David Hui1, Eduardo Bruera2. 1. Department of Palliative Care & Rehabilitation Medicine Unit 1414, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. dhui@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Palliative care aims to improve cancer patients' quality of life through expert symptom management, psychosocial and spiritual care, patient-clinician communication, facilitation of complex decision making, and end-of-life care planning. Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest and evidence to support integration of oncology and palliative care. However, it remains unclear how best to promote integration. The goal of this review is to examine contemporary conceptual models and clinical approaches to integrate oncology and palliative care. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Conceptual models are useful to help stakeholders understand the rationale for integration, to compare the risks and benefits among different practices, and to define a vision towards integration. We will review four major conceptual models of integration, including (I) the time-based model which emphasizes on integration based on chronological criterion; (II) the provider-based (palli-centric) model which discusses primary, secondary and tertiary palliative care; (III) the issue-based (onco-centric) model which illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of the solo practice, congress and integrated care approaches; and (IV) the system-based (patient-centric) model which emphasizes automatic referral based on clinical events. Clinical models provide actual data on the feasibility, efficacy and effectiveness of integration in specific settings. The evidence and challenges related to selected clinical models in integrating oncology and palliative care, such as outpatient palliative care clinics and embedded clinics will be discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple conceptual models and clinical models to promote integration. Further research is needed to inform best practices for integration at different healthcare settings.
OBJECTIVE: Palliative care aims to improve cancerpatients' quality of life through expert symptom management, psychosocial and spiritual care, patient-clinician communication, facilitation of complex decision making, and end-of-life care planning. Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest and evidence to support integration of oncology and palliative care. However, it remains unclear how best to promote integration. The goal of this review is to examine contemporary conceptual models and clinical approaches to integrate oncology and palliative care. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Conceptual models are useful to help stakeholders understand the rationale for integration, to compare the risks and benefits among different practices, and to define a vision towards integration. We will review four major conceptual models of integration, including (I) the time-based model which emphasizes on integration based on chronological criterion; (II) the provider-based (palli-centric) model which discusses primary, secondary and tertiary palliative care; (III) the issue-based (onco-centric) model which illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of the solo practice, congress and integrated care approaches; and (IV) the system-based (patient-centric) model which emphasizes automatic referral based on clinical events. Clinical models provide actual data on the feasibility, efficacy and effectiveness of integration in specific settings. The evidence and challenges related to selected clinical models in integrating oncology and palliative care, such as outpatient palliative care clinics and embedded clinics will be discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple conceptual models and clinical models to promote integration. Further research is needed to inform best practices for integration at different healthcare settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
Access; health systems; integration; neoplasms; palliative care; referral
Authors: Claire J Creutzfeldt; Benzi Kluger; Adam G Kelly; Monica Lemmon; David Y Hwang; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Alan Carver; Maya Katz; J Randall Curtis; Robert G Holloway Journal: Neurology Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Katie M Moynihan; Jennifer M Snaman; Erica C Kaye; Wynne E Morrison; Aaron G DeWitt; Loren D Sacks; Jess L Thompson; Jennifer M Hwang; Valerie Bailey; Deborah A Lafond; Joanne Wolfe; Elizabeth D Blume Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Erica C Kaye; Courtney A Gushue; Samantha DeMarsh; Jonathan Jerkins; April Sykes; Zhaohua Lu; Jennifer M Snaman; Lindsay Blazin; Liza-Marie Johnson; Deena R Levine; R Ray Morrison; Justin N Baker Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2017-12-08 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Sarah F D'Ambruoso; Anne Coscarelli; Sara Hurvitz; Neil Wenger; David Coniglio; Dusty Donaldson; Christopher Pietras; Anne M Walling Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Jessica J Fulton; Thomas W LeBlanc; Toni M Cutson; Kathryn N Porter Starr; Arif Kamal; Katherine Ramos; Caroline E Freiermuth; Jennifer R McDuffie; Andrzej Kosinski; Soheir Adam; Avishek Nagi; John W Williams Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Emanuela Scarpi; Monia Dall'Agata; Vittorina Zagonel; Teresa Gamucci; Raffaella Bertè; Elisabetta Sansoni; Elena Amaducci; Chiara Maria Broglia; Sara Alquati; Ferdinando Garetto; Stefania Schiavon; Silvia Quadrini; Elena Orlandi; Andrea Casadei Gardini; Silvia Ruscelli; Daris Ferrari; Maria Simona Pino; Roberto Bortolussi; Federica Negri; Silvia Stragliotto; Filomena Narducci; Martina Valgiusti; Alberto Farolfi; Oriana Nanni; Romina Rossi; Marco Maltoni Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 3.603