Huschka, Mashele

Hospice and palliative medicine (HPM) simulation training primarily focuses on communication skills, rather than symptom management. Simulation can be an effective educational tool in high stakes clinical settings and provides a safe environment to improve skills in crisis management. HPM providers are often called to manage refractory symptoms in emotionally charged situations, especially at end-of-life care. These scenarios may present infrequently during their 1-year fellowship training. We describe a novel two-part simulation series ‘End of Life Symptom Management: Emergencies in Palliative Medicine’ that we have developed for our interdisciplinary HPM Fellowship. Our simulation series is conducted at our institution’s simulation centre and includes scenarios of (1) refractory pain, (2) palliative sedation, (3) initiation of buprenorphine-naloxone for cancer-associated pain in a patient with opioid use disorder (OUD), (4) acute pain crisis in a hospice patient with OUD on buprenorphine-naloxone, (5) terminal delirium, (6) compassionate extubation/respiratory distress, (7) status epilepticus and (8) terminal haemorrhage. Pre and postsession data collected from our HPM fellows reflect an increase in confidence levels after participating in the sessions. This simulation curriculum has allowed our fellows the opportunity to encounter and navigate these scenarios in a safe and controlled learning environment before encountering them in practice.

8580 Background: This pooled analysis examined the relationship between single-item and multiple-item quality of life (QOL) measures and assessed the agreement between changes in QOL and patient-reported adverse events (AE). Methods: Data from six lung cancer clinical trials involving 358 patients were pooled. All trials incorporated the UNISCALE and one of three multiple-item assessments: the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-Lung, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, or the Symptom Distress Scale. A clinically significant decline (CSD) in QOL was defined as a 10-point drop from baseline. A CSD in AE was defined as a change from ≤ grade 2 at baseline to ≥ grade 3 post-baseline. Spearman rank correlations and Bland-Altman approach were used to assess agreement. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the time to the first occurrence of a severe (grade 3+) AE and first CSD in QOL. Results: Correlations between the UNISCALE and multi-item assessments were modest (rho=0.49–0.66). At least one 10-point decline in the UNISCALE and multi-item assessments were reported by 58% and 40% respectively. At least one severe AE was reported in 44% of patients post-baseline. The percent agreement between experiencing a severe AE and a CSD in QOL was 49% and 59% for UNISCALE and the multi-item tools. For individual AE, the percent agreement between a CSD in AE and a CSD in QOL ranged from 37% to 50% for UNISCALE and 44% to 69% for the multi-item tools. The median time to the first CSD in QOL for UNISCALE and multi-item tools was 67 and 142 days respectively. The median time to the first occurrence of a severe AE was 304 days. Conclusions: QOL and AE provide quantifiably different information. A 10-point decline in QOL occurs earlier than CTC AE reporting. Patient reported outcomes may be more sensitive in identifying clinically relevant problems than physician rated symptom assessments. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8521 Background: The extent of patient involvement in the decision making process for cancer treatment can impact satisfaction with care. A pooled-analysis of clinical studies from the US and Canada incorporating the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was conducted to produce normalized data regarding patient preferences and examine differences in role preference related to country, tumor type, gender and other demographics. Methods: Patient data culled from six trials indicated the treatment decision making role preferred and the role actually experienced clinically. Fisher’s Exact Tests were performed to compare role distribution concordance and association with clinical and demographic variables. Results: Data available for 3,491 patients indicated that 25% preferred an active role, 46% a collaborative role, and 29% a passive role in their medical treatment decision making. In terms of actual experience, 30% of patients reported taking on an active role, 34% collaborative, and 36% passive. Overall, 61% of patients reported playing the role they prefer. Differences between genders in the preferred role were slight, but males achieved their preferred role more often than females (66% vs. 60%, p=0.011). More women actually took a passive role than men (40% vs. 24%, p<0.0001) as did more patients in the US than Canada (84% vs. 54%, p<0.001). Canadian patients preferred more passive than active roles (33% vs 22.4%) and US patients preferred more active to passive roles (31.9% vs 14.2%) (p<0.001). Older patients preferred a more passive role and took on that role. Differences in role preference across tumor types were negligible. Conclusions: Roughly one half of the cancer patients studied indicated that they preferred to have a collaborative relationship with physicians, the remaining patients split equally between an active and passive role. The US cohort seemed to want to be more assertive than their Canadian counterparts and women ended up playing a more passive role than they preferred. Given these gender and cross-county differences these findings highlight the need for individualized patient communication styles to be incorporated into treatment plans No significant financial relationships to disclose.

6075 Background: Failing to meet patient expectations for participating in treatment decisions impacts satisfaction with care, but it is unknown whether this translates into QOL deficits. As part of a larger survey of cancer survivors conducted by the American Cancer Society (ACS), data were gathered on the role patients in Minnesota preferred and the role actually experienced during the treatment decision-making process. Methods: Patients who were diagnosed with one of the ten most common cancers in 2000 completed a survey containing the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the SF-36, and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). Fisher’s exact tests compared role preference distributions across demographic categories. Two-sample t-tests compared the POMS and SF-36 scores between patients whose preferred role preference was concordant with the role experienced and those with discordant preferred and actual roles. Results: 33% of the 599 consenting patients preferred an active role in treatment decision-making, 52% preferred a collaborative role, and 13% preferred a passive role. The actual roles experienced were 33% active, 50% collaborative, 17% passive. Over 88% of patients had concordant preferred and actual roles. Patients with concordant roles had higher SF-36 physical scores (45 vs 40, p=0.004), higher vitality (50 vs 42, p=0.005), less fatigue (70.2 vs 60.1, p=0.001), better concentration (84 vs 79, p=0.008) and better overall mood (77 vs 73, p=0.006). Role preference differed across gender (p=0.0002) in that more women preferred a collaborative role than men (57.8% vs 45.5%) and fewer women preferred a passive role (9% vs 17.3%). Patients under age 50 experienced more active roles in treatment decisions than those aged 50+ (p=0.04). Patients reporting an active actual role had higher SF-36 physical scores (p=0.005) and higher POMS vigor subscale scores (p=0.04). There were no differences in QOL scores for preferred roles. Conclusions: Patients who experienced discordance between their preferred role and their experience reported substantial QOL deficits in both physical and emotional domains. Oncologists can improve patient satisfaction with care and QOL by meeting patient expectations with respect to the amount of input they have in making treatment decisions. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

BACKGROUNDThe objective of this study was to explore relations between patient role preferences during the cancer treatment decision‐making process and quality of life (QOL).METHODSOne‐year cancer survivors completed a survey in 2000 as part of a larger survey conducted by the American Cancer Society. The current report was based on survey respondents from Minnesota (response rate, 37.4%). Standardized measures included the Profile of Mood States (scores were converted to have a range, from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the best mood), the Medical Outcomes Survey 36‐item short‐form health survey (SF‐36) (standardized scores), and the Control Preferences Scale. Patients' actual and preferred role preference distributions and concordance between roles were compared with QOL scores using 2‐sample t test methodology.RESULTSThe actual role of survivors (n = 594) in cancer care was 33% active, 50% collaborative, and 17% passive. Their preferred role was 35% active, 53% collaborative, and 13% passive. Overall, 88% of survivors had concordant preferred and actual roles. Survivors who had concordant roles had higher SF‐36 Physical Component Scale (PCS) scores (P < .01), higher vitality (P = .01), less fatigue (P < .01), less confusion (P = .01), less anger (P = .046), and better overall mood (P = .01). These results were similar among both women and younger individuals (aged <60 years). Survivors who had active actual roles had higher PCS scores (P < .01), less tension (P = .04), and higher vitality (P = .04) than survivors who were either collaborative or passive. No differences existed in QOL scores according to preferred role.CONCLUSIONSSurvivors who experienced discordance between their actual role and their preferred role reported substantial QOL deficits in both physical and emotional domains. These results indicate the need to support patient preferences. Cancer 2013;119:2342–2349. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Purpose The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of a structured, multidisciplinary intervention targeted to maintain the overall quality of life (QOL), which is more comprehensive than psychosocial distress, of patients undergoing radiation therapy for advanced-stage cancer. Patients and Methods Radiation therapy patients with advanced cancer and an estimated 5-year survival rate of 0% to 50% were randomly assigned to either an eight-session structured multidisciplinary intervention arm or a standard care arm. The eight 90-minute sessions addressed the five domains of QOL including cognitive, physical, emotional, spiritual, and social functioning. The primary end point of maintaining overall QOL was assessed by a single-item linear analog scale (Linear Analog Scale of Assessment or modified Spitzer Uniscale). QOL was assessed at baseline, week 4 (end of multidisciplinary intervention), week 8, and week 27. Results Of the 103 participants, overall QOL at week 4 was maintained by the patients in the intervention (n = 49), whereas QOL at week 4 significantly decreased for patients in the control group (n = 54). This change reflected a 3-point increase from baseline in the intervention group and a 9-point decrease from baseline in the control group (P = .009). Intervention participants maintained their QOL, and controls gradually returned to baseline by the end of the 6-month follow-up period. Conclusion Although intervention participants maintained and actually improved their QOL during radiation therapy, control participants experienced a significant decrease in their QOL. Thus, a structured multidisciplinary intervention can help maintain or even improve QOL in patients with advanced cancer who are undergoing cancer treatment.