What Patients Facing Cancer and Caregivers Want From Communication in Times of Crisis: A Qualitative Study in the Early Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Interpersonal communication is a cornerstone of patient-centered care. We aimed to identify what patients with cancer and caregivers may want from communication during a public health crisis.

METHODS

We interviewed 15 patients (8 Veteran, 7 non-Veteran) and caregivers from regionally, racially, and ethnically diverse backgrounds across the US about serious illness care and quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic Using an iterative, inductive and deductive process, 2 coders analyzed content associated with the code "Communication," which appeared 71 times, and identified 5 themes.

RESULTS

Participants identified as White (10), Latino/a (3), Asian (1), and Black (1). (1) Help patients and caregivers prepare for care during crisis by communicating medical information directly and proactively. (2) Explain how a crisis might influence medical recommendations and impact on recovery from illness. (3) Use key messengers to improve communication between primary teams, patients, and caregivers. (4) Include caregivers and families in communication when they cannot be physically present. (5) Foster bidirectional communication with patients and families to engage them in shared decision-making during a vulnerable time.

CONCLUSION

Communication is critical during a public health crisis yet overwhelmed clinicians may not be able to communicate effectively. Communicating with caregivers and family, transparent and timely communication, ensuring diverse providers are on the same page, and effective listening are known gaps even before the COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians may need quick interventions, like education about goals of care, to remind them about what seriously ill patients and their caregivers want from communication and offer patient-centered care during crises.

Depression care quality among patients with solid tumor cancers detected to have depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics

Patients with cancer, especially advanced cancer, experience depression at high rates. We aimed to evaluate the quality of depression care received by patients with solid tumor cancer and advanced solid tumor cancer in Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients seen in 82 VA primary care clinics who newly screened positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2). Outcomes included timely follow-up within 84 or 180 days (3+ mental health specialty, 3+ psychotherapy, or 3+ primary care visits with depression diagnosis codes) and minimum treatment within 1 year (60+ days antidepressants prescribed, 4+ mental health specialty visits, or 3+ psychotherapy visits). 608,042 individuals were seen in VA primary care clinics during this period; 49,839 patients (8.2%) had solid tumor cancer and 9,278 (1.5%) had advanced or poor-prognosis solid tumor cancer. For 686 observations of patients with cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 22.3% within 84 days and 38.2% within 180 days. For 73 observations of patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer and new depression, rates of appropriate follow-up were 21.9% within 84 days and 34.3% within 180 days. Rates of minimum treatment within 1 year were 68.4% and 64.4% for patients with cancer and patients with advanced or poor-prognosis cancer, respectively. Quality of timely depression management is low in patients with solid tumor cancers. Even in health systems with well-integrated mental health services, care gaps remain for patients with cancer and depression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrating Patient and Expert Perspectives to Conceptualize High-Quality Palliative Cancer Care for Symptoms in the US Veterans Health Administration: A Qualitative Study

Quality measurement is typically the domain of clinical experts and health system leaders; patient/caregiver perspectives are rarely solicited. We aimed to describe and integrate clinician and patient/caregiver conceptualizations of high-quality palliative symptom care for patients receiving care for advanced cancer within the US Veterans Health Administration in the context of existing quality measures. We conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of transcripts from prioritization discussions of process quality measures relevant to cancer palliative care. These discussions occurred during 2 modified RAND-UCLA appropriateness panels: a panel of 10 palliative care clinical expert stakeholders (7 physicians, 2 nurses, 1 social worker) and a panel of 9 patients/caregivers with cancer experience. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and independently double-coded using an a priori logical framework. Content analysis was used to identify subthemes within codes and axial coding was used to identify crosscutting themes. Patients/caregivers and clinical experts contributed important perspectives to 3 crosscutting themes. First, proactive elicitation of symptoms is critical. Patients/caregivers especially emphasized importance of comprehensive and proactive screening and assessment, especially for pain and mental health. Second, screening and assessment alone is not enough; information elicited from patients must inform care. Measuring screening/assessment and management care processes separately has important limitations. Lastly, high-quality symptom management can be broadly defined if it is patient-centered; high-quality care takes an individualized approach and might include non-medical or non-pharmacological symptom management. Integrating the perspectives of clinical experts and patients/caregivers is critical for health systems to consider as they design and implement quality measures for palliative cancer care.

SPREAD OF QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IMPLEMENTED IN A GERIATRICS WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

This project characterizes spread of quality improvement (QI) projects initiated in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Geriatric Scholars Program (GSP) workforce development program. This mixed methods study analyzes a recent cross-sectional survey of GSP participants and program-level data on participant characteristics and QI project topics. We surveyed 578 scholars who had completed all program requirements to that point, and still worked for VA; 207 (35%) responded. The majority of respondents who had been in the program for at least six months (70%) reported sustainment of their QI project beyond initial implementation and nearly a third (30.4%) reported any spread beyond their own care team. QI project topics spanned many domains and percent of projects reporting spread varied across domains from 0% to 67%. A workforce development capstone activity in which participants demonstrate substantive and methodological competency can foster bottom-up QI activities in a large, diverse health care system.