Strand, Jacob J.

Objectives: Recent evidence suggests that music therapy, a holistic method of care, potentially is beneficial for symptom management. This quality improvement project aimed to evaluate the effect of music therapy on symptom management and coping skills of patients receiving palliative care and to measure patient satisfaction with the therapy. A secondary aim was to evaluate staff perception of patient outcomes of music therapy services. Methods: Palliative care clinicians attended a 30-minute education session on music therapy before the project was initiated. Study participants were patients and their families who were cared for by the inpatient palliative care consulting service at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota) from June 1 through December 31, 2016. Patients were eligible if they required ongoing management of pain and anxiety or needed adaptive coping strategies. Patients and families were asked to complete a survey after each music therapy session. Staff were asked to complete a survey after completion of the project. Results: Music therapy was provided to 57 patients and 53 family members. Patient surveys indicated a decrease in anxiety and pain. All patients reported that music therapy facilitated stress relief, relaxation, pain relief, spiritual support, emotional support, and a general feeling of wellness. All participants recommended music therapy services for others. Palliative care clinicians reported that music therapy added value as a holistic service. Conclusions: In this quality improvement project, music therapy positively affected multiple domains of well-being for patients receiving palliative care.

95 Background: Palliative care (PC) specialists provide supportive care for patients with hematologic diseases (HD). However, the degree of engagement by PC physicians may be limited by the views of both PC physicians & hematologists. Prior studies have surveyed hematologists to identify barriers to delivery of PC, however PC physician views are unclear. This study aimed to examine views of PC physicians toward hematology. Methods: A survey was mailed to a random sample of the AAHPM physician contact list in 2017. Items focused on perceptions of their understanding of HD, comfort providing care, opinions regarding PC & hospice involvement, & beliefs about hematologists. Anonymized responses were assessed on a Likert scale. Statistical testing was based on logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for correlated data within respondents. Results: 538 of 1000 surveys were completed. 51.9% of respondents were male. Community (37.2%), academic (36.7%) & hospice (26.2%) physicians were represented. Respondents were likelier to believe they understand the trajectories of lymphoma & myeloma than leukemia or patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (p < 0.001). They were more comfortable discussing prognosis (p < 0.001) & managing symptoms (p < 0.001) in lymphoma & myeloma than leukemia & HSCT. They were likelier to believe that hematologists’ perceptions of PC physicians limit collaboration rather than their own views of hematologists (p < 0.001). 80.2% agreed that hospice referrals are not made early enough. Conclusions: PC physicians’ understanding of trajectories & comfort caring for patients varies by hematologic disease. They perceive that hematologists’ perceptions are a larger barrier than their own & hospice referrals are delayed. These results provide insights into opportunities for better collaboration with hematologists.

Despite the growing acceptance of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy to improve survival and quality of life in heart failure (HF) patients, uncertainties persist regarding the definition of a successful implant. We sought to define an innovative approach to assess success and subsequently compare preoperative variables affecting outcomes. From January 2007 to 2015, 278 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Median age at implant was 62 years and 81% patients were males. Indication for support was bridge-to-transplantation in 36% patients and the etiology of HF was ischemic in 49% patients. Based on clinically relevant and accepted standards, we defined successful LVAD implant as someone who was alive or transplanted at 2 years, had two or less readmissions in the first year, had no major adverse events in the first year, and had a New York Heart Association class of ≤ II at 6 months. Follow-up was obtained for a median of 1.7 years for a total of 605 patient-years-of-support. Based on our criteria, 81/278 (29%) patients were defined as having a successful implant. Univariate predictors of LVAD failure included destination therapy indication (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.11 [1.24, 3.58]), ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 1.73 [1.02, 2.94]), and a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (HR = 1.54 [1.07, 2.22]). After multivariable analysis, only destination therapy indication (HR = 2.2 [1.28, 3.78]) was found to be independently predictive of success failure. Despite an overall trend toward improved outcomes on device therapy, our criteria classified only one-third of patients as successful. Continued improvements in adverse event profiles, appropriate patient selection, and optimal time of implantation, together hold the key to improve outcomes after LVAD therapy.

91 Background: Formal mechanisms to share data on quality remain immature in specialty palliative care. As the field grows, infrastructure that promotes collaboration among academic and community-based practice will be required to foster comparisons and benchmarking of data to inform areas for quality improvement. Further, such relationships will create a palliative care “quality improvement laboratory”, where proposed guidelines and best practices can be developed, implemented, and tested. Methods: We set out to bring together specialty palliative care practices with a shared vision for collaborative quality improvement. We modeled our approach after the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Breakthrough Series alongside our Rapid Learning Quality Improvement paradigm. We use a set of common data collection procedures, across an electronic point-of-care platform called Quality Data Collection Tool (QDACT), alongside a centralized data registry. Further, we meet and discuss challenges and issues, compare best practices, and brainstorm new projects through biweekly conference calls. Results: We have created a multi-institutional collaboration for quality assessment and improvement in specialty palliative care. Termed the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance, we have brought together 11 academic and community organizations, both general and oncology-specific, across six states to study various areas of quality practice. Short-term, we will conduct rapid-cycling quality improvement projects addressing National Quality Forum domains for quality palliative care, including documentation of spiritual assessment and timely advance care planning. Long-term, we aim to study the link between quality measure adherence and outcomes and further align our initiatives with those of other large consortia, like the Palliative Care Research Cooperative and Palliative Care Quality Network. Conclusions: Collaborative quality improvement is needed in specialty palliative care across a national platform. Developing the infrastructure to perform standardized quality improvement is achievable across multiple palliative care settings.

Background— Despite the ability of left ventricular assist device as destination therapy (DT-LVAD) to prolong survival for many patients with advanced heart failure, little is known about the eventual end-of-life care that patients with DT-LVAD receive. Methods and Results— All patients undergoing DT-LVAD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2007, to September 30, 2014, who subsequently died before July 1, 2015, were included. Information about end-of-life care was obtained from documentation in the electronic medical record. Of 89 patients who died with a DT-LVAD, the median (25th–75th percentile) time from left ventricular assist device implantation to death was 14 (4–31) months. The most common causes of death were multiorgan failure (26%), hemorrhagic stroke (24%), and progressive heart failure (21%). Nearly half (46%) of the patients saw palliative care within 1 month before death; however, only 13 (15%) patients enrolled in hospice a median 11 (range 1–315) days before death. Most patients (78%) died in the hospital, of which 88% died in the intensive care unit. In total, 49 patients had their left ventricular assist device deactivated before death, with all but 3 undergoing deactivation in the hospital. Most patients died within an hour of left ventricular assist device deactivation and all within 26 hours. Conclusions— In contrast to the general heart failure population, most patients with DT-LVAD die in the hospital and few use hospice. Further work is needed to understand these differences and to determine whether patients with DT-LVAD are receiving optimal end-of-life care.