Quality of end-of-life care in patients with hematologic malignancies: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, only limited data are available regarding the quality of end-of-life care for patients with hematologic malignancies. In this retrospective cohort study, the quality of end-of-life care was compared between patients with hematologic malignancies and those with solid tumors.

METHODS

All adult patients who died of advanced cancer between September 1, 2009 and February 28, 2010 while under the care of the study institution were included. The authors collected baseline demographics and end-of-life care indicators, including emergency room visits, hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions, and systemic cancer therapy use within the last 30 days of life.

RESULTS

Of a total of 816 decedents, 113 (14%) had hematologic malignancies. In the last 30 days of life, patients with hematologic malignancies were more likely to have emergency room visits (54% vs 43%; P = .03), hospital admissions (81% vs 47%; P < .001), ≥ 2 hospital admissions (23% vs 10%; P < .001), > 14 days of hospitalization (38% vs 8%; P < .001), intensive care unit admissions (39% vs 8%; P < .001) and death (33% vs 4%; P < .001), chemotherapy use (43% vs 14%; P < .001), and targeted therapy use (34% vs 11%; P < .001) compared with patients with solid tumors. Patients with hematologic malignancies were also less likely to have palliative care unit admissions (8% vs 17%; P = .02). The composite score for aggressiveness of care (with 0 indicating the best and 6 indicating the worst) was significantly higher among patients with hematologic malignancies compared with those with solid tumors (median, 2 vs 0; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hematologic malignancy was found to be a significant factor associated with aggressive end-of-life care (odds ratio, 6.6; 95% confidence interval, 4.1-10.7 [P < .001]).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the current study indicate that patients with hematologic malignancies received more aggressive care at the end of life.

MD Anderson Cancer Center Ongoing Professional Practice Evaluation (OPPE): We can see clearly now

277

Background: Reviewing clinical practice by provider has been an ongoing process for quite some time. The metrics reviewed and how the review was conducted were not clearly defined and, as a result, has varied widely between organizations. Recredentialing or some self-imposed process were the main drivers until The Joint Commission required a more regular review of the clinicians’ practice in a hospital and clinics setting. MD Anderson embraced the requirement as an opportunity to improve its clinical review process and create a more robust infrastructure. Methods: Organizational and technological support was critical for success. The OPPE effort is led by the V.P. for Medical Affairs. A new faculty role, Quality Officer (QO), was established in each clinical department. The Office of Performance Improvement (OPI) was enlisted for data support and provided educational resources to the QOs. The Information Services staff maintains the technology to support the project long term. The Medical Staff Office has administrative responsibility for the program. Results: Two bi-annual OPPE reviews for credentialed providers (physicians and mid-levels) have been completed under the new process. Electronic display and processing has eliminated volumes of paper needed to track OPPE for 1,000+ faculty. External audit requirements are easily supported. Early adopters of the new OPPE tools have been complimentary of the support provided by display of values in control chart versus table formats. The application of statistical process control rules help QOs understand variation in performance among faculty and aid in identifying statistically valid quality issues. Conclusions: MD Anderson leveraged the OPPE requirements to make organizational changes and create processes that enhance review of clinical practice with electronic tools that improve decision making and analytical capabilities. The implementation of clinical quality metrics has made it clearer to see how each practice is doing based on criteria they defined, as well as create a path towards developing oncology performance metrics that can be considered nationally.

Thirty-day all-cause readmission rate at a cancer center as a quality of care measure

247

Background: Recently, a 30-day all-cause readmission rate has been proposed as a measure of quality of care. Readmissions are assumed to reflect failure by the discharging physician, hospital, or post acute care. These rates are generally easily calculated from available administrative data, and classifiable as "related to the previous discharge diagnosis" or not. Present on admission modifiers may enhance classification and assignment to "preventable" or "non-preventable," "expected or non-expected." This methodology is not generally applicable to the oncology population. The experience with one major cancer center is presented as an example of the limitations of such an approach. Methods: We analyzed 52,097 oncology admissions in an all-payer population that occurred between January 2010 and January 2012. Results: A mean of 32.5% (n=16,918) were readmitted within 30 days, compared to a "peer" group in the database of the University Health Consortium, median of 15%. The attached graph demonstrates the stability of this proportion. Leukemia, lymphoma, stem cell patients (46%), all patients with intense medical needs and frequent readmissions, n=7,635, were the largest subgroup. 42% (n=7,099) were readmissions for chemotherapy or immunotherapy, both planned and expected, and 11% (n=1,803) due to neutropenic fever, pneumonia, or sepsis, all common in this population and neither unexpected nor usually preventable. The most preventable, unexpected, and unplanned readmissions were for postoperative infection, dehydration, and urinary tract infection, accounting for 3.6% (n=609). Thus, the majority of readmissions were planned, expected, or not preventable. Conclusions: In a cancer population at an academic cancer hospital, the majority of readmission are not only planned, but also expected for this population of patients and should not be construed as representative of a quality of care issue. Proper stratification and classification of readmissions is essential to the interpretation of such a measure.

Impact of safety concerns and regulatory changes on the usage of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and RBC transfusions

PURPOSE

Safety concerns raised in the recent oncology trials with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have led to regulatory restrictions on their use. We wished to determine the impact of these changes on the use of ESAs and RBC transfusions.

METHODS

In a retrospective observational study of patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in 2006-2008, data on all ESA doses dispensed, RBCs transfused, and hemoglobin levels on the days of transfusions and ESA initiations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Compared with 2006, the total patients treated was 14% higher (28,339 versus 24,806) in 2007 and 22% higher (30,254) in 2008. Patients receiving ESAs decreased by 26% and 61%, and ESA units dispensed decreased by 29% (from 30,206 units to 21,409 units) and 80% (6,102 units) in 2007 and 2008, respectively. However, RBC transfusions increased by only 2% (from 38,218 units to 38,948 units) in 2007 and by 8% (41,438) in 2008. The mean hemoglobin on the day of transfusion was the same for each year (8.4 g/dl); however, an increasing proportion of patients initiated ESAs at lower hemoglobin (< 10 g/dl) levels. After adjusting for demographics and diagnostic variables for 3 years (n = 83,399), a multivariate logistic regression showed a significant decline in ESA use (p < .0001) without an increase in RBC transfusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent ESA safety concerns and regulatory restrictions have significantly decreased ESA use. The lack of a significant impact on transfusions may be related to a lower hemoglobin threshold used to initiate ESAs or treatment of patients less likely to respond.

Development of an outcome/variance tracking tool for sedation and non-surgical procedures

A large academic cancer center devised a performance improvement plan for special procedures and sedation. A group of interdisciplinary professionals convened to address data collection, complications, and outcomes for non-surgical procedures and sedation. Administrative, medical, and nursing representatives from all areas in which these procedures are performed gathered to assess existing data and data collection methods and to develop an improvement plan. Gastroenterology, pulmonary, diagnostic imaging, intensive care, gynecology, genitourinary, hematology, and anesthesiology specialties were represented. The group was facilitated by staff from the institution's Office of Performance Improvement and co-chaired by an anesthesiologist and a pulmonary specialist. A representative from the Practice Outcomes Department was also an active participant. This article describes group process, design efforts, pilot testing, and analyses for this project. Pilot data are presented as well as a discussion of staff involvement.