Taylor, Richard A.

AbstractNational performance metrics ultimately enhance patient decision‐making and promote meaningful improvements in health care delivery, which makes having valid and reliable measures essential. This study examined US News and World Report metrics from 2019 to 2012 and used electronic health record data, combined with detailed chart review across 3 in‐system hospitals, to assess the provision of care compared to the attribution of patients assigned to the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) mortality group. Of the initial 47 ENT‐attributed deaths, 23 of those were verified, dimensioning the mortality rate from 1.7% to just 0.8%. These results underscore the necessity of rethinking measures and mortality attribution methodologies to be more accurate. Current methods use Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group billing coding to map the attribution. We suggest transitioning away from specialty ranking approaches and towards a procedure and condition “rating” approach to ensure that these ranking types capture data about the provision of care within a given encounter.

Purpose: Advances in targeted therapeutics for histiocytic neoplasms have led to a growing survivor population, especially for Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD), Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), and Rosai-Dorfman disease (RDD). This growing population is at risk of adverse health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as a result of the disease or treatments received. Patient-reported outcomes in this population remain understudied, and we aim to define their HRQoL using a validated tool. Methods: We enrolled patients from 2 histiocytosis centers and an international conference from Aug 2022-April 2023 to complete the PROMIS © (Patient-Reported Outcomes [PROs] Measurement Information System) 29+2 profile v2.1, which captures 8 domains of physical/mental health and functioning. Domains are reported as T-scores, with 50 being the general population mean. We calculated summary T-scores for Physical Health (PH) and Mental Health (MH), and differences of 3 from general population were considered clinically meaningful. We then used these T-scores to calculate each patient's PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score, which is a health-utility score that measures overall HRQoL. A mean PROPr score difference of 0.4 from the US population mean of 0.52 was considered meaningful. We ran independent-samples t-tests to examine differences in PH/MH summary scores and PROPr between sub-cohorts. Finally, we performed a multinomial logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with worse scores, and calculated odds ratios (OR) for each factor. Results: We included a total of 77 participants. Specific diagnoses included ECD (n=33, 42.9%), LCH (n=21, 27.3%), RDD (n=19, 24.7%), and other/unknown (n=4, 5.2%). Median age at diagnosis was 50y (9-79) and at survey was 54y (18-82), with a median 4 year difference between diagnosis and survey completion. Racial demographics included white (n=64, 83.1%), Black (n=12, 15.6%), and Asian (n=1, 1.3%). 4 patients (5.2%) identified as having a Hispanic ethnicity. Disease extent included unifocal (n=13, 16.9%), single system multifocal (ss-M, n=8, 10.4%), single system lung LCH (ss-L, n=3, 3.9%), or multisystem (n=53, 68.8%) disease. The most commonly involved organs included bone (n=44, 57.1%), kidney (n=24, 31.2%), skin (n=24, 31.2%), CNS (n=24, 31.2%), and pituitary (n=19, 24.7%). PH and MH summary scores were lower in various diagnostic categories as compared with the US population, and PROPr scores were reduced in all diagnostic categories. Bone involvement was associated with worse PH (-6.16, 95%CI -10.81, -1.52, [p=0.005]), MH (-7.96, 95%CI -12.48, -3.44, [p=<0.001]), and PROPr (-0.184, 95%CI -0.313, -0.056, [p=0.003]) scores. CNS involvement was associated with worse PH (-4.78, 95%CI -9.14, -0.42, [p=0.016]). We initially constructed a multinomial regression model using diagnosis, race, age at survey completion, and CNS and bone involvement. This model was not statistically significant, and in particular, diagnosis and age did not significantly contribute to the model. We then removed diagnosis and age and constructed a new model using the remaining variables, which was statistically significant for all 3 scores (p<0.05). We found that factors associated with worse PH score were disease involvement of bone (OR=6.19, 95%CI 1.88, 20.43 [p=0.003]) and CNS (OR=10.36, 95%CI 2.01, 53.39 [p=0.005] Figure 2). Factors associated with worse MH scores included female sex (OR=4.12, 95%CI 1.24, 13.66 [p=0.021]) and CNS involvement (OR=10.74, 95%CI 2.47, 46.79 [p=0.002]). Having race/ethnic group other than white/Non-Hispanic or Black was associated with improved MH. However, as this group had only 4 members, the significance of this is uncertain. Finally, CNS involvement was found to be associated with worse odds of having a low PROPr score (OR=10.46, 95%CI 2.17, 50.37 [p=0.003]). Conclusions: Several PROs were worse in patients with histiocytic neoplasms as compared with the general population. We further found that CNS involvement was independently associated with worse HRQoL, regardless of the diagnosis type. Additionally, female sex was associated with worse MH scores, and bone involvement with worse PH scores. PROPr score was particularly low among patients with ECD. Future research is warranted to assess the impact of treatments on HRQoL, as well as the economic loss resulting from loss of productivity as highlighted by low PROPr scores.

e24082 Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is associated with significant short- and long-term sequelae that affect patients’ overall quality of life (QoL) and their physical and psychological well-being. Studies have shown improvement in patient QoL and physician satisfaction with palliative care involvement in the allo-HCT process. However, patient and physician perceptions regarding palliative care often impact timely referral. We conducted a prospective study to examine patient perceptions of palliative care both before and after palliative care consultation during evaluation for allo-HCT. Methods: This is a prospective, single-center study, of patients > 18 years of age, who were referred for a palliative care consultation as part of standard evaluation for allo-HCT. Patients were administered a pre- and post-visit internally derived questionnaire to assess their understanding and comfort level with palliative care. The primary objective of this study was to examine patient perceptions of palliative care consultation during evaluation for allo-HCT. Primary end point was the change in patient pre- and post- questionnaire responses. Secondary endpoint was the completion of advance care planning documentation pre- and post- consultation. Results: We enrolled 32 patients (male = 14) undergoing evaluation for allo-HCT with a primary diagnosis of AML (n = 8), NHL (n = 8), MDS (n = 7), ALL (n = 2), and other (n = 7). Following consultation with palliative care there was a statistically significant increase in patient understanding of the reason for the appointment, p = 0.0006. There was also a significant increase in patient’s knowledge of palliative care, with only 28% describing their knowledge as “good” or “excellent” prior to consultation and 79.3% after consultation, p < 0.0001. There was an observed positive, non-statistically significant, trend in patient comfort level with palliative medicine with only 20.7% (n = 6) describing their comfort as “high” or “very high” prior to consultation and 51.7% (n = 15) after consultation, p = 0.60. There was a higher rate of completion of advance care planning documentation following consultation with palliative medicine 56.3% vs 71.4%, p = 0.042. Conclusions: Palliative care consultation prior to allo-HCT increases a patient’s understanding of the role of palliative medicine as part of their allo-HCT and improves advance care planning. These findings need to be validated in a larger, multicenter, patient cohort.