Palliative care for cancer patients near end of life in acute-care hospitals across Canada: a look at the inpatient palliative care code

Hospitals play an important role in the care of patients with advanced cancer: nearly half of all cancer deaths occur in acute-care settings. The need for increasing access to palliative care and related support services for patients with cancer in acute-care hospitals is therefore growing. Here, we examine how often and how early in their illness patients with cancer might be receiving palliative care services in the 2 years before their death in an acute-care hospital in Canada. The palliative care code from inpatient administrative databases was used as a proxy for receiving, or being referred for, palliative care. Currently, the palliative care code is the only data element routinely collected from patient charts that allows for the tracking of palliative care activity at a pan-Canadian level. Our findings suggest that most patients with cancer who die in an acute-care hospital receive a palliative designation; however, many of those patients are identified as palliative only in their final admission before death. Of the patients who received a palliative designation before their final admission, nearly half were identified as palliative less than 2 months before death. Findings signal that delivery of services within and between jurisdictions is not consistent, that the palliative care needs of some patients are being missed by physicians, and that palliative care is still largely seen as end-of-life care and is not recognized as an integral component of cancer care. Measuring the provision of system-wide palliative care remains a challenge because comprehensive national data about palliative care are not currently reported from all sectors. To advance measurement and reporting of palliative care in Canada, attention should be focused on collecting comparable data from regional and provincial palliative care programs that individually capture data about palliative care delivery in all health care sectors.

Understanding the Experiences of Cancer Patients as They Transition From Treatment to Primary and Community Care: A Pan-Canadian Study of Over 13,000 Cancer Survivors

Background: Being diagnosed with cancer can be overwhelming, with many physical and emotional challenges. As needs of survivors shift from disease management to recovery, the adjustment is often not seamless. Ideally, a health care system is integrated and responsive to the needs of survivors, however, when cancer treatment is complete, they often face lingering concerns. Limited patient-reported data were available in Canada on experiences and barriers survivors face posttreatment. Aim: The Experiences of Cancer Patients in Transition study is the first national survey gathering data from cancer survivors in Canada as they transition from cancer care to the broader health care system. Methods: A survey was developed in consultation with patients/survivors, health care providers and researchers to address experiences related to physical, emotional, informational and practical needs. Ethics approvals were obtained and 10 provinces participated. Cancer survivors expected to have completed treatment within 1-3 years were identified from provincial cancer registries. Included were those aged 30+ at diagnosis of nonmetastatic breast, colorectal, prostate, melanoma or hematologic cancer; or aged 15-29 at diagnosis of any nonmetastatic cancer or metastatic testicular cancer. Despite the intention of the sampling, the final sample included some survivors diagnosed with a site other than the target sites, and some whose time since treatment was outside 1-3 years. All respondents are included in this analysis. Results are not weighted to represent the true distribution of cancer survivors. Results: From a total survey population of 40,790 Canadian cancer survivors, 33% completed the survey. The respondents were 48% male, 51% female; 2.5% were under 30 years old, 60% were 65+. 68% of respondents reported challenging periods posttreatment, with 48% of these saying that the first 6 months to 1 year were most challenging. Cancer survivors continued to live with side-effects: 87% reported physical challenges; 78% reported emotional challenges; 45% reported practical challenges. The most prevalent concerns were fatigue (68%), anxiety about cancer returning (68%) and returning to work/school (23%). Less than half of those with emotional or practical concerns received useful information (42% and 46%, respectively). 42% of respondents could not get help to address their most difficult concern. Of those who could get help, 10.7% waited a year or more. Conclusion: The results provide insight into the nature of challenges cancer survivors face, as well as needed supports and barriers faced in accessing them. There is a clear need for health systems to ensure a seamless patient experience throughout the cancer journey, for instance, through development and adoption of resources to help health care providers and their patients identify and address challenges from diagnosis through to survivorship.

Measuring patient-reported outcomes to improve cancer care in Canada: an analysis of provincial survey data

Patient-reported outcomes measures (proms) are an important component of the shift from disease-centred to person-centred care. In oncology, proms describe the effects of cancer and its treatment from the patient perspective and ideally enable patients to communicate to their providers the physical symptoms and psychosocial concerns that are most relevant to them. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (esas-r) is a commonly used and validated tool in Canada to assess symptoms related to cancer. Here, we describe the extent to which patient-reported outcome programs have been implemented in Canada and the severity of symptoms causing distress for patients with cancer. As of April 2017, 8 of 10 provinces had implemented the esas-r to assess patient-reported outcomes. Data capture methods, the proportion of cancer treatment sites that have implemented the esas-r, and the time and frequency of screening vary from province to province. From October 2016 to March 2017 in the 8 reporting provinces, 88.0% of cancer patients were screened for symptoms. Of patients who reported having symptoms, 44.3% reported depression, with 15.5% reporting moderate-to-high levels; 50.0% reported pain, with 18.6% reporting moderate-to-high levels; 56.2% reported anxiety, with 20.4% reporting moderate-to-high levels; and 75.1% reported fatigue, with 34.4% reporting moderate-to-high levels. There are some notable areas in which the implementation of proms could be improved in Canada. Findings point to a need to increase the number of cancer treatment sites that screen all patients for symptoms; to standardize when and how frequently patients are screened across the country; to screen patients for symptoms during all phases of their cancer journey, not just during treatment; and to assess whether giving cancer care providers real-time patient-reported outcomes data has led to appropriate interventions that reduce the symptom burden and improve patient outcomes. Continued measurement and reporting at the system level will allow for a better understanding of progress in proms activity over time and of the areas in which targeted quality improvement efforts could ensure that patient symptoms and concerns are being addressed.

The experience of patients with cancer during diagnosis and treatment planning: a descriptive study of Canadian survey results

BACKGROUND

Communication with health care providers during diagnosis and treatment planning is of special importance because it can influence a patient's emotional state, attitude, and decisions about their care. Qualitative evidence suggests that some patients experience poor communication with health care providers and have negative experiences when receiving their cancer diagnosis. Here, we use survey data from 8 provinces to present findings about the experiences of Canadian patients, specifically with respect to patient-provider communication, during the diagnosis and treatment planning phases of their cancer care.

METHODS

Data from the Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey, representing 17,809 survey respondents, were obtained for the study.

RESULTS

Most respondents (92%) felt that their care provider told them of their cancer diagnosis in a sensitive manner. Most respondents (95%) also felt that they were provided with enough information about their planned cancer treatment. In contrast, more than half the respondents who had emotional concerns upon diagnosis (56%) were not referred to services that could help with their anxieties and fears. Also, 18% of respondents reported that they were not given the opportunity to discuss treatment options with a care provider, and 17% reported that their care providers did not consider their travel concerns while planning for treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring the patient experience allows for an understanding of how well the cancer control system is addressing the physical, emotional, and practical needs of patients during diagnosis and treatment planning. Although results suggest high levels of patient satisfaction with some aspects of care, quality improvement efforts are still needed to provide person-centred care.

Choosing wisely in cancer control across Canada-a set of baseline indicators

Value-based care, which balances high-quality care with the most efficient use of resources, has been considered the next frontier in cancer care and a means to maintain health system sustainability. Created to promote value-based care, Choosing Wisely Canada-modelled after Choosing Wisely in the United States-is a national clinician-driven campaign to identify unnecessary or harmful services that are frequently used in Canada. As part of the campaign, national medical societies have developed recommendations for tests and treatments that clinicians and patients should question. Here, we present baseline indicator findings about current practice patterns associated with 7 cancer-related recommendations from Choosing Wisely Canada and about the effects of those practices on patients and the health care system. Indicator findings point to substantial variations in cancer system performance between Canadian jurisdictions, most notably for breast cancer screening practices, treatment practices for men with low-risk localized prostate cancer, and radiation therapy practices for early-stage breast cancer and bone metastases. Extrapolating indicator findings to the entire country, it was estimated that 740,000 breast and cervical cancer screening tests were performed outside of the recommended age ranges, and within 1 year of diagnosis, 17,000 patients received treatments that could be low-value. A 15% reduction in the use of the 7 screening and treatment practices examined could lead to multiple benefits for patients and the health care system: 9000 false-positive results and 3000 treatments and related side effects could be avoided, and 4500 hours of linear accelerator capacity could be freed up each year. Interjurisdictional performance variations suggest potential differences in clinical practice patterns in the planning and delivery of cancer control services, and in some cases, in disease management outcomes. Although the cancer screening and treatment practices described might be unnecessary for some patients, it is important to realize that they could, in fact, be necessary for other patients. Further research into appropriate rates of use could help to determine how much cancer care represents overuse of practices that are not supported by evidence or underuse of practices that are supported by evidence.

Use of low-value radiotherapy practices in Canada: an analysis of provincial cancer registry data

BACKGROUND

As part of Choosing Wisely Canada (a national campaign to encourage patient-provider conversations about unnecessary medical tests, treatments, and procedures), a list of ten oncology practices that could be low-value in some instances was developed. Of those practices, two were specific to radiation therapy (rt): conventional fractionation as part of breast-conserving therapy (bct) for women with early-stage breast cancer, and multifraction radiation for palliation of uncomplicated painful bone metastases. Here, we report baseline findings for the current utilization rates of those two rt practices in Canada.

RESULTS

The use of conventional fractionation as part of bct varied substantially from province to province. Of women 50 years of age and older, between 8.8% (Alberta) and 36.5% (Saskatchewan) received radiation in 25 fractions (excluding boost irradiation) as part of bct. The use of hypofractionated rt (that is, 16 fractions excluding boost irradiation)-a preferred approach for many patients-was more common in all 6 reporting provinces, ranging from 43.2% in Saskatchewan to 94.7% in Prince Edward Island. The use of multifraction rt for palliation of bone metastases also varied from province to province, ranging from 40.3% in British Columbia to 69.0% in Saskatchewan. The most common number of fractions delivered to bone metastases was 1, at 50.2%; the second most common numbers were 2-5 fractions, at 41.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding variation in the use of potentially low-value rt practices can help to inform future strategies to promote higher-value care, which balances high-quality care with the efficient use of limited system resources. Further work is needed to understand the factors contributing to the interprovincial variation observed and to develop benchmarks for the appropriate rate of use of these rt practices.

Patterns of care and treatment trends for Canadian men with localized low-risk prostate cancer: an analysis of provincial cancer registry data

BACKGROUND

Many prostate cancers (pcas) are indolent and, if left untreated, are unlikely to cause death or morbidity in a man's lifetime. As a result of testing for prostate-specific antigen, more such cases are being identified, leading to concerns about "overdiagnosis" and consequent overtreatment of pca. To mitigate the risks associated with overtreatment (that is, invasive therapies that might cause harm to the patient without tangible benefit), approaches such as active surveillance are now preferred for many men with low-risk localized pca (specifically, T1/2a, prostate-specific antigen ≤ 10 ng/mL, and Gleason score ≤ 6). Here, we report on patterns of care and treatment trends for men with localized low-risk pca.

RESULTS

The provinces varied substantially with respect to the types of primary treatment received by men with localized low-risk pca. From 2010 to 2013, many men had no record of surgical or radiation treatment within 1 year of diagnosis-a proxy for active surveillance; the proportion ranged from 53.3% in Nova Scotia to 80.8% in New Brunswick. Among men who did receive primary treatment, the use of radical prostatectomy ranged from 12.0% in New Brunswick to 35.9% in Nova Scotia. The use of radiation therapy (external-beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy) ranged from 4.1% in Newfoundland and Labrador to 17.6% in Alberta. Treatment trends over time suggest an increase in the use of active surveillance. The proportion of men with low-risk pca and no record of surgical or radiation treatment rose to 69.9% in 2013 from 46.1% in 2010 for all provinces combined.

CONCLUSIONS

The provinces varied substantially with respect to patterns of care for localized low-risk pca. Treatment trends over time suggest an increasing use of active surveillance. Those findings can further the discussion about the complex care associated with pca and identify opportunities for improvement in clinical practice.

Treatment patterns among Canadian men diagnosed with localized low-risk prostate cancer

In general, guideline-recommended treatment options for men with low-risk prostate cancer (pca) include active surveillance, radical prostatectomy, and external-beam radiation therapy or brachytherapy. Because of the concern about overdiagnosis and consequent overtreatment of pca, patients with low-risk disease are increasingly being managed with active surveillance. Using data from six provincial cancer registries, we examined treatment patterns within a year of a diagnosis of localized low-risk pca, and we assessed differences by age. Of patients diagnosed in 2010 in four of the six reporting provinces, most received surgery or radiation therapy within 1 year of diagnosis. Depending on the province, either surgery or radiation therapy was the most commonly used primary treatment. In the other two provinces, most patients had no record of treatment within a year of diagnosis. Examining treatment patterns by age demonstrated a lesser likelihood of receiving surgery or radiation therapy within 1 year of diagnosis among men more than 75 years of age than among men 75 years of age or younger (no record of treatment in 69.1% and 46.3% respectively). In conclusion, we observed interprovincial and age-specific variations in the patterns of care for men with low-risk pca. The findings presented in this report are intended to identify opportunities for improvement in clinical practice that could lead to improved care and experience.

Wait times for prostate cancer treatment and patient perceptions of care in Canada: a mixed-methods report

BACKGROUND

Access to cancer care is a significant concern for Canadians. Prolonged delays between cancer diagnosis and treatment have been associated with anxiety, stress, and perceived powerlessness for patients and their family members. Longer wait times can also be associated with poorer prognosis, although the evidence is inconclusive. Here, we report national wait times for radiation therapy and surgery for localized prostate cancer (pca) and the effect of wait time on patient perceptions of their care.

RESULTS

Treatment wait times showed substantial interprovincial variation. The longest 90th percentile wait times for radiation therapy and surgery were, respectively, 40 days and 105 days. In all provinces, waits for radiation therapy were longer for pca patients than for patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. In the focus groups and interviews conducted with 47 men treated for pca, many participants did not perceive that wait times for treatment were prolonged. Those who experienced delays between diagnosis and treatment voiced issues with a lack of communication about when they would receive treatment and a lack of support or information to make an informed decision about treatment. Minimizing treatment delays was an aspect of the cancer journey that participants would like to change because of the stress it caused.

CONCLUSIONS

Although wait time statistics are useful, a review of cancer control in Canada cannot be considered complete unless an effort is made to give voice to the experiences of individuals with cancer. The findings presented here are intended to provide a snapshot of national care delivery for localized pca and to identify opportunities for improvement in clinical practice.

Use of pet in the management of non-small-cell lung cancer in Canada

Positron-emission tomography (pet) has emerged as an effective imaging method for diagnosing, staging, [...]