Abernethy, Amy Pickar

97 Background: Optimal management of chronic medications is uncertain in life-limiting illness. To inform shared decision making, we assessed patient perceptions in a trial on the safety of discontinuing statins in life-limiting illness. Methods: Eligible adults (life expectancy 1–12 months, on statin for ≥ 3 months for primary/secondary prevention, recent functional decline, no active cardiovascular disease) were randomized to discontinue or continue statins and were followed monthly for up to 1 year. Cognitively intact participants were asked 9 questions regarding discontinuing statins prior to randomization. We used Pearson chi-square to compare responses between study groups and between those with and without cancer. Of 381 participants, 297 (78%) were cognitively intact (138 discontinued, 159 continued statins). Mean age was 72 years (SD 11) and mean number of medications used was 11.5 (SD 5.0); 58% (N = 173) had cancer. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the study groups in responses to the medication perception questions. Aggregate findings are presented (Table). Patients with cancer were less likely to think that they may be able to stop other medications (28% vs. 42%, p=0.007) and that statin discontinuation means that the doctor is giving up on them (1% vs. 7%, p=0.013). Conclusions: Few participants expressed concerns about discontinuing statins; many perceived potential benefits. Cancer patients may perceive less impact from stopping statins. Clinicians should inquire about patient concerns when engaging in shared decision making about discontinuing chronic medications in the setting of advanced cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT01415934. [Table: see text]

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.

90 Background: Increasingly, oncology teams and specialty palliative care (PC) clinicians are collaborating in the care of patients with serious or advanced cancer. Because of such partnerships, PC services have grown tremendously, with teams now available in most US cancer centers. Despite increased penetrance of services, little is known about the workforce that delivers this care, including their demographics, training, and future plans. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (e.g. advanced practice provider (APP), registered nurses, chaplains) completed a workforce characteristics survey through electronic invitation in the second half of 2013; respondents were recruited via e-mail, blog and Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Results: 1,241 clinicians responded, representing approximately a third of those who received the survey; 68% were physicians and 14% were APPs. Most (56%) were older than 50 years of age; 65% were female. Of physicians, 58% were board-certified through the experiential track, while 22% had completed fellowship training. Of clinical responsibilities, about half (48%) split time between consultative PC and hospice; 30% performed PC consultations only. Regarding organization size, 35% work with 1-3 other colleagues; 8% work alone. Regarding tenure, 34% have worked in PC for <5 years; 22% for >10 years. 82% reported they would become a PC clinician again, if asked to revisit their career choice. Of motivations for joining clinical PC, leading reasons were “opportunity for personal growth” and “influential experience during practicing another specialty”. About half (47%) intend to leave the field within 10 years. Of reasons to leave, 49% will retire; 24% may leave due to burnout; and 20% reported dissatisfaction with practice. Conclusions: The specialty PC workforce is diverse and faces sustainability challenges due to advancing physician age, impending retirements, evolving burnout, and dissatisfaction with the profession. If patients are going to have adequate access to services, research and approaches are needed to develop solutions that sustain and grow specialty PC.

87 Background: The increasing demand for specialist palliative care (PC) in cancer care requires an available and responsive clinical workforce. But as the volume of work expands, PC providers face an increased risk of burnout, characterized by depersonalization and work-related emotional exhaustion. The prevalence and predictors of burnout among PC providers is poorly understood. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (e.g. advanced practice provider, registered nurses, chaplains) completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) via electronic survey in the second half of 2013; respondents were recruited via e-mail, blog and Facebook posts, and Twitter tweets. The MBI determine burnout severity across two domains, Emotional Exhaustion (EE) and Depersonalization (DP). Severity is reported as “low”, “moderate”, or “high”; “high” is consistent with burnout. Demographic and work-related variables associated with burnout in other studies were determined via stepwise logistic regression. Results: We received surveys from 1,241 clinicians. We estimated a response rate of 30%. 68% of respondents were physicians. Most respondents were over age 50 (57%), female (65%), were married or partnered (82%) and had worked in the field for less than 10 years (67%). 42% took overnight call regularly, 30% reported working 50 hours per week or more, and 57% had at least 4 colleagues. Regarding burnout, 24% reported high DP, 59% reported high EE, and 62% of reported high burnout symptoms on either EE or DP scales. In logistic regression, younger physicians, those working more than 50 hours per work, and those with fewer colleagues within their practice were at greatest risk of burnout (p<0.02). Conclusions: PC clinicians report a burnout rate of 62%. Even with the limitations of our methods and potentially biased sampling, this prevalence is remarkable and higher than data reported in medical oncology (45%). Burnout severity is associated with working in isolation and working longer hours. Further studies on how burnout affects sustainability of the PC workforce are needed, especially since this workforce is so critical to the provision of high quality cancer care.