens & Wu. JAGS 2000;48:S183-186. % of 5176 patients reporting moderate to severe pain between days 8-12 of hospitalization: colon cancer 60% liver failure 60% lung cancer MOSF + cancer 57% 53% MOSF + sepsis COPD CHF 52% 44% 43% Key Performance Measures UHC, May 2004 Aggregat e Average Pain assessment within 48 hours of admission 95.5% Use of a numeric scale to assess pain 75.4% Pain relief or reduction within 48 hours of admission 73.2% Bowel regimen ordered with opioid therapy order 59.2% Dyspnea assessment within 48 hours of admission 89.1% Dyspnea relief or reduction within 48 hours of admission 75.8% Document patient status within 48 hours of admission 19.5% Psychosocial assessment within 4 days of admission 27.6% Patient/family meeting within 1 week of admission 39.9% Plan for discharge disposition documented within 4 days of admission 50.3% Also: 20% of Medicare patients starting NEW chemo with 2 weeks of death Hospice referrals coming later, if at all…. Why the mismatch between what we want, what could be provided? • Health care professionals – Lack of time? – Lack of training – Lack of interest – Lack of reimbursement – Hard to get/stay involved (“burnout”) – It’s just hard • Patients – Don’t have high expectations – Suffering is good – Be a good patient – If I tell the doctor… • She/he will give up on me • It means that the cancer is growing Why we did it -- Educational Meier, Morrison & Cassel. Ann Intern Med 1997;127:225-30. Deficiencies in medical education. Billings & Block JAMA 1997;278:733. • 74% of residencies in U.S. offer no training in end of life care. • 41% of medical students never witnessed an attending talking with a dying person or his family, and • Medically underserved and minorities less likely to use hospice/palliative care…about 50% expected utilization • Oncologists consistently report lack of training in symptom management, and no one to refer Costs are a problem: National Health Expenditure Growth 1970-2003 16 Annual % Change 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1/8th of Medicare $ spent in last 60 days of life New drugs: Oxaliplatin, Erbitux $4000/cycle; Avastin $100,000/12 months, adds 2 months life “Medicare doesn’t pay me enough to talk to people.” There was some experience suggesting that care could be improved… often dramatically Oncology patient pain management is not optimal, and can be improved by paying attention, following algorithm, …. Figure 1.1: Effect of interventions on pain control Smith TJ et al. The Cancer Pain Trial. Randomized trial of intra-spinal pain medications vs usual care. JCO 2002:20:4040-49. 8 7 Pain VAS Scores Du Pen SL, et al. RCT of 81 pts Algorithm of AHCPR guidelines vs standard practice J Clin Oncol 1999;17:361-70 Control, CPT 6 5 4 Algorithm, DuPen 3 Control, DuPen 2 1 0 0 1 2 Months 3 Coordinated Care Models Raftery JP et al. Palliat Med 1996;10:151 Intervention: a nurse coordinator in charge so that families had someone to call 24/7 • Outcomes did not change for terminally ill cancer patients • Costs reduced from £8814 to £4414 (41%) • Savings came from decreased hospital days, outpatient care • Keep patients out of the ER Project Safe Conduct: Ireland CC + Hospice of Western Reserve. • 233 NSCLC pts seen concurrently with HWR • APN/HWR, MSW, chaplain + oncologist • Hospice use ↑ 13% to 80%, and LOS 10 to 44 days • Once project over, ICC hired team from HWR to expand the program Pitorak E, J Pall Med2003;6: 645-655 http://www2.edc.org/lastacts/archives/archivesJuly02/featureinn.asp RCT of usual oncology vs. usual oncology + concurrent hospice care. J Finn, ASCO 2002 • 167 Pts on concurrent care vs. 166 on usual care – – – – had preserved QOL longer used less chemo lived slightly longer Caregiver burden less • Intervention saved $2500/pt in hosp days • Intervention cost an additional $17,500/pt for 6 months Improvement in Symptoms for 2500 Mount Sinai Hospital Patients Followed by the Palliative Care Service (6/97-10/02) Severe Pain Nausea Moderate Dyspnea Mild None Initial Evaluation Final Evaluation Percent of Palliative Care Families Satisfied or Very Satisfied Following Their Loved Ones Death With: • • • • • Control of pain - 95% Control of non-pain symptoms - 92% Support of patient’s quality of life - 89% Support for family stress/anxiety - 84% Manner in which you were told of patient’s terminal illness - 88% • Overall care provided by palliative care program95% Source: Post-Discharge/Death Family Satisfaction Interviews, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York City So, what did we do? TPCU of VCU-Massey Cancer Center • 11 bed inpatient dedicated unit, 5/1/00 • ~1800 nursing and medical consultations a year • 2 APNs (Pat Coyneclinical director) • 4 oncology attendings + geriatrician (1 FTE), • Shared MSW and Care Coordinator • Chaplain 100% Where do hospital-based PC programs focus? Clinical Effort 0% Curative Care Dx Disease Course Death Bereavement Palliative Care TPCU of VCU-Massey Cancer Center • Start up funds limited – Hospital remodeled one wing of old hospital – Jessie Ball duPont Foundation $300K – Thomas (Hospice) Foundation $150K TPCU of Massey Cancer Center and VCUHS • ALL standardized orders – RNs make decisions, manage by algorithms – 10-15% reduction in costs with standardized care. Smith, Desch, Hillner. J Clin Oncol. 2001 Jun 1;19(11):2886-97. • High Volume, Standardized care – Limited Attendings, much supervision – Strong “high volume=good outcome” relationship in most of cancer medicine. Hillner, Smith. J Clin Oncol. 2000 Jun;18(11):2327-40 – Feedback: tests, $/day spent TPCU of VCU-Massey Cancer Center • Only 50% have cancer – CVAs, MOSF, renal/hepatic failure, AIDS – 1% BMTU – Sickle cell (when beds available) • 52% of admissions end in death – Of discharges, 90% in hospice eventually • Average age ~55 • African-American 56%, same as VCU Medical Center overall • Main referring center to 4 hospices TPCU Objective: a Good Death A d u l t D e a th s i n I n p a ti e n t U n i ts a t V C U H S / M C V H , 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 2 1 4 7 2 1 1 2 4 1 D ie d o n T P C U 7 3 7 7 0 7 6 3 1 1 99 9 2000 2001 D ie d o n O t h e r U n i t s 5 9 1 20 0 2 at M CVH -29% of all deaths -64% of all cancer deaths Better Care -94% highly satisfied -90+% excellent symptom control Symptoms are improved by PC consultation or transfer ESAS scale 0-3 30 pts with at least 2 consult days and symptoms >0 Khatcheressian J, et al. Oncology September 2005 Pain 2.5 Nausea ESAS 0-3 2 Depression 1.5 Anxious 1 Shortness of Breath Drowsy 0.5 0 Appetite 1st day Comparison Day Fatigue/Activity PC service does provide better care than average, on most measures Median VCU VCU PC Pain assessment within 48 hours of admission 98.5% 97.6% 100% Use of a numeric scale to assess pain 85.2% 85.2% 83.3% Pain relief or reduction within 48 hours of admission 78.3% 77.8% 83% Bowel regimen ordered with opioid therapy order 59.1% 63.6% 95% Dyspnea assessment within 48 hours of admission 95% 100% 100% Dyspnea relief or reduction within 48 hours of admission 80% 78.6% 83.3% Document patient status within 48 hours of admission 15.6% 17.1% 95% Psychosocial assessment within 4 days of admission 17.8% 9.8% 40% Patient/family meeting within 1 week of admit 40.5% 0% 65% Plan for discharge disposition documented within 4 days of admit 55% 43.9% 90% Discharge planner / social services arranged services required for disch 75% 68.3% 95% Key Performance Measure (discussion must include planning and/or preferences for discharge) Khatcheressian J, et al. Oncology September 2005 TPCU Education • It is “normal” to have good EOL care, and this is an attainable goal • Fellowship in Palliative Care • Elective in palliative care • Work closely with GYN Onc, Surg Onc, Rad Onc, ICU staff, esp. Neurosurgery • JCAHO help • “Magnet designation” help TPCU of Massey Cancer Center and VCUHS • We still do the cool stuff, and research – intrathecal pain management – hypofractionated and stereotactic radiation – palliative stents – bisphosphonates – chemotherapy – nerve ablation, celiac blocks – acupuncture – music, pet, massage therapy TPCU of Massey Cancer Center and VCUHS Research • Dyspnea research – The most common end of life symptom, after pain – 20% of all cancer patients – Major cause of family and patient suffering – Phase II trial of 25 mcg fentanyl in 2 ml NS nebulized saline Nebulized fentanyl for dyspnea Coyne P, Smith T, et al. Pain and Symptom Mgmt, 2002. Patients said that it helped Improved 26/37 (79%) Unsure 3/27 (9%) None 4/37 (12%) 100 80 P=0.002 60 Oxygen Sat Resp Rate 40 20 P=0.03 0 0 5 60 Minutes Implantable Drug Delivery Systems Research 10 As Randomized As Treated 9 8 VAS Score 7 52% 6 5 39% 4 3 2 1 0 CM M (n=72 ) IDDS (n=71) Baseline Error bars are +/- 2 standard errors. CM M (n-72 ) IDDS (n=71) 4 Week No t Imp lanted Imp lanted (n-54 ) (n=8 9 ) Baseline No t Imp lanted Imp lanted (n=54 ) (n-8 9 ) 4 Week Significantly improved pain control with IDDS (p=0.055 as randomized; p=0.007 as treated). As treated, there was significant reduction in 7/15 symptoms measured * Fatigue Confusion * Reduced Level of consciousness * Memory loss Personality * Individual Toxicity Anorexia Constipation * Dehydration Nausea Vomiting * Weight loss Pruritus * Urticaria Impotence Reduced libido -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Reduction in Mean Severity 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 *p0.05. Overall Survival was better with IDDS (Kaplan-Meier, intention to treat) 100% OS PS, p<0.05 90% 80% Survival (%) 70% IDDS: 53.9% 60% median 50% 40% CMM: 37.2% 30% 20% P=0.06 10% 0% 0 30 60 99 101 76 86 65 70 56 57 Percentage of surviving patients implanted (%) CMM 6.6% 24.6% 33.9% IDDS 120 150 180 46 50 38 49 20 35 34.8% 84.0% 39.5% 83.7% 45.0% 85.7% Days No. at Risk CMM IDDS 90 72.1% 78.6% 79.0% Other trials • RCT of nebulized fentanyl vs. placebo • RCT of Zinc vs placebo for chemo-induced dysgeusia • Cultural attitudes about use of Palliative Care. • Website with truthful information about prognosis, options, survival • “What would you do differently?” longitudinal study of the decisions patients make • PET therapy Be prepared for the long haul Umstead 100 MMTR 50+++ Sounds great… who’s gonna pay for it? TPCU Fiscal Evaluation Smith, Coyne, Cassel, Hager. J Pall Med 2003 • On PCU care is less expensive and variable than elsewhere in hospital. • “Cost avoidance” – In the 1st 2 years, TPCU lost $90,000 but saved the health system ~$1,800,000 Impact of Palliative Care on Cost per Day for Deaths $ 4,500 died elsewhere (mean prior to May 2000= $ 3,341; after May 2000= $ 2,970) $ 4,000 Avg Cost / Day $ 3,500 $ 3,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,000 $ 1,500 died on PCU (mean= $ 1,474) $ 1,000 $ 500 May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1999 2000 2001 Lower Cost Per Day After Transfer To Palliative Care Have “the talk”: Cohort study: 60% less cost Case Control study: 67% less cost $ 2,500 Transfer to PCU $ 2,000 $ 1,500 Avg Reimbursement / Day Review orders oxygen antibiotics tube feeds multiple meds Standard algorithms POS correction High volume, expert attendings $ 1,000 Avg Total Cost / Day $ 500 $0 -20 -19 -18 -17 -16 -15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Day of stay, in relation to transfer to PCU (day 1) 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Even Palliative Care (MCVH) can be profitable FY03 Discharges Inpatient Days Avg LOS Direct Admits to PCU FY04 FY05 Projected 233 204 222 1,244 879 917 5.3 4.3 4.1 Gross Charges $ 2,339,265 $ 1,712,256 $ 2,334,138 Total Cost $ 1,639,059 $ 1,115,008 $ 1,407,836 Direct Cost $ 817,757 $ 651,851 $ 793,619 Variable Cost $ 648,203 $ 483,615 $ 587,924 Mixed Reimbursement $ 1,691,855 $ 1,407,375 $ 1,881,649 Contrib Margin (dir cost) $ 874,098 $ 755,524 $ 1,088,030 Contrib Margin (var cost) $ 1,043,652 $ 923,760 $ 1,293,725 Total Profit (loss) $ 52,796 $ 292,367 $ 473,813 “If you listen carefully to your patients they will tell you not only what is wrong with them but what is wrong with you.” Walker Percy MD, Love in the Ruins 1971 TPCU and the ICUs Table 1: Referrals from ICUs FY 00 FY 01 % from ICUs (%) LOS before Transfer (days) LOS after Transfer (days) Total LOS (days) 10.7 FY 02 21.4 11.4 19.8 9.l FY 03 (6 mos) 29.0 7.2 6.9 6.1 5.8 18.3 15.2 13.0 NP makes rounds to identify patients for consults, MD-MD Earlier transfer of dying patients may improve EOL care and reduce cost. “Off-loads” ICUs and avoids diversion. TPCU Evaluation • Clinical care excellent • Health System impact – Helps bed availability – Profitable for direct admits – Save VCUHS $900,000 to $1,200,000 • Research growing, important to NCI • Educational progress across the Health System • Little staff turnover, better VCUHS satisfaction Don’t reinvent the wheel, or, why not learn from our mistakes? • Center to Advance Palliative Care, www.capc.org • 6 National Palliative Care Leadership Centers Carrie Cybulski Program Coordinator Massey Cancer Center 804-628-1918 (phone) 804-828-5083 (fax) [email protected] Conclusions • Better symptom management and end of life care is important, do-able, and part of our mission • Starting a program is a major undertaking like any other multidisciplinary service/research/education program • PC can improve care, be focus of research in real-world problems, be cost-neutral