A Short Report Examining the Introduction of Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Mixed Oncology Population

An Analysis of Healthcare Usage & Place of Death in England for All Adults Who Died in 2021/22

OBJECTIVE

We wanted to examine the healthcare use and non-elective activity in the UK population of expected deaths over an 1-year period to highlight and examine the reasons for variation. We did this to identify areas to focus interventions or resources on to reduce unnecessary emergency care use at the end of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We assembled a data set of approximately 400 000 adults who died in England in the financial year 2021/22 (April 2021-March 2022). Any adults classified as a 'sudden death' were excluded. We used available data to ensure outcome measures were relevant used expert consensus to agree what to examine. We recorded place of death and examined urgent care in terms of admissions in the last year and 90 days of life. We also used recorded hospital care days as elective and non-elective usage.

RESULTS

There were over 400 000 decedents included in our regression models. Close to half died in hospital (44%). Three-quarters (77%) had at least one day of unplanned hospital care in the 90 days before they died, and half (56%) had at least one day of planned hospital care.

CONCLUSION

Reliance on urgent care for those approaching end-of-life may indicate poor care planning and integration of services. A relatively modest increase in the amount of community care a person receives at end-of-life can substantially reduce the likelihood of dying in hospital. Those with a cancer cause of death are far less likely to die in hospital.

A study demonstrating users' preference for the adapted-REQUITE patient-reported outcome questionnaire over PRO-CTCAE® in patients with lung cancer

Introduction

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to enhance the accuracy of symptom collection and improve overall survival and quality of life. This is the first study comparing concordance and patient preference for two PRO tools: Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) and the adapted-REQUITE Lung Questionnaire.

Materials and Methods

Patients with lung cancer were recruited to the study while attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre. Clinician-reported outcomes were generated through initial patient assessment with CTCAE v4.03. Participants then completed the PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Concordance between the 2 questionnaires was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient. PRO-CTCAE® and CTCAE concordance was demonstrated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient from the linear predictors of an ordinal logistic regression. P-values were also calculated.

Results

Out of 74 patients approached, 65 provided written informed consent to participate in the study. 63 (96.9%) patients completed both PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Pearson correlation coefficient between PRO tools was 0.8-0.83 (p <.001). Correlation between CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® ranged between 0.66-0.82 (p <.001). Adapted-REQUITE and CTCAE correlation was higher for all symptoms ranging between 0.79-0.91 (p <.001). Acceptable discrepancies within one grade were present in 96.8%-100% of symptom domains for REQUITE and in 92.1%-96.8% for all domains in the PRO-CTCAE®. 54% of the total participant cohort favored the adapted-REQUITE questionnaire due to reduced subjectivity in the questions and ease of use.

Conclusion

The adapted-REQUITE questionnaire has shown a superior correlation to clinician-reported outcomes and higher patient preference than the PRO-CTCAE®. The results of this study suggest the use of the REQUITE questionnaire for patients with lung cancer in routine clinical practice.

Enhanced supportive care

Enhanced supportive care is a care model providing earlier access to multiprofessional, coordinated care for patients from the point of cancer diagnosis. As a proactive model of care, it stands as a contrast to providing access to a multidisciplinary team once a patient has hit a crisis point, or when their prognosis has become sufficiently poor that they are able to access traditional end-of-life services. Its arrival in the UK through palliative care teams working in cancer care has led to enhanced supportive care being synonymous with early palliative care. While enhanced supportive care has enabled early palliative care, as it has become more embedded in the UK, it has taken on a wider remit for patients living longer with cancer and the management of side effects. Enhanced supportive care services have also begun to provide care for cancer survivors. Enhanced supportive care services have a key role in modern cancer care in maintaining and improving patients' quality of life alongside cancer treatment and ensuring that patients' priorities and preferences for treatment are considered. Furthermore, enhanced supportive care has been shown to support the wider healthcare system by creating capacity within the NHS, reducing demand on hospital services and saving money. As enhanced supportive care services continue to grow and venture into the care and support of cancer survivors and those receiving potentially curative treatments, ongoing work is needed to determine how these services can be made available throughout the NHS and how a shared vision of the way enhanced supportive care operates can be realised.

Delivery Models and Health Economics of Supportive Care Services in England: A Multicentre Analysis

AIMS

Improvements in cancer treatment have led to more people living with and beyond cancer. These patients have symptom and support needs unmet by current services. The development of enhanced supportive care (ESC) services may meet the longitudinal care needs of these patients, including at the end of life. This study aimed to determine the impact and health economic benefits of ESC for patients living with treatable but not curable cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective observational evaluation was undertaken over 12 months across eight cancer centres in England. ESC service design and costs were recorded. Data relating to patients' symptom burden were collected using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS). For patients in the last year of life, secondary care use was compared against an NHS England published benchmark.

RESULTS

In total, 4594 patients were seen by ESC services, of whom 1061 died during follow-up. Mean IPOS scores improved across all tumour groups. In total, £1,676,044 was spent delivering ESC across the eight centres. Reductions in secondary care usage for the 1061 patients who died saved a total of £8,490,581.

CONCLUSIONS

People living with cancer suffer with complex and unmet needs. ESC services appear to be effective at supporting these vulnerable people and significantly reduce the costs of their care.

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care

BACKGROUND

Cancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service.

RESULTS

100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

Experience With the Routine Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Patients With Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The Christie NHS Foundation Trust launched their electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) service in January 2019 in the routine clinical setting. The lung cancer questionnaires consist of 14 symptom items, adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life (QoL) tool. Patients with lung cancer are invited to complete questionnaires assessing their symptoms and QoL using an online platform.

METHODS

The ePROM responses and clinical, pathologic, and treatment data for patients who completed the questionnaires between January 2019 and December 2020 were extracted from electronic medical records. The symptom and QoL scores of patients who completed baseline pretreatment ePROMs and also those who completed ePROMs pre- and postpalliative lung systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) or radical thoracic radiotherapy were evaluated. Pretreatment questionnaires were analyzed according to age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) comorbidity score.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred eighty patients with lung cancer were included. There were no statistically significant differences in symptoms and QoL scores between age groups. Cough (P = .006) and EQ-5D-5L mobility scores (P = .006) were significantly worse for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1. Dyspnea (P = .035), hemoptysis (P = .023), nausea (P = .041), mobility (P = .004), and self-care (P = .0420) were significantly worse for those with higher ACE-27 scores (2-3 v 0-1). Palliative SACT was associated with a significant improvement in cough (P < .001) and hemoptysis (P = .025), but significantly negatively affected mobility (P = .013). Patients receiving radical thoracic radiotherapy reported a significant improvement in hemoptysis (P = .042) but worse pain (P = .002) and fatigue (P = .01). Other changes in symptom and QoL scores were not significant.

CONCLUSION

The symptoms and QoL reported at baseline and before and after both palliative SACT and radical thoracic radiotherapy are clinically relevant and meaningful. We have demonstrated that routine implementation of ePROMs into clinical practice is feasible and can inform clinical practice and future research.

Cancer centre supportive oncology service: health economic evaluation

OBJECTIVES

There have been many models of providing oncology and palliative care to hospitals. Many patients will use the hospital non-electively or semielectively, and a large proportion are likely to be in the last years of life. We describe our multidisciplinary service to treatable but not curable cancer patients at University Hospitals Sussex. The team was a mixture of clinical nurse specialists and a clinical fellow supported by dedicated palliative medicine consultant time and oncology expertise.

METHODS

We identified patients with cancer who had identifiable supportive care needs and record activity with clinical coding. We used a baseline 2019/2020 dataset of national (secondary uses service) data with discharge code 79 (patients who died during that year) to compare a dataset of patients seen by the service between September 2020 and September 2021 in order to compare outcomes. While this was during COVID-19 this was when the funding was available.

RESULTS

We demonstrated a reduction in length of stay by an average of 1.43 days per admission and a reduction of 0.95 episodes of readmission rates. However, the costs of those admissions were found to be marginally higher. Even with the costs of the service, there is a clear return on investment with a benefit cost ratio of 1.4.

CONCLUSIONS

A supportive oncology service alongside or allied to acute oncology but in conjunction with palliative care is feasible and cost-effective. This would support investment in such a service and should be nationally commissioned in conjunction with palliative care services seeing all conditions.