Allowed Publications
Exceptions
Don't send to Teambase
Slot System
Top 25
Featured Buckets Admin
Reverse Chronological Sort
Allow Teaser Image

Pain in Cancer Survivors: Assess, Monitor, and Ask for Help

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Pain in Cancer Survivors: Assess, Monitor, and Ask for Help
Patients are in plenty of hurt, VA palliative care specialist says, but smart strategies can help make a difference.

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

 

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

 

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

 

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

 

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

 

 

 

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

 

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

 

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

 

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

Publications
Topics
Sections
Patients are in plenty of hurt, VA palliative care specialist says, but smart strategies can help make a difference.
Patients are in plenty of hurt, VA palliative care specialist says, but smart strategies can help make a difference.

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

 

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

 

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

 

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

 

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

 

 

 

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

 

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

 

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

 

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

SAN DIEGO—As patients with cancer live longer, pain is going to become an even bigger challenge for clinicians, a palliative care specialist told cancer specialists in a presentation at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) in September, and decisions about treatment are becoming more complicated amid the opioid epidemic.

 

Fortunately, guidelines and clinical experience offer helpful insight into the best practices, said hematologist/oncologist Andrea Ruskin, MD, medical director of palliative care at Veterans Administration (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS).

As Ruskin pointed out, two-thirds of newly diagnosed cancer patients are living for at least 5 years, “but with this progress comes challenges.” More than one-third (37%) of cancer survivors report cancer pain, 21% have noncancer pain, and 45% have both. About 5% to 8% of VA cancer survivors use opioids for the long term, she said, although there have been few studies in this population.

 

Among patients with head and neck cancer, specifically, chronic pain affects 45%, and severe pain affects 11%. Subclinical PTSD, depression, anxiety, and low quality of life are common in this population. “We may cure them, but they have a lot of issues going forward.”

One key strategy is to perform a comprehensive pain assessment at the first visit, and then address pain at every subsequent visit. She recommended a physician resource from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and a template may be useful to provide helpful questions, Ruskin said.

 

At VACHS certain questions are routine. “Is pain interfering with your function? Sometimes people say it’s always a 10, but it’s not affecting function at all. Ask if the medicine is working. And how are they taking it? Sometimes they say, ‘I’m taking that for sleep,’ and we say ‘No, Mr. Smith, that is not a sleep medication.’”

 

Be aware that some patients may use nonmedical opioids, she said. And set expectations early on. “Safe opioid use starts with the very first prescription,” she said. “If I have somebody with myeloma or head and neck cancer, I make it very clear that my goal is that we want you off the opioids after the radiation or once the disease is in remission. I really make an effort at the very beginning to make sure that we're all on the same page.”

 

 

 

As you continue to see a patient, consider ordering urine tests, she said, not as a punitive measure but to make sure you’re offering the safest and most effective treatment. “We don’t do it to say ‘no, no, no.’ We do it for safety and to make sure they’re not getting meds elsewhere.”

What are the best practices when pain doesn’t go away? Should they stay on opioids? According to Ruskin, few evidence-based guidelines address the “more nuanced care” that patients need when their pain lasts for months or years.

 

But there are useful resources. Ruskin highlighted the National Comprehensive Cancer Network’s survivorship guidelines, and she summarized a few of the available painkiller options. “Opioids are great, and adjuvants are so-so. They work in some people, but we definitely have room for improvement.”

 

What if patients have persistent opioid use after cancer recovery? “I try to taper if I can, and I try to explain why I’m tapering. It could take months or years to taper patients,” she said. And consider transitioning the patient to buprenorphine, a drug that treats both pain and opioid use disorder, if appropriate. “You don’t need a waiver if you use it for pain. It’s definitely something we’re using more of.”

 

One important step is to bring in colleagues to help. Psychologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, physiatrists, and pain pharmacists can all be helpful, she said. “Learn about your VA resources and who can partner with you to help these complicated patients. They’re all at your fingertips.”

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Pain in Cancer Survivors: Assess, Monitor, and Ask for Help
Display Headline
Pain in Cancer Survivors: Assess, Monitor, and Ask for Help
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

VA Center Dramatically Shrinks Wait Times for Bone Marrow Biopsies

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
VA Center Dramatically Shrinks Wait Times for Bone Marrow Biopsies
Average time from order to procedure fell by two-thirds thanks to new strategy

SAN DIEGO–The Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio dramatically reduced wait times for bone marrow biopsies and treatment by ditching the radiology department and opening a weekly clinic devoted to the procedures, a cancer care team reported at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) September 16 to 18, 2022.

 

The average time from biopsy order to procedure fell by more than two-thirds from 23.1 days to 7.0 days, and the time from order to diagnosis dipped from 27.8 days to 11.6 days. The time from treatment fell from 54.8 days to 20.2 days.

 

The new strategy aims to avoid sending patients to the radiology department and treat them in a clinic within the cancer center instead. “It’s great to be able to keep as many hematology/oncology–related things such as infusion, scheduling, and procedures within our department. It provides continuity for the veteran, and it’s helpful for them from that aspect,” said nurse practitioner Kyle Stimpert, MSN, RN, ACNP, of VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System.

 

As the cancer team reported in an abstract presented at the AVAHO meeting, “bone marrow biopsies often need to be performed expeditiously to alleviate patient concerns and quickly determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. However, with increasing subspecialization, there are fewer hematology/oncology providers available to perform this procedure.”

 

The Cleveland VA tried to address this problem by sending patients to interventional radiology, but it still took weeks for bone marrow biopsies to be performed: From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, when 140 biopsies were performed, the average time from order to procedure was 23.1 days. The time from order to diagnosis was 27.8 days, and from order to treatment was 54.8 days.

The bone marrow biopsies provide insight into diseases such as hematologic malignancies and myelodysplastic syndromes, Stimpert said. The procedures may lead to diagnoses or reveal how treatment is progressing.

 

In 2021, new leadership sought to shrink the wait times. “We put together a small team and started brainstorming,” said oncology clinical nurse specialist Alecia Smalheer, MSN, APRN, OCN, in an interview. With the help of staff who’d come from other facilities, she said, “we were able to see what was being done in surrounding community hospitals and come up with a model and a checklist.”

 

The team modified a space to create a new weekly, half-day bone marrow biopsy clinic. They also worked on procedures, documentation, education of patients, and training of staff, Smalheer said.

 

After implementation in the summer of 2021, the biopsy clinic performed 89 procedures through August 31, 2022. The average time from order to procedure was 7.0 days. The time to diagnosis was 11.6 days, and the time to treatment was 20.2 days. The differences between the pre-implementation and postimplementation periods were statistically significant. (P < .001 for each).

 

The biopsy clinic now sees about 3 to 4 patients a week. “Just yesterday, I had a vet whose cancer was going down. I was able to just do this bone marrow right there, and it was amazing. He didn’t have to go home [and come back],” Stimpert said. “A lot of patients travel a far distance or on oxygen, or it’s hard for them to get around. Coming to the facility for repeat appointments can just take a lot out of them. So it’s really nice to be able to get it all done in one visit.”

 

There are multiple benefits to shortening wait times, Smalheer said. “They can start treatment much sooner… but it also alleviates some of the emotional distress of waiting. They still have some waiting to do, but it’s definitely not as long.”

 

And, Stimpert added, patients are familiar with the infusion center and will see faces they know.

As for cost, the biopsy clinic may save money due to several factors related to how and where the biopsy procedures are performed, Stimpert said.

 

No disclosures are reported.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Average time from order to procedure fell by two-thirds thanks to new strategy
Average time from order to procedure fell by two-thirds thanks to new strategy

SAN DIEGO–The Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio dramatically reduced wait times for bone marrow biopsies and treatment by ditching the radiology department and opening a weekly clinic devoted to the procedures, a cancer care team reported at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) September 16 to 18, 2022.

 

The average time from biopsy order to procedure fell by more than two-thirds from 23.1 days to 7.0 days, and the time from order to diagnosis dipped from 27.8 days to 11.6 days. The time from treatment fell from 54.8 days to 20.2 days.

 

The new strategy aims to avoid sending patients to the radiology department and treat them in a clinic within the cancer center instead. “It’s great to be able to keep as many hematology/oncology–related things such as infusion, scheduling, and procedures within our department. It provides continuity for the veteran, and it’s helpful for them from that aspect,” said nurse practitioner Kyle Stimpert, MSN, RN, ACNP, of VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System.

 

As the cancer team reported in an abstract presented at the AVAHO meeting, “bone marrow biopsies often need to be performed expeditiously to alleviate patient concerns and quickly determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. However, with increasing subspecialization, there are fewer hematology/oncology providers available to perform this procedure.”

 

The Cleveland VA tried to address this problem by sending patients to interventional radiology, but it still took weeks for bone marrow biopsies to be performed: From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, when 140 biopsies were performed, the average time from order to procedure was 23.1 days. The time from order to diagnosis was 27.8 days, and from order to treatment was 54.8 days.

The bone marrow biopsies provide insight into diseases such as hematologic malignancies and myelodysplastic syndromes, Stimpert said. The procedures may lead to diagnoses or reveal how treatment is progressing.

 

In 2021, new leadership sought to shrink the wait times. “We put together a small team and started brainstorming,” said oncology clinical nurse specialist Alecia Smalheer, MSN, APRN, OCN, in an interview. With the help of staff who’d come from other facilities, she said, “we were able to see what was being done in surrounding community hospitals and come up with a model and a checklist.”

 

The team modified a space to create a new weekly, half-day bone marrow biopsy clinic. They also worked on procedures, documentation, education of patients, and training of staff, Smalheer said.

 

After implementation in the summer of 2021, the biopsy clinic performed 89 procedures through August 31, 2022. The average time from order to procedure was 7.0 days. The time to diagnosis was 11.6 days, and the time to treatment was 20.2 days. The differences between the pre-implementation and postimplementation periods were statistically significant. (P < .001 for each).

 

The biopsy clinic now sees about 3 to 4 patients a week. “Just yesterday, I had a vet whose cancer was going down. I was able to just do this bone marrow right there, and it was amazing. He didn’t have to go home [and come back],” Stimpert said. “A lot of patients travel a far distance or on oxygen, or it’s hard for them to get around. Coming to the facility for repeat appointments can just take a lot out of them. So it’s really nice to be able to get it all done in one visit.”

 

There are multiple benefits to shortening wait times, Smalheer said. “They can start treatment much sooner… but it also alleviates some of the emotional distress of waiting. They still have some waiting to do, but it’s definitely not as long.”

 

And, Stimpert added, patients are familiar with the infusion center and will see faces they know.

As for cost, the biopsy clinic may save money due to several factors related to how and where the biopsy procedures are performed, Stimpert said.

 

No disclosures are reported.

SAN DIEGO–The Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio dramatically reduced wait times for bone marrow biopsies and treatment by ditching the radiology department and opening a weekly clinic devoted to the procedures, a cancer care team reported at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) September 16 to 18, 2022.

 

The average time from biopsy order to procedure fell by more than two-thirds from 23.1 days to 7.0 days, and the time from order to diagnosis dipped from 27.8 days to 11.6 days. The time from treatment fell from 54.8 days to 20.2 days.

 

The new strategy aims to avoid sending patients to the radiology department and treat them in a clinic within the cancer center instead. “It’s great to be able to keep as many hematology/oncology–related things such as infusion, scheduling, and procedures within our department. It provides continuity for the veteran, and it’s helpful for them from that aspect,” said nurse practitioner Kyle Stimpert, MSN, RN, ACNP, of VA Northeast Ohio Healthcare System.

 

As the cancer team reported in an abstract presented at the AVAHO meeting, “bone marrow biopsies often need to be performed expeditiously to alleviate patient concerns and quickly determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. However, with increasing subspecialization, there are fewer hematology/oncology providers available to perform this procedure.”

 

The Cleveland VA tried to address this problem by sending patients to interventional radiology, but it still took weeks for bone marrow biopsies to be performed: From August 4, 2020, to August 12, 2021, when 140 biopsies were performed, the average time from order to procedure was 23.1 days. The time from order to diagnosis was 27.8 days, and from order to treatment was 54.8 days.

The bone marrow biopsies provide insight into diseases such as hematologic malignancies and myelodysplastic syndromes, Stimpert said. The procedures may lead to diagnoses or reveal how treatment is progressing.

 

In 2021, new leadership sought to shrink the wait times. “We put together a small team and started brainstorming,” said oncology clinical nurse specialist Alecia Smalheer, MSN, APRN, OCN, in an interview. With the help of staff who’d come from other facilities, she said, “we were able to see what was being done in surrounding community hospitals and come up with a model and a checklist.”

 

The team modified a space to create a new weekly, half-day bone marrow biopsy clinic. They also worked on procedures, documentation, education of patients, and training of staff, Smalheer said.

 

After implementation in the summer of 2021, the biopsy clinic performed 89 procedures through August 31, 2022. The average time from order to procedure was 7.0 days. The time to diagnosis was 11.6 days, and the time to treatment was 20.2 days. The differences between the pre-implementation and postimplementation periods were statistically significant. (P < .001 for each).

 

The biopsy clinic now sees about 3 to 4 patients a week. “Just yesterday, I had a vet whose cancer was going down. I was able to just do this bone marrow right there, and it was amazing. He didn’t have to go home [and come back],” Stimpert said. “A lot of patients travel a far distance or on oxygen, or it’s hard for them to get around. Coming to the facility for repeat appointments can just take a lot out of them. So it’s really nice to be able to get it all done in one visit.”

 

There are multiple benefits to shortening wait times, Smalheer said. “They can start treatment much sooner… but it also alleviates some of the emotional distress of waiting. They still have some waiting to do, but it’s definitely not as long.”

 

And, Stimpert added, patients are familiar with the infusion center and will see faces they know.

As for cost, the biopsy clinic may save money due to several factors related to how and where the biopsy procedures are performed, Stimpert said.

 

No disclosures are reported.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
VA Center Dramatically Shrinks Wait Times for Bone Marrow Biopsies
Display Headline
VA Center Dramatically Shrinks Wait Times for Bone Marrow Biopsies
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

In VA Oncology, Discussion Groups Are Transforming the Workplace

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
In VA Oncology, Discussion Groups Are Transforming the Workplace
Data suggests ‘Schwartz Rounds,’ designed to boost compassion, have a powerful impact

SAN DIEGO—From coast to coast, 10 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers are holding meetings designed to help clinicians and colleagues talk openly about touchy workplace topics, such as compassion, burnout, and medical errors. New data suggests that “Schwartz Rounds” have tremendous power to change how medical professionals cope, communicate, and commiserate.

 

At the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS), nearly all (98%) respondents who took part in Schwartz Round sessions rated them as either good or excellent, 89% reported feeling less isolated in their work with patients, 98% had new insights into the perspectives and experiences of colleagues, and 93% felt more open to communicating with colleagues, reported oncologist Edward Perry, MD, of VA Connecticut and Yale University School of Medicine, in a presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) held September 16 to 18, 2022.

 

Schwartz Rounds have been around for 25 years and are named after the late Ken Schwartz, a 40-year-old Boston health care attorney who wrote movingly in 1995 about the “exquisite compassion” he experienced while being treated for advanced lung cancer—and the risk that the rapidly evolving health care system would lose its sense of empathy. 

 

The Boston-based nonprofit Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare facilitates Schwartz Rounds, which are now held at about 600 health care organizations around the world. That number includes the 10 VA medical centers, mostly in the Northeast (Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire) but also in California, Illinois, and Minnesota.

 

Site teams work with the Schwartz Center to plan the rounds and gather data about their effectiveness. “Unlike traditional clinical or ethics rounds, this is not a didactic or problem-solving session. The focus is not on what happened, but how those who were involved felt. In other words, the human dimension of medicine,” Dr. Perry said. “There are no right or wrong answers. Everything that is said during short rounds is confidential. We do encourage people to continue discussion of the general themes afterward but not to share any specifics of what was discussed.”

 

At VACHS, Schwartz rounds began shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, Perry said, and they’ve been held virtually since the first meeting. “Schwartz Rounds are open to all employees, trainees, and students at the institution. Anyone with a VA badge is welcome to attend,” he said. “We're averaging about 150 attendees per session.”

 

Speakers have addressed social/emotional topics, including delivering bad news to patients, maintaining compassion during adversity, and providing compassionate care to patients with substance use disorders.

The VACHS survey of Schwartz Rounds participants had a 50% response rate, with about 400 people responding to each question. Nearly all (98%) said they planned to attend the rounds again, and 55% agreed that a specific discussion “suggests that changes may be needed in departmental or institutional policies or practices.”

 

The administration has agreed to continue the Schwartz Rounds in light of the positive results, Perry said. As he noted, the Schwartz Center charges dues and initiation fees. The Marjorie Stanzler Financial Aid Fund underwrites the initiation fees for qualifying organizations, including VA facilities.

As for lessons, he said the topics of Schwartz Rounds “should be emotionally resonant. They should involve multiple disciplines and perspectives. They should illuminate an issue or experience that is not often discussed. And should inspire participants to share their own experiences and highlight instances of compassionate care—or barriers to providing compassionate care.”

 

Dr. Perry has no disclosures.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Data suggests ‘Schwartz Rounds,’ designed to boost compassion, have a powerful impact
Data suggests ‘Schwartz Rounds,’ designed to boost compassion, have a powerful impact

SAN DIEGO—From coast to coast, 10 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers are holding meetings designed to help clinicians and colleagues talk openly about touchy workplace topics, such as compassion, burnout, and medical errors. New data suggests that “Schwartz Rounds” have tremendous power to change how medical professionals cope, communicate, and commiserate.

 

At the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS), nearly all (98%) respondents who took part in Schwartz Round sessions rated them as either good or excellent, 89% reported feeling less isolated in their work with patients, 98% had new insights into the perspectives and experiences of colleagues, and 93% felt more open to communicating with colleagues, reported oncologist Edward Perry, MD, of VA Connecticut and Yale University School of Medicine, in a presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) held September 16 to 18, 2022.

 

Schwartz Rounds have been around for 25 years and are named after the late Ken Schwartz, a 40-year-old Boston health care attorney who wrote movingly in 1995 about the “exquisite compassion” he experienced while being treated for advanced lung cancer—and the risk that the rapidly evolving health care system would lose its sense of empathy. 

 

The Boston-based nonprofit Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare facilitates Schwartz Rounds, which are now held at about 600 health care organizations around the world. That number includes the 10 VA medical centers, mostly in the Northeast (Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire) but also in California, Illinois, and Minnesota.

 

Site teams work with the Schwartz Center to plan the rounds and gather data about their effectiveness. “Unlike traditional clinical or ethics rounds, this is not a didactic or problem-solving session. The focus is not on what happened, but how those who were involved felt. In other words, the human dimension of medicine,” Dr. Perry said. “There are no right or wrong answers. Everything that is said during short rounds is confidential. We do encourage people to continue discussion of the general themes afterward but not to share any specifics of what was discussed.”

 

At VACHS, Schwartz rounds began shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, Perry said, and they’ve been held virtually since the first meeting. “Schwartz Rounds are open to all employees, trainees, and students at the institution. Anyone with a VA badge is welcome to attend,” he said. “We're averaging about 150 attendees per session.”

 

Speakers have addressed social/emotional topics, including delivering bad news to patients, maintaining compassion during adversity, and providing compassionate care to patients with substance use disorders.

The VACHS survey of Schwartz Rounds participants had a 50% response rate, with about 400 people responding to each question. Nearly all (98%) said they planned to attend the rounds again, and 55% agreed that a specific discussion “suggests that changes may be needed in departmental or institutional policies or practices.”

 

The administration has agreed to continue the Schwartz Rounds in light of the positive results, Perry said. As he noted, the Schwartz Center charges dues and initiation fees. The Marjorie Stanzler Financial Aid Fund underwrites the initiation fees for qualifying organizations, including VA facilities.

As for lessons, he said the topics of Schwartz Rounds “should be emotionally resonant. They should involve multiple disciplines and perspectives. They should illuminate an issue or experience that is not often discussed. And should inspire participants to share their own experiences and highlight instances of compassionate care—or barriers to providing compassionate care.”

 

Dr. Perry has no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO—From coast to coast, 10 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers are holding meetings designed to help clinicians and colleagues talk openly about touchy workplace topics, such as compassion, burnout, and medical errors. New data suggests that “Schwartz Rounds” have tremendous power to change how medical professionals cope, communicate, and commiserate.

 

At the VA Connecticut Healthcare System (VACHS), nearly all (98%) respondents who took part in Schwartz Round sessions rated them as either good or excellent, 89% reported feeling less isolated in their work with patients, 98% had new insights into the perspectives and experiences of colleagues, and 93% felt more open to communicating with colleagues, reported oncologist Edward Perry, MD, of VA Connecticut and Yale University School of Medicine, in a presentation here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO) held September 16 to 18, 2022.

 

Schwartz Rounds have been around for 25 years and are named after the late Ken Schwartz, a 40-year-old Boston health care attorney who wrote movingly in 1995 about the “exquisite compassion” he experienced while being treated for advanced lung cancer—and the risk that the rapidly evolving health care system would lose its sense of empathy. 

 

The Boston-based nonprofit Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare facilitates Schwartz Rounds, which are now held at about 600 health care organizations around the world. That number includes the 10 VA medical centers, mostly in the Northeast (Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire) but also in California, Illinois, and Minnesota.

 

Site teams work with the Schwartz Center to plan the rounds and gather data about their effectiveness. “Unlike traditional clinical or ethics rounds, this is not a didactic or problem-solving session. The focus is not on what happened, but how those who were involved felt. In other words, the human dimension of medicine,” Dr. Perry said. “There are no right or wrong answers. Everything that is said during short rounds is confidential. We do encourage people to continue discussion of the general themes afterward but not to share any specifics of what was discussed.”

 

At VACHS, Schwartz rounds began shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic, Perry said, and they’ve been held virtually since the first meeting. “Schwartz Rounds are open to all employees, trainees, and students at the institution. Anyone with a VA badge is welcome to attend,” he said. “We're averaging about 150 attendees per session.”

 

Speakers have addressed social/emotional topics, including delivering bad news to patients, maintaining compassion during adversity, and providing compassionate care to patients with substance use disorders.

The VACHS survey of Schwartz Rounds participants had a 50% response rate, with about 400 people responding to each question. Nearly all (98%) said they planned to attend the rounds again, and 55% agreed that a specific discussion “suggests that changes may be needed in departmental or institutional policies or practices.”

 

The administration has agreed to continue the Schwartz Rounds in light of the positive results, Perry said. As he noted, the Schwartz Center charges dues and initiation fees. The Marjorie Stanzler Financial Aid Fund underwrites the initiation fees for qualifying organizations, including VA facilities.

As for lessons, he said the topics of Schwartz Rounds “should be emotionally resonant. They should involve multiple disciplines and perspectives. They should illuminate an issue or experience that is not often discussed. And should inspire participants to share their own experiences and highlight instances of compassionate care—or barriers to providing compassionate care.”

 

Dr. Perry has no disclosures.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
In VA Oncology, Discussion Groups Are Transforming the Workplace
Display Headline
In VA Oncology, Discussion Groups Are Transforming the Workplace
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

AI tool may improve prediction of colorectal cancer recurrence

Article Type
Changed

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Using artificial intelligence, researchers have developed an algorithm that can help improve the prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) recurrence.

The QuantCRC algorithm can identify patients with CRC who might be able to skip chemotherapy, given a low probability of recurrence, and identify those patients at high risk for recurrence who may benefit from more intensive treatment or follow-up, the researchers say.

“For patients with colon cancer, the algorithm gives oncologists another tool to help guide therapy and follow-up,” Rish Pai, MD, PhD, a pathologist at Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, who developed the tool, said in a news release.

The study was published online in the journal Gastroenterology.

The tool is a deep-learning segmentation algorithm developed using 6,468 digitized CRC images. It quantifies 15 features from a CRC image and uses them to improve prediction of recurrence.

“QuantCRC can identify different regions within the tumor and extract quantitative data from these regions,” Dr. Pai explained.

“The algorithm converts an image into a set of numbers that is unique to that tumor. The large number of tumors that we analyzed allowed us to learn which features were most predictive of tumor behavior. We can now apply what we have learned to new colon cancers to predict how the tumor will behave,” Dr. Pai said.

The researchers developed a prognostic model incorporating stage, mismatch repair, and QuantCRC that resulted in a concordance (c)-index of 0.714 in the internal test and 0.744 in the external cohort. Removing QuantCRC from the model reduced the c-index to 0.679 in the external cohort.

Using QuantCRC, they identified prognostic risk groups for recurrence, which provided a hazard ratio of 2.24 for low- versus high-risk stage III CRC and 2.36 for low- versus high-risk stage II CRC, in the external cohort after adjusting for established risk factors.

The predicted median 36-month recurrence rate for high-risk stage III CRC was 32.7% versus 13.4% for low-risk stage III CRC and 15.8% for high-risk stage II CRC versus 5.4% for low-risk stage II CRC, the researchers report.

QuantCRC provides a “powerful adjunct” to routine pathologic reporting of CRC, and a prognostic model using QuantCRC can improve prediction of recurrence-free survival, they write.

Looking ahead, Dr. Pai plans to use QuantCRC to better understand mechanisms of tumor recurrence and see if it can predict the response to certain treatments, like immunotherapy, he said.

Funding for this study was provided in part by the Colon Cancer Family Registry, which is supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pai reports consulting income from Alimentiv, Eli Lilly, AbbVie, Allergan, Genentech, and PathAI outside of the submitted work.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM GASTROENTEROLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Novel blood test for early-stage liver cancer shows promise

Article Type
Changed

 

Researchers have developed a blood test that can detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of potentially curative therapy and improved patient prognosis.

HCC accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and mainly occurs in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B virus infection. The prognosis of HCC is poor, largely owing to advanced disease stage at diagnosis.

The current guidelines recommend surveillance with twice-yearly liver ultrasound, with or without serum alpha-fetoprotein, for patients at risk for HCC, although the diagnostic performance is suboptimal.

The new “liquid biopsy” uses HCC-associated extracellular vesicles (EVs) to establish an HCC EV ECG score for distinguishing patients with early-stage HCC from at-risk controls with cirrhosis from a 400-mcL plasma sample.

“We’re the first team looking at extracellular vesicles as a detection biomarker for early-stage liver cancer, and our study showed it had outstanding performance,” study investigator Ju Dong Yang, MD, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Hepatology.

In a phase 2 biomarker (case-control) study, the investigators tested their blood test in a training cohort of 106 individuals (45 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 61 with cirrhosis) and an independent validation cohort with 72 participants (35 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 37 with cirrhosis).

The HCC EV ECG score had “excellent accuracy” for discriminating between HCC and cirrhosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.95 and 0.93 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, they report.

The diagnostic performance “remained excellent” among the subpopulations of HCC etiology and those with tumors within the Milan criteria.

Adding the serum alpha-fetoprotein level to the HCC EV ECG score did not improve its performance.

The researchers say that further validation of the blood test in a larger phase 2 study and a subsequent phase 3 study are needed to confirm its utility in clinical settings.

“We are planning on doing larger-scale studies to further validate this test and bring it into routine clinical practice here – and globally,” Dr. Yang said.

“In addition to its excellent performance, this marker has the advantages of being user friendly, cost efficient, and having a fast turnaround time – within 6 hours from sample collection to result,” Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who is not an author on the study, said in the news release.

“Once this marker has been validated in subsequent studies, it can be easily adopted by existing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] facilities,” Dr. Theodorescu added.

The study was supported by an American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award, a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Career Development Award, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yang provides a consulting service for Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai. Dr. Theodorescu reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Researchers have developed a blood test that can detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of potentially curative therapy and improved patient prognosis.

HCC accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and mainly occurs in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B virus infection. The prognosis of HCC is poor, largely owing to advanced disease stage at diagnosis.

The current guidelines recommend surveillance with twice-yearly liver ultrasound, with or without serum alpha-fetoprotein, for patients at risk for HCC, although the diagnostic performance is suboptimal.

The new “liquid biopsy” uses HCC-associated extracellular vesicles (EVs) to establish an HCC EV ECG score for distinguishing patients with early-stage HCC from at-risk controls with cirrhosis from a 400-mcL plasma sample.

“We’re the first team looking at extracellular vesicles as a detection biomarker for early-stage liver cancer, and our study showed it had outstanding performance,” study investigator Ju Dong Yang, MD, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Hepatology.

In a phase 2 biomarker (case-control) study, the investigators tested their blood test in a training cohort of 106 individuals (45 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 61 with cirrhosis) and an independent validation cohort with 72 participants (35 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 37 with cirrhosis).

The HCC EV ECG score had “excellent accuracy” for discriminating between HCC and cirrhosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.95 and 0.93 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, they report.

The diagnostic performance “remained excellent” among the subpopulations of HCC etiology and those with tumors within the Milan criteria.

Adding the serum alpha-fetoprotein level to the HCC EV ECG score did not improve its performance.

The researchers say that further validation of the blood test in a larger phase 2 study and a subsequent phase 3 study are needed to confirm its utility in clinical settings.

“We are planning on doing larger-scale studies to further validate this test and bring it into routine clinical practice here – and globally,” Dr. Yang said.

“In addition to its excellent performance, this marker has the advantages of being user friendly, cost efficient, and having a fast turnaround time – within 6 hours from sample collection to result,” Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who is not an author on the study, said in the news release.

“Once this marker has been validated in subsequent studies, it can be easily adopted by existing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] facilities,” Dr. Theodorescu added.

The study was supported by an American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award, a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Career Development Award, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yang provides a consulting service for Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai. Dr. Theodorescu reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

 

Researchers have developed a blood test that can detect hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at an early stage, increasing the likelihood of potentially curative therapy and improved patient prognosis.

HCC accounts for the majority of primary liver cancers and mainly occurs in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B virus infection. The prognosis of HCC is poor, largely owing to advanced disease stage at diagnosis.

The current guidelines recommend surveillance with twice-yearly liver ultrasound, with or without serum alpha-fetoprotein, for patients at risk for HCC, although the diagnostic performance is suboptimal.

The new “liquid biopsy” uses HCC-associated extracellular vesicles (EVs) to establish an HCC EV ECG score for distinguishing patients with early-stage HCC from at-risk controls with cirrhosis from a 400-mcL plasma sample.

“We’re the first team looking at extracellular vesicles as a detection biomarker for early-stage liver cancer, and our study showed it had outstanding performance,” study investigator Ju Dong Yang, MD, with Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in a news release.

The study was published online in Hepatology.

In a phase 2 biomarker (case-control) study, the investigators tested their blood test in a training cohort of 106 individuals (45 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 61 with cirrhosis) and an independent validation cohort with 72 participants (35 patients with treatment-naive early-stage HCC and 37 with cirrhosis).

The HCC EV ECG score had “excellent accuracy” for discriminating between HCC and cirrhosis, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.95 and 0.93 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively, they report.

The diagnostic performance “remained excellent” among the subpopulations of HCC etiology and those with tumors within the Milan criteria.

Adding the serum alpha-fetoprotein level to the HCC EV ECG score did not improve its performance.

The researchers say that further validation of the blood test in a larger phase 2 study and a subsequent phase 3 study are needed to confirm its utility in clinical settings.

“We are planning on doing larger-scale studies to further validate this test and bring it into routine clinical practice here – and globally,” Dr. Yang said.

“In addition to its excellent performance, this marker has the advantages of being user friendly, cost efficient, and having a fast turnaround time – within 6 hours from sample collection to result,” Dan Theodorescu, MD, PhD, director of Cedars-Sinai Cancer, who is not an author on the study, said in the news release.

“Once this marker has been validated in subsequent studies, it can be easily adopted by existing PCR [polymerase chain reaction] facilities,” Dr. Theodorescu added.

The study was supported by an American College of Gastroenterology Junior Faculty Development Award, a Department of Defense Peer Reviewed Cancer Research Program Career Development Award, and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Yang provides a consulting service for Exact Sciences, Gilead Sciences, and Eisai. Dr. Theodorescu reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

FROM HEPATOLOGY

Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

VA Launches Virtual Tumor Board

Article Type
Changed
Ten sessions have been held over the past 6 months in a bid to bring better cancer care to the military medical system.

SAN DIEGO The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

Publications
Topics
Sections
Ten sessions have been held over the past 6 months in a bid to bring better cancer care to the military medical system.
Ten sessions have been held over the past 6 months in a bid to bring better cancer care to the military medical system.

SAN DIEGO The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

SAN DIEGO The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) TeleOncology program has rolled out a virtual tumor board that brings medical professionals together to offer insight and guidance about challenging hematology cases. Over the past 6 months the board has held 10 sessions and reviewed about 20 cases. A small survey found that participants think the meetings are beneficial. 

“Virtual tumor boards help to connect experts across the country to leverage the expertise within the VA,” he-matologist/oncologist Thomas Rodgers, MD, of the Duke Cancer Institute and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, told Federal Practitioner in an interview. He is the lead author of a poster about the program that was pre-sented here at the annual meeting of the Association of VA Hematology/Oncology (AVAHO).

As Dr. Rodgers noted, tumor boards are already in place at some VA centers. However, “they are not available at every VA and often are not set up to cover every cancer type.”

The VA National TeleOncology program created the virtual tumor board program as part of its mission to ex-tend hematology/oncology services across the system. “Cancer care has become increasingly complex. Beyond ad-vancing therapeutics, patient care often involves multiple specialties and medical disciplines,” Dr. Rodgers said. “A tumor board offers a forum for these specialists to communicate with each other in real time, not only to help estab-lish the correct diagnosis and stage of cancer but also to form a consensus on the most fitting treatment option. Think of it as getting all of the people involved in a person’s care in the same room.”

Currently, he said, the virtual tumor boards cover patients with malignant hematology diagnoses such as leuke-mia, multiple myeloma, and lymphomas. “We welcome submissions. If a provider is interested in submitting a case, they can email us and will be provided with a short intake form. Once submitted, we will collect necessary imaging and pathology for review. The provider will then present the patient case on the day of the tumor board.”

Typically, more than 30 medical professionals participate in the virtual tumor boards, Dr. Rodgers said, repre-senting medical oncology/hematology, pathology, radiology, palliative care, pharmacy, social work, and die-tary/nutrition. 

According to the poster presented at AVAHO, 9 participants responded to a survey after 4 tumor board sessions. All found the boards to be beneficial or somewhat beneficial, and 55% reported that they were “highly applicable” to their practice. 

Pathologist Claudio A. Mosse, MD, PhD, of Vanderbilt University Medical Center and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, praised the virtual tumor board program. “It’s been incredibly useful from my end as a pathologist as it shows me which diagnoses are most challenging for my colleagues,” Dr. Mosse said in an inter-view. “Reviewing and then presenting these challenging cases forces me to go into the published literature to come to a unitary diagnosis based on the patient history, radiology, various laboratory tests, and the biopsy I was asked to review.”

He added that “as a pathologist, I learn so much from the hematologists as they discuss the possible therapeutic options, and that strengthens my ability as a pathologist because I have to understand how one diagnosis versus an-other affects their therapeutic decision tree.”

What’s next for the virtual tumor board program? The next step is to expand to solid tumors, said VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System hematologist/oncologist Vida Almario Passero, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of National TeleOncology, in an interview. 

No disclosures were reported.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Implementation of a Bone Marrow Biopsy Clinic: Effect on Wait Times for the Procedure, Diagnosis and Treatment Initiation

Article Type
Changed

Clinical Situation

Bone marrow biopsies often need to be performed expeditiously in order to alleviate patient concerns and quickly determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. However, with increasing subspecialization there are fewer hematology/oncology providers available to perform this procedure.

Literature

Our VA previously addressed this issue by having all bone marrow biopsies performed through Interventional Radiology (IR). The average time from order to procedure, though, was 18.6 days (Arfons LM, AVAHO 2016).

Intervention

A weekly bone marrow biopsy clinic was formed, utilizing a small group (heme/onc physician, nurse practitioner and key nursing staff). In collaboration with pathology, interior design, pharmacy, facilities and environmental services, a standard operating procedure was developed, which included a staffing model, procedural checklist, documentation template, scheduling and ordering system.

Outcomes/Implications

Bone marrow biopsies performed before and after initiation of the bone marrow biopsy clinic were tracked for time from order placement to: procedure being done; diagnosis rendered; and for those whose biopsy result needed therapy, initiation of treatment. From 8/4/2020 to 8/12/2021 there were 140 bone marrow biopsies performed, all through IR. The average time from order to the procedure was 23.1 days; from order to diagnosis was 27.8 days and from order to treatment was 54.8 days. After implementation of the bone marrow biopsy clinic, from 9/8/2021 to 5/25/2022 there have been 61 bone marrow biopsies performed (those ordered through IR were excluded). The average time from order to the procedure was 6.8 days; from order to diagnosis was 11.4 days and from order to treatment was 27.3 days. The differences in the average wait times for all 3 measures (time to procedure, diagnosis and treatment) were highly statistically significant (P < .001 for each), in favor of shorter wait times for those performed in the bone marrow clinic as compared to those done through IR. Implementation of a dedicated weekly bone marrow biopsy clinic significantly reduced wait times for the procedure, diagnosis and treatment initiation. This should be considered at other VA centers to improve the care of our veterans.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S30

Clinical Situation

Bone marrow biopsies often need to be performed expeditiously in order to alleviate patient concerns and quickly determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. However, with increasing subspecialization there are fewer hematology/oncology providers available to perform this procedure.

Literature

Our VA previously addressed this issue by having all bone marrow biopsies performed through Interventional Radiology (IR). The average time from order to procedure, though, was 18.6 days (Arfons LM, AVAHO 2016).

Intervention

A weekly bone marrow biopsy clinic was formed, utilizing a small group (heme/onc physician, nurse practitioner and key nursing staff). In collaboration with pathology, interior design, pharmacy, facilities and environmental services, a standard operating procedure was developed, which included a staffing model, procedural checklist, documentation template, scheduling and ordering system.

Outcomes/Implications

Bone marrow biopsies performed before and after initiation of the bone marrow biopsy clinic were tracked for time from order placement to: procedure being done; diagnosis rendered; and for those whose biopsy result needed therapy, initiation of treatment. From 8/4/2020 to 8/12/2021 there were 140 bone marrow biopsies performed, all through IR. The average time from order to the procedure was 23.1 days; from order to diagnosis was 27.8 days and from order to treatment was 54.8 days. After implementation of the bone marrow biopsy clinic, from 9/8/2021 to 5/25/2022 there have been 61 bone marrow biopsies performed (those ordered through IR were excluded). The average time from order to the procedure was 6.8 days; from order to diagnosis was 11.4 days and from order to treatment was 27.3 days. The differences in the average wait times for all 3 measures (time to procedure, diagnosis and treatment) were highly statistically significant (P < .001 for each), in favor of shorter wait times for those performed in the bone marrow clinic as compared to those done through IR. Implementation of a dedicated weekly bone marrow biopsy clinic significantly reduced wait times for the procedure, diagnosis and treatment initiation. This should be considered at other VA centers to improve the care of our veterans.

Clinical Situation

Bone marrow biopsies often need to be performed expeditiously in order to alleviate patient concerns and quickly determine a diagnosis and treatment plan. However, with increasing subspecialization there are fewer hematology/oncology providers available to perform this procedure.

Literature

Our VA previously addressed this issue by having all bone marrow biopsies performed through Interventional Radiology (IR). The average time from order to procedure, though, was 18.6 days (Arfons LM, AVAHO 2016).

Intervention

A weekly bone marrow biopsy clinic was formed, utilizing a small group (heme/onc physician, nurse practitioner and key nursing staff). In collaboration with pathology, interior design, pharmacy, facilities and environmental services, a standard operating procedure was developed, which included a staffing model, procedural checklist, documentation template, scheduling and ordering system.

Outcomes/Implications

Bone marrow biopsies performed before and after initiation of the bone marrow biopsy clinic were tracked for time from order placement to: procedure being done; diagnosis rendered; and for those whose biopsy result needed therapy, initiation of treatment. From 8/4/2020 to 8/12/2021 there were 140 bone marrow biopsies performed, all through IR. The average time from order to the procedure was 23.1 days; from order to diagnosis was 27.8 days and from order to treatment was 54.8 days. After implementation of the bone marrow biopsy clinic, from 9/8/2021 to 5/25/2022 there have been 61 bone marrow biopsies performed (those ordered through IR were excluded). The average time from order to the procedure was 6.8 days; from order to diagnosis was 11.4 days and from order to treatment was 27.3 days. The differences in the average wait times for all 3 measures (time to procedure, diagnosis and treatment) were highly statistically significant (P < .001 for each), in favor of shorter wait times for those performed in the bone marrow clinic as compared to those done through IR. Implementation of a dedicated weekly bone marrow biopsy clinic significantly reduced wait times for the procedure, diagnosis and treatment initiation. This should be considered at other VA centers to improve the care of our veterans.

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Page Number
S30
Page Number
S30
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

NP-Led Suspicion of Cancer Clinic Improves Timeliness of Care for Veterans

Article Type
Changed

Clinical Situation

Delays in diagnosis affect outcomes in veterans with cancer. Veterans sent into the community for suspected cancer frequently experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. This is further complicated by inappropriate workup, resulting in additional delays. Retaining veterans within the VA system for care and providing guidance to primary care providers (PCPs) to assist with expedited workup was an identified need. The Suspicion of Cancer Clinic (SOCC) was developed to address barriers to timely cancer diagnosis and care.

Literature

Researched private sector models of rapid cancer diagnostic and suspicion clinics. Literature analyzed showed improved outcomes through reduction of diagnostic delay. Nurse practitioner (NP)-led clinics were determined to be effective in expediting diagnosis and reducing cancer care delays.

Intervention

The Suspicion of Cancer Clinic is a tele-clinic, staffed with a NP. Diagnostic consult for the NP to assume the workup upon discovery of high suspicion of cancer, or via non-visit consult (NVC) to provide diagnostic guidance are available to PCPs. Outreach and education were performed prior initial clinic launch and post-launch, when need for further clarification of role and scope of the clinic was identified, based on consult trends.

Outcomes/Implications

The SOCC received 133 consults between 9/1/2021 and 6/6/2022 for veterans ranging age 29-94 years. Of these consults, 25 were expedited, diagnostic workups, 47 were NVCs, eliminating unnecessary or incomplete workups, yielding 23 veterans diagnosed with one of 8 types cancer. An additional 34 consults were forwarded to other appropriate service, and 27 were not appropriate for clinic and cancelled. Further outreach and education resulted in a 55% decrease in inappropriate consults. The NP retained 10 veterans (50%) within the VA for diagnostics, who had planned to receive community workup, which is an average four-week delay to schedule in the community. The SOCC was developed utilizing existing staff. The tele-clinic relieves workspace burden. Veterans received timely and appropriate cancer workups, reducing diagnostic delays. PCPs received additional support and guidance. Veterans retained within the VA system is more cost-effective and avoids community care delays. NP-led suspicion/rapid diagnostic clinic effectively reduced care delays by immediate initiation of further diagnostics and appropriate utilization of resources.

References

Campbell C, Nowell A, Karagheusian K, Giroux J, Kiteley C, Martelli L, McQuestion M, Quinn M, Rowe Samadhin YP, Touw M, Moody L. Practical innovation: Advanced practice nurses in cancer care. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):9-15. doi:10.5737/23688076301915. PMID: 33119001; PMCID: PMC7585714.
Drudge-Coates L, Khati V, Ballesteros R, Martyn-Hemphill C, Brown C, Green J, Challacombe B, Muir G. A nurse practitioner model for the assessment of suspected prostate cancer referrals is safe, cost and time efficient. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019 Dec 18;13:994. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2019.994. PMID: 32010218; PMCID: PMC6974368.
Nixon S, Bezverbnaya K, Maganti M, Gullane P, Reedijk M, Kuruvilla J, Prica A, Kridel R, Kukreti V, Bennett S, Rogalla P, Delabie J, Pintilie M, Crump M. Evaluation of Lymphadenopathy and Suspected Lymphoma in a Lymphoma Rapid Diagnosis Clinic. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jan;16(1):e29-e36. doi:10.1200/JOP.19.00202. Epub 2019 Oct 1. PMID: 31573831.
Vasilakis C, Forte P. Setting up a rapid diagnostic clinic for patients with vague symptoms of cancer: a mixed method process evaluation study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 17;21(1):357. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06360-0. PMID: 33865373; PMCID: PMC8052708.
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S30
Sections

Clinical Situation

Delays in diagnosis affect outcomes in veterans with cancer. Veterans sent into the community for suspected cancer frequently experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. This is further complicated by inappropriate workup, resulting in additional delays. Retaining veterans within the VA system for care and providing guidance to primary care providers (PCPs) to assist with expedited workup was an identified need. The Suspicion of Cancer Clinic (SOCC) was developed to address barriers to timely cancer diagnosis and care.

Literature

Researched private sector models of rapid cancer diagnostic and suspicion clinics. Literature analyzed showed improved outcomes through reduction of diagnostic delay. Nurse practitioner (NP)-led clinics were determined to be effective in expediting diagnosis and reducing cancer care delays.

Intervention

The Suspicion of Cancer Clinic is a tele-clinic, staffed with a NP. Diagnostic consult for the NP to assume the workup upon discovery of high suspicion of cancer, or via non-visit consult (NVC) to provide diagnostic guidance are available to PCPs. Outreach and education were performed prior initial clinic launch and post-launch, when need for further clarification of role and scope of the clinic was identified, based on consult trends.

Outcomes/Implications

The SOCC received 133 consults between 9/1/2021 and 6/6/2022 for veterans ranging age 29-94 years. Of these consults, 25 were expedited, diagnostic workups, 47 were NVCs, eliminating unnecessary or incomplete workups, yielding 23 veterans diagnosed with one of 8 types cancer. An additional 34 consults were forwarded to other appropriate service, and 27 were not appropriate for clinic and cancelled. Further outreach and education resulted in a 55% decrease in inappropriate consults. The NP retained 10 veterans (50%) within the VA for diagnostics, who had planned to receive community workup, which is an average four-week delay to schedule in the community. The SOCC was developed utilizing existing staff. The tele-clinic relieves workspace burden. Veterans received timely and appropriate cancer workups, reducing diagnostic delays. PCPs received additional support and guidance. Veterans retained within the VA system is more cost-effective and avoids community care delays. NP-led suspicion/rapid diagnostic clinic effectively reduced care delays by immediate initiation of further diagnostics and appropriate utilization of resources.

References

Campbell C, Nowell A, Karagheusian K, Giroux J, Kiteley C, Martelli L, McQuestion M, Quinn M, Rowe Samadhin YP, Touw M, Moody L. Practical innovation: Advanced practice nurses in cancer care. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):9-15. doi:10.5737/23688076301915. PMID: 33119001; PMCID: PMC7585714.
Drudge-Coates L, Khati V, Ballesteros R, Martyn-Hemphill C, Brown C, Green J, Challacombe B, Muir G. A nurse practitioner model for the assessment of suspected prostate cancer referrals is safe, cost and time efficient. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019 Dec 18;13:994. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2019.994. PMID: 32010218; PMCID: PMC6974368.
Nixon S, Bezverbnaya K, Maganti M, Gullane P, Reedijk M, Kuruvilla J, Prica A, Kridel R, Kukreti V, Bennett S, Rogalla P, Delabie J, Pintilie M, Crump M. Evaluation of Lymphadenopathy and Suspected Lymphoma in a Lymphoma Rapid Diagnosis Clinic. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jan;16(1):e29-e36. doi:10.1200/JOP.19.00202. Epub 2019 Oct 1. PMID: 31573831.
Vasilakis C, Forte P. Setting up a rapid diagnostic clinic for patients with vague symptoms of cancer: a mixed method process evaluation study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 17;21(1):357. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06360-0. PMID: 33865373; PMCID: PMC8052708.

Clinical Situation

Delays in diagnosis affect outcomes in veterans with cancer. Veterans sent into the community for suspected cancer frequently experience delays in diagnosis and treatment. This is further complicated by inappropriate workup, resulting in additional delays. Retaining veterans within the VA system for care and providing guidance to primary care providers (PCPs) to assist with expedited workup was an identified need. The Suspicion of Cancer Clinic (SOCC) was developed to address barriers to timely cancer diagnosis and care.

Literature

Researched private sector models of rapid cancer diagnostic and suspicion clinics. Literature analyzed showed improved outcomes through reduction of diagnostic delay. Nurse practitioner (NP)-led clinics were determined to be effective in expediting diagnosis and reducing cancer care delays.

Intervention

The Suspicion of Cancer Clinic is a tele-clinic, staffed with a NP. Diagnostic consult for the NP to assume the workup upon discovery of high suspicion of cancer, or via non-visit consult (NVC) to provide diagnostic guidance are available to PCPs. Outreach and education were performed prior initial clinic launch and post-launch, when need for further clarification of role and scope of the clinic was identified, based on consult trends.

Outcomes/Implications

The SOCC received 133 consults between 9/1/2021 and 6/6/2022 for veterans ranging age 29-94 years. Of these consults, 25 were expedited, diagnostic workups, 47 were NVCs, eliminating unnecessary or incomplete workups, yielding 23 veterans diagnosed with one of 8 types cancer. An additional 34 consults were forwarded to other appropriate service, and 27 were not appropriate for clinic and cancelled. Further outreach and education resulted in a 55% decrease in inappropriate consults. The NP retained 10 veterans (50%) within the VA for diagnostics, who had planned to receive community workup, which is an average four-week delay to schedule in the community. The SOCC was developed utilizing existing staff. The tele-clinic relieves workspace burden. Veterans received timely and appropriate cancer workups, reducing diagnostic delays. PCPs received additional support and guidance. Veterans retained within the VA system is more cost-effective and avoids community care delays. NP-led suspicion/rapid diagnostic clinic effectively reduced care delays by immediate initiation of further diagnostics and appropriate utilization of resources.

References

Campbell C, Nowell A, Karagheusian K, Giroux J, Kiteley C, Martelli L, McQuestion M, Quinn M, Rowe Samadhin YP, Touw M, Moody L. Practical innovation: Advanced practice nurses in cancer care. Can Oncol Nurs J. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):9-15. doi:10.5737/23688076301915. PMID: 33119001; PMCID: PMC7585714.
Drudge-Coates L, Khati V, Ballesteros R, Martyn-Hemphill C, Brown C, Green J, Challacombe B, Muir G. A nurse practitioner model for the assessment of suspected prostate cancer referrals is safe, cost and time efficient. Ecancermedicalscience. 2019 Dec 18;13:994. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2019.994. PMID: 32010218; PMCID: PMC6974368.
Nixon S, Bezverbnaya K, Maganti M, Gullane P, Reedijk M, Kuruvilla J, Prica A, Kridel R, Kukreti V, Bennett S, Rogalla P, Delabie J, Pintilie M, Crump M. Evaluation of Lymphadenopathy and Suspected Lymphoma in a Lymphoma Rapid Diagnosis Clinic. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Jan;16(1):e29-e36. doi:10.1200/JOP.19.00202. Epub 2019 Oct 1. PMID: 31573831.
Vasilakis C, Forte P. Setting up a rapid diagnostic clinic for patients with vague symptoms of cancer: a mixed method process evaluation study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 17;21(1):357. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06360-0. PMID: 33865373; PMCID: PMC8052708.
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Page Number
S30
Page Number
S30
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

The Use of Aromatherapy as a Complementary Alternative Medicine in the Management of Cancer-Related Pain

Article Type
Changed

Purpose

To identify the effectiveness of aromatherapy as an adjunct in improving pain and overall sense of well-being among patients with cancer receiving hospice care.

Background

There is limited data available on the use of aromatherapy for pain management among patients with cancer receiving end-of-life care. This project identifies the benefits of aromatherapy in a population where it was not previously evaluated.

Methods

Patients with cancer who were admitted to the hospice unit of a local hospital within a large healthcare system for at least 24 hours and taking opioids for neoplasm related pain at least once a day were included in the study. Patients with allergy to essential oils, and those suffering from allergic rhinitis and common cold, and a history of asthma were excluded. Patients who were unable to consent for study participation were also excluded.

Data Analysis

Retrospective chart analysis and surveys were used to collect the data. Univariate descriptive statistics were used for patient characteristics. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to determine opioid use before and after aromatherapy. The t test was used to compare pain scores before and after aromatherapy. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate how soothing the participants found the treatment to be. The Numeric Pain Intensity Scale was used for pain scores.

Results

There was a total of 40 participants, all of whom were male with an average age of 69 years. Pain scores before and after treatment were found to be statistically significant at an average of 5.15/10 vs 3.68/10, respectively. On a scale from 1-5 with 5 being the most soothing, there was an average rating of 3.87 among participants. There was not a statistically significant decline in opioid use from pre-treatment to post-treatment. Higher pain scores before intervention were associated with rating the lotion as more soothing.

Conclusions

The use of aromatherapy as a complement to opioids for cancer-related pain in the end-of-life was associated with an increase sense of well-being, resulted in lower pain scores and seems to have subjective comfort merit.

Implications

This study shows the potential benefits of using aromatherapy in end-of-life care among patients with cancer.

 

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Publications
Topics
Page Number
S29
Sections

Purpose

To identify the effectiveness of aromatherapy as an adjunct in improving pain and overall sense of well-being among patients with cancer receiving hospice care.

Background

There is limited data available on the use of aromatherapy for pain management among patients with cancer receiving end-of-life care. This project identifies the benefits of aromatherapy in a population where it was not previously evaluated.

Methods

Patients with cancer who were admitted to the hospice unit of a local hospital within a large healthcare system for at least 24 hours and taking opioids for neoplasm related pain at least once a day were included in the study. Patients with allergy to essential oils, and those suffering from allergic rhinitis and common cold, and a history of asthma were excluded. Patients who were unable to consent for study participation were also excluded.

Data Analysis

Retrospective chart analysis and surveys were used to collect the data. Univariate descriptive statistics were used for patient characteristics. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to determine opioid use before and after aromatherapy. The t test was used to compare pain scores before and after aromatherapy. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate how soothing the participants found the treatment to be. The Numeric Pain Intensity Scale was used for pain scores.

Results

There was a total of 40 participants, all of whom were male with an average age of 69 years. Pain scores before and after treatment were found to be statistically significant at an average of 5.15/10 vs 3.68/10, respectively. On a scale from 1-5 with 5 being the most soothing, there was an average rating of 3.87 among participants. There was not a statistically significant decline in opioid use from pre-treatment to post-treatment. Higher pain scores before intervention were associated with rating the lotion as more soothing.

Conclusions

The use of aromatherapy as a complement to opioids for cancer-related pain in the end-of-life was associated with an increase sense of well-being, resulted in lower pain scores and seems to have subjective comfort merit.

Implications

This study shows the potential benefits of using aromatherapy in end-of-life care among patients with cancer.

 

Purpose

To identify the effectiveness of aromatherapy as an adjunct in improving pain and overall sense of well-being among patients with cancer receiving hospice care.

Background

There is limited data available on the use of aromatherapy for pain management among patients with cancer receiving end-of-life care. This project identifies the benefits of aromatherapy in a population where it was not previously evaluated.

Methods

Patients with cancer who were admitted to the hospice unit of a local hospital within a large healthcare system for at least 24 hours and taking opioids for neoplasm related pain at least once a day were included in the study. Patients with allergy to essential oils, and those suffering from allergic rhinitis and common cold, and a history of asthma were excluded. Patients who were unable to consent for study participation were also excluded.

Data Analysis

Retrospective chart analysis and surveys were used to collect the data. Univariate descriptive statistics were used for patient characteristics. A Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test was used to determine opioid use before and after aromatherapy. The t test was used to compare pain scores before and after aromatherapy. A 5-point Likert scale was used to evaluate how soothing the participants found the treatment to be. The Numeric Pain Intensity Scale was used for pain scores.

Results

There was a total of 40 participants, all of whom were male with an average age of 69 years. Pain scores before and after treatment were found to be statistically significant at an average of 5.15/10 vs 3.68/10, respectively. On a scale from 1-5 with 5 being the most soothing, there was an average rating of 3.87 among participants. There was not a statistically significant decline in opioid use from pre-treatment to post-treatment. Higher pain scores before intervention were associated with rating the lotion as more soothing.

Conclusions

The use of aromatherapy as a complement to opioids for cancer-related pain in the end-of-life was associated with an increase sense of well-being, resulted in lower pain scores and seems to have subjective comfort merit.

Implications

This study shows the potential benefits of using aromatherapy in end-of-life care among patients with cancer.

 

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Page Number
S29
Page Number
S29
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Academic/Research Facility Utilization and Survival Outcomes in Osteosarcoma: An NCDB Analysis

Article Type
Changed

Background

Previous studies have reported that treatment at academic/research facilities is associated with improved survival in cancer patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of treatment facility type on overall survival for patients presenting with osteosarcoma.

Methods

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients diagnosed with Osteosarcoma from 2004 to 2018. Facility types were identified as assigned by the Commission on Cancer Accreditation program. Data was analyzed using SPSS and statistical significance was set at P = .05.

Results

Of 2085 patients queried, 39.6% were treated at an academic/research program. The stage-adjusted difference in median survival between academic/research and non-academic programs was found to be statistically significant on log-rank comparison (P < .001). At each NCDB analytic stage (stage I-IV), academic/research programs were associated with decreased hazard and improved median survival. A Cox proportional hazards model showed a decreased likelihood of mortality in patients with osteosarcoma who underwent treatment at an academic/research program (HR, 0.882; 95% CI, .802-.969; P = .009). Chi-square testing revealed that patients at academic/research programs were more likely than those at non-academic/research centers to have private insurance, less likely to have Medicare, and more likely to live in counties of > 1 million people. These facilities were also more likely to have undergone Medicaid expansion in 2014. (P < .05). Patients at non-academic/research programs were more likely to have advanced disease (stage III and IV) and higher comorbidity scores. Additionally, they were less likely to receive surgery and/or chemotherapy at the institution in which they were diagnosed. (P < .05).

Conclusions

This study showed that Osteosarcoma patients treated in an academic/research program facility experienced increased survival compared with non-academic/research facilities. Patients at academic/research facilities tend to have less comorbidities, have private insurance, and present with more treatable disease. Despite these favorable prognostic factors, the data suggest an intrinsic benefit to being treated at an academic/research facility.

 

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Publications
Topics
Sections

Background

Previous studies have reported that treatment at academic/research facilities is associated with improved survival in cancer patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of treatment facility type on overall survival for patients presenting with osteosarcoma.

Methods

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients diagnosed with Osteosarcoma from 2004 to 2018. Facility types were identified as assigned by the Commission on Cancer Accreditation program. Data was analyzed using SPSS and statistical significance was set at P = .05.

Results

Of 2085 patients queried, 39.6% were treated at an academic/research program. The stage-adjusted difference in median survival between academic/research and non-academic programs was found to be statistically significant on log-rank comparison (P < .001). At each NCDB analytic stage (stage I-IV), academic/research programs were associated with decreased hazard and improved median survival. A Cox proportional hazards model showed a decreased likelihood of mortality in patients with osteosarcoma who underwent treatment at an academic/research program (HR, 0.882; 95% CI, .802-.969; P = .009). Chi-square testing revealed that patients at academic/research programs were more likely than those at non-academic/research centers to have private insurance, less likely to have Medicare, and more likely to live in counties of > 1 million people. These facilities were also more likely to have undergone Medicaid expansion in 2014. (P < .05). Patients at non-academic/research programs were more likely to have advanced disease (stage III and IV) and higher comorbidity scores. Additionally, they were less likely to receive surgery and/or chemotherapy at the institution in which they were diagnosed. (P < .05).

Conclusions

This study showed that Osteosarcoma patients treated in an academic/research program facility experienced increased survival compared with non-academic/research facilities. Patients at academic/research facilities tend to have less comorbidities, have private insurance, and present with more treatable disease. Despite these favorable prognostic factors, the data suggest an intrinsic benefit to being treated at an academic/research facility.

 

Background

Previous studies have reported that treatment at academic/research facilities is associated with improved survival in cancer patients. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of treatment facility type on overall survival for patients presenting with osteosarcoma.

Methods

The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to identify patients diagnosed with Osteosarcoma from 2004 to 2018. Facility types were identified as assigned by the Commission on Cancer Accreditation program. Data was analyzed using SPSS and statistical significance was set at P = .05.

Results

Of 2085 patients queried, 39.6% were treated at an academic/research program. The stage-adjusted difference in median survival between academic/research and non-academic programs was found to be statistically significant on log-rank comparison (P < .001). At each NCDB analytic stage (stage I-IV), academic/research programs were associated with decreased hazard and improved median survival. A Cox proportional hazards model showed a decreased likelihood of mortality in patients with osteosarcoma who underwent treatment at an academic/research program (HR, 0.882; 95% CI, .802-.969; P = .009). Chi-square testing revealed that patients at academic/research programs were more likely than those at non-academic/research centers to have private insurance, less likely to have Medicare, and more likely to live in counties of > 1 million people. These facilities were also more likely to have undergone Medicaid expansion in 2014. (P < .05). Patients at non-academic/research programs were more likely to have advanced disease (stage III and IV) and higher comorbidity scores. Additionally, they were less likely to receive surgery and/or chemotherapy at the institution in which they were diagnosed. (P < .05).

Conclusions

This study showed that Osteosarcoma patients treated in an academic/research program facility experienced increased survival compared with non-academic/research facilities. Patients at academic/research facilities tend to have less comorbidities, have private insurance, and present with more treatable disease. Despite these favorable prognostic factors, the data suggest an intrinsic benefit to being treated at an academic/research facility.

 

Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Issue
Federal Practitioner - 39(4)s
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article