Kenneth D Gibbs1, Margaret M Mahon2, Meredith Truss3, Kira Eyring4. 1. Cancer Prevention Fellowship Program, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; Science of Research and Technology Branch, Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Electronic address: kenneth.gibbs@nih.gov. 2. University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 3. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. American Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Maryland recently passed legislation mandating that hospitals with more than 50 beds have palliative care (PC) programs. Although the state's health agency can play a key role in ensuring successful implementation of this measure, there is little actionable information from which it can guide resource allocation for enhancing PC delivery statewide. OBJECTIVES: To assess the PC infrastructure at Maryland's 46 community-based nonspecialty hospitals and to describe providers' perspectives on barriers to PC and supports that could enhance PC delivery. METHODS: Data on PC programs were collected using two mechanisms. First, a survey was sent to all 46 community-based hospital chief executive officers by the Maryland Cancer Collaborative. The Maryland Health Care Commission provided supplementary survey and semistructured interview data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight hospitals (60.9%) provided information on their PC services. Eighty-nine percent of these hospitals reported the presence of a structured PC program. The profile of services provided by PC programs was largely conserved across hospital geography and size. The most common barriers reported to PC delivery were lack of knowledge among patients and/or families and lack of physician buy-in; most hospitals reported that networks and/or conferences to promote best practice sharing in PC would be useful supports. CONCLUSION: Systematic collection of state-level PC infrastructure data can be used to guide state health agencies' understanding of extant resources and challenges, using those data to determine resource allocation to promote the timely receipt of PC for patients and families. Published by Elsevier Inc.
CONTEXT: Maryland recently passed legislation mandating that hospitals with more than 50 beds have palliative care (PC) programs. Although the state's health agency can play a key role in ensuring successful implementation of this measure, there is little actionable information from which it can guide resource allocation for enhancing PC delivery statewide. OBJECTIVES: To assess the PC infrastructure at Maryland's 46 community-based nonspecialty hospitals and to describe providers' perspectives on barriers to PC and supports that could enhance PC delivery. METHODS: Data on PC programs were collected using two mechanisms. First, a survey was sent to all 46 community-based hospital chief executive officers by the Maryland Cancer Collaborative. The Maryland Health Care Commission provided supplementary survey and semistructured interview data. RESULTS: Twenty-eight hospitals (60.9%) provided information on their PC services. Eighty-nine percent of these hospitals reported the presence of a structured PC program. The profile of services provided by PC programs was largely conserved across hospital geography and size. The most common barriers reported to PC delivery were lack of knowledge among patients and/or families and lack of physician buy-in; most hospitals reported that networks and/or conferences to promote best practice sharing in PC would be useful supports. CONCLUSION: Systematic collection of state-level PC infrastructure data can be used to guide state health agencies' understanding of extant resources and challenges, using those data to determine resource allocation to promote the timely receipt of PC for patients and families. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Palliative care; barriers and supports; departments of health; infrastructure; state-level data
Authors: Lee A Hugar; Elizabeth M Wulff-Burchfield; Gary S Winzelberg; Bruce L Jacobs; Benjamin J Davies Journal: Nat Rev Urol Date: 2021-07-26 Impact factor: 14.432