BACKGROUND: Although a growing body of literature recommends the early initiation of palliative care (PC), the use of PC remains variable. OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to describe the use of PC and to identify factors associated with the use of inpatient PC. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from the National Inpatient Sample. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of gastrointestinal and/or thoracic cancer from 2012 to 2013. MEASUREMENTS: In-hospital length of stay (LOS), morbidity, mortality, and total charges. RESULTS: A total of 282,899 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria of whom, 24,100 (8.5%) patients received a PC consultation during their inpatient admission. Patients who received PC were more likely to have a longer LOS (LOS >14 days: 5.4% vs. 9.4%) and were more likely to develop a postoperative complication (28.3% vs. 45.9%, both p < 0.001). Inpatient mortality was significantly higher among patients who had received PC than those who did not (5.4% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patient age (age ≥75 years: Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.54, 95% CI: 2.33-2.78), comorbidity (CCI >6: OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 2.48-2.74), and admission to larger hospitals (reference small: OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.25) were associated with greater odds of receiving PC (all p < 0.05). Patients who underwent a major operation during their inpatient admission demonstrated 79% lower odds of receiving PC (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.20-0.22, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted for cancer, PC services were used in 8.5% of patients during their inpatient admission with surgical patients being 79% less likely to receive a PC consultation. Further research is required to delineate the barriers to the use of PC so as to promote the use of PC among high-risk patients.
BACKGROUND: Although a growing body of literature recommends the early initiation of palliative care (PC), the use of PC remains variable. OBJECTIVE: The current study sought to describe the use of PC and to identify factors associated with the use of inpatient PC. DESIGN: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of data from the National Inpatient Sample. SETTING AND SUBJECTS:Patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of gastrointestinal and/or thoracic cancer from 2012 to 2013. MEASUREMENTS: In-hospital length of stay (LOS), morbidity, mortality, and total charges. RESULTS: A total of 282,899 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria of whom, 24,100 (8.5%) patients received a PC consultation during their inpatient admission. Patients who received PC were more likely to have a longer LOS (LOS >14 days: 5.4% vs. 9.4%) and were more likely to develop a postoperative complication (28.3% vs. 45.9%, both p < 0.001). Inpatient mortality was significantly higher among patients who had received PC than those who did not (5.4% vs. 44.1%, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, patient age (age ≥75 years: Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.54, 95% CI: 2.33-2.78), comorbidity (CCI >6: OR = 2.60, 95% CI: 2.48-2.74), and admission to larger hospitals (reference small: OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.14-1.25) were associated with greater odds of receiving PC (all p < 0.05). Patients who underwent a major operation during their inpatient admission demonstrated 79% lower odds of receiving PC (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.20-0.22, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted for cancer, PC services were used in 8.5% of patients during their inpatient admission with surgical patients being 79% less likely to receive a PC consultation. Further research is required to delineate the barriers to the use of PC so as to promote the use of PC among high-risk patients.
Authors: Courtney L Olmsted; Amy M Johnson; Peter Kaboli; Joseph Cullen; Mary S Vaughan-Sarrazin Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: David Hui; Ahmed Elsayem; Maxine De la Cruz; Ann Berger; Donna S Zhukovsky; Shana Palla; Avery Evans; Nada Fadul; J Lynn Palmer; Eduardo Bruera Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Sonal Admane; Emily R Gallagher; Vicki A Jackson; Thomas J Lynch; Inga T Lennes; Connie M Dahlin; William F Pirl Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Peter May; Melissa M Garrido; J Brian Cassel; Amy S Kelley; Diane E Meier; Charles Normand; Lee Stefanis; Thomas J Smith; R Sean Morrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Thomas J Smith; Sarah Temin; Erin R Alesi; Amy P Abernethy; Tracy A Balboni; Ethan M Basch; Betty R Ferrell; Matt Loscalzo; Diane E Meier; Judith A Paice; Jeffrey M Peppercorn; Mark Somerfield; Ellen Stovall; Jamie H Von Roenn Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Yumeng Wen; Changchuan Jiang; Holly M Koncicki; Carol R Horowitz; Richard S Cooper; Aparna Saha; Steven G Coca; Girish N Nadkarni; Lili Chan Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Vinay B Rao; Emmanuelle Belanger; Pamela C Egan; Thomas W LeBlanc; Adam J Olszewski Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jinwook Hwang; Jay J Shen; Sun Jung Kim; Sung-Youn Chun; Pearl C Kim; Se Won Lee; David Byun; Ji Won Yoo Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-06-19 Impact factor: 1.817
Authors: Boateng Kubi; Zachary O Enumah; Kimberley T Lee; Karen M Freund; Thomas J Smith; Lisa A Cooper; Jill T Owczarzak; Fabian M Johnston Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2020-02-22 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Meghan Price; Elizabeth P Howell; Tara Dalton; Luis Ramirez; Claire Howell; Theresa Williamson; Peter E Fecci; Carey K Anders; Devon K Check; Arif H Kamal; C Rory Goodwin Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-02-24