Eijean Wu1, Anna Rogers1, Lingyun Ji1, Richard Sposto1, Terry Church1, Lynda Roman1, Debu Tripathy1, Yvonne G Lin2. 1. Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Healthcare Network; University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and Ventura County Medical System, Ventura, CA. 2. Los Angeles County and University of Southern California Healthcare Network; University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine; Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles; and Ventura County Medical System, Ventura, CA yglin@alum.mit.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Use of oncology-related services is increasingly scrutinized, yet precisely which services are actually rendered to patients, particularly at the end of life, is unknown. This study characterizes the end-of-life use of medical services by patients with gynecologic cancer at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: Oncologic history and metrics of medical use (eg, hospitalizations, chemotherapy infusions, procedures) for patients with gynecologic oncology who died between December 2006 and February 2012 were evaluated. Mixed-effect regression models were used to test time effects and construct usage summaries. RESULTS: Among 116 subjects, cervical cancer accounted for the most deaths (42%). The median age at diagnosis was 55 years; 63% were Hispanic, and 65% had advanced disease. Only 34% died in hospice care. The median times from do not resuscitate/do not intubate documentation and from last therapeutic intervention to death were 9 days and 55 days, respectively. Significant time effects for all services (eg, hospitalizations, diagnostics, procedures, treatments, clinic appointments) were detected during the patient's final year (P < .001), with the most dramatic changes occurring during the last 2 months. Patients with longer duration of continuity of care used significantly fewer resources toward the end of life. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first report enumerating medical services obtained by patients with gynecologic cancer in a large, public hospital during the end of life. Marked changes in interventions in the patient's final 2 months highlight the need for cost-effective, evidence-based metrics for delivering cancer care. Our data emphasize continuity of care as a significant determinant of oncologic resource use during this critical period.
PURPOSE: Use of oncology-related services is increasingly scrutinized, yet precisely which services are actually rendered to patients, particularly at the end of life, is unknown. This study characterizes the end-of-life use of medical services by patients with gynecologic cancer at a safety-net hospital. METHODS: Oncologic history and metrics of medical use (eg, hospitalizations, chemotherapy infusions, procedures) for patients with gynecologic oncology who died between December 2006 and February 2012 were evaluated. Mixed-effect regression models were used to test time effects and construct usage summaries. RESULTS: Among 116 subjects, cervical cancer accounted for the most deaths (42%). The median age at diagnosis was 55 years; 63% were Hispanic, and 65% had advanced disease. Only 34% died in hospice care. The median times from do not resuscitate/do not intubate documentation and from last therapeutic intervention to death were 9 days and 55 days, respectively. Significant time effects for all services (eg, hospitalizations, diagnostics, procedures, treatments, clinic appointments) were detected during the patient's final year (P < .001), with the most dramatic changes occurring during the last 2 months. Patients with longer duration of continuity of care used significantly fewer resources toward the end of life. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first report enumerating medical services obtained by patients with gynecologic cancer in a large, public hospital during the end of life. Marked changes in interventions in the patient's final 2 months highlight the need for cost-effective, evidence-based metrics for delivering cancer care. Our data emphasize continuity of care as a significant determinant of oncologic resource use during this critical period.
Authors: Sharyn N Lewin; Barbara M Buttin; Matthew A Powell; Randall K Gibb; Janet S Rader; David G Mutch; Thomas J Herzog Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-09-02 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Erin A Keyser; Beverly G Reed; William J Lowery; Michael J Sundborg; William E Winter; John A Ward; Charles A Leath Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2010-06-12 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: John L Dalrymple; Charles Levenback; Judith K Wolf; Diane C Bodurka; Michael Garcia; David M Gershenson Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Craig C Earle; Mary Beth Landrum; Jeffrey M Souza; Bridget A Neville; Jane C Weeks; John Z Ayanian Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-08-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Tomer T Levin; Yuelin Li; Joseph S Weiner; Frank Lewis; Abraham Bartell; Jessica Piercy; David W Kissane Journal: Palliat Support Care Date: 2008-12
Authors: Benjamin Margolis; Ling Chen; Melissa K Accordino; Grace Clarke Hillyer; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; William M Burke; Alfred I Neugut; Cande V Ananth; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jolyn S Taylor; Suja S Rajan; Ning Zhang; Larissa A Meyer; Lois M Ramondetta; Diane C Bodurka; David R Lairson; Sharon H Giordano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul R Duberstein; Michael Chen; Michael Hoerger; Ronald M Epstein; Laura M Perry; Sule Yilmaz; Fahad Saeed; Supriya G Mohile; Sally A Norton Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 3.612