Citations

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.

TPS505 Background: TH-302 is a hypoxia-activated, nitroimidazole-linked prodrug of bromo-isophosphoramide mustard (Br-IPM), which is released under hypoxic conditions. TH-302 is currently being studied in combination with gemcitabine (G) in a phase III trial in patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) (NCT01746979). Encouraging preclinical activity of TH-302 plus nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) and G provides a rationale for further study of this triplet (Sun JD et al, AACR Special Conference on Pancreatic Cancer 2014; abstract #B88). Methods: Clinical trial: NCT02047500. Open-label, phase I, dose-escalation trial of TH-302 plus nab-P and G in pts with previously untreated locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Dose escalation: 3 + 3 design with one of 3 planned dose levels of TH-302 (170, 240 and 340 mg/m2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle, plus nab-P 100–125 mg/m2 followed by G 800–1,000 mg/m2. Expansion cohort (n≥15): TH-302 at the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) with nab-P 100–125 mg/m2 followed by G 800–1,000 mg/m2. Treatment will be continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Primary objectives: To evaluate safety and tolerability, define the maximum tolerated dose and determine the RP2D of TH-302 in combination with nab-P/G. The primary endpoint is no. of pts with dose-limiting toxicities during the first 28 days. Secondary objectives: To evaluate overall safety of the triplet regimen, metabolic response rate using EORTC criteria for 18F-FDG PET, CA19–9 response rate (defined as >50% decline from baseline), and RECIST response rate of TH-302 plus nab-P/G. The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of TH-302 and Br-IPM in the plasma of pts will also be evaluated, as will the effect of TH-302 on the PK of nab-P, and vice versa. Exploratory analyses include the association of pharmacogenomic markers, such as CYP2C9, BRCA1 and BRCA2, with PK, safety and efficacy. The association of potential hypoxia biomarkers (CA IX, GLUT1, VEGF, osteopontin) with antitumor activity will also be explored. The trial is in progress; 7 of an estimated 48 planned pts have been recruited (trial start Jan 2014, estimate end Aug 2016). Clinical trial information: NCT02047500.

Abstract Background: Common cancers develop through a multistep process often including inherited susceptibility. Collaboration among multiple institutions, and funding from multiple sources, has allowed the development of an inexpensive genotyping microarray, the OncoArray. The array includes a genome-wide backbone, comprising 230,000 SNPs tagging most common genetic variants, together with dense mapping of known susceptibility regions, rare variants from sequencing experiments, pharmacogenetic markers, and cancer-related traits. Methods: The OncoArray can be genotyped using a novel technology developed by Illumina to facilitate efficient genotyping. The consortium developed standard approaches for selecting SNPs for study, for quality control of markers, and for ancestry analysis. The array was genotyped at selected sites and with prespecified replicate samples to permit evaluation of genotyping accuracy among centers and by ethnic background. Results: The OncoArray consortium genotyped 447,705 samples. A total of 494,763 SNPs passed quality control steps with a sample success rate of 97% of the samples. Participating sites performed ancestry analysis using a common set of markers and a scoring algorithm based on principal components analysis. Conclusions: Results from these analyses will enable researchers to identify new susceptibility loci, perform fine-mapping of new or known loci associated with either single or multiple cancers, assess the degree of overlap in cancer causation and pleiotropic effects of loci that have been identified for disease-specific risk, and jointly model genetic, environmental, and lifestyle-related exposures. Impact: Ongoing analyses will shed light on etiology and risk assessment for many types of cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 126–35. ©2016 AACR.

Background: Quality measures are now commonplace and are increasingly tied to financial incentives. We reviewed the existing quality measures that address the upper limb and tested the null hypothesis that structure (capacity to deliver care), process (appropriate care), and outcome (the result of care) measures are equally represented. Methods: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines, the National Quality Forum, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Physician Quality Reporting System for quality measures addressing upper limb surgery. Measures were characterized as structure, process, or outcome measures and were categorized according to their developer and their National Strategy for Quality Improvement in Health Care (National Quality Strategy) priority as articulated by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Results: We identified 134 quality measures addressing the upper limb: 131 (98%) process and three (2%) outcome measures. The majority of the process measures address the National Quality Strategy priority of effective clinical care (90%), with the remainder addressing communication and care coordination (5%), person and caregiver-centered experience and outcomes (4%), and community/population health (1%). Conclusions: Our review identified opportunities to develop more measures in the structure and outcome domains as well as measures addressing patient and family engagement, public health, safety, care coordination, and efficient use of resources. The most common existing measures—process measures addressing care—might not be the best measures of upper limb surgery quality given the relative lack of evidence for their use in care improvement.

Context: Differences among patient populations that present to consultative palliative care are not known. Such an appreciation would inform health-care delivery tailored to unique populations. Objectives: We aimed to compare characteristics and palliative care needs of African Americans (AAs) and whites during initial palliative care consultation. Methods: We analyzed patient-reported, clinician-entered clinical encounter data from a large, multisite community-based, nonhospice palliative care collaborative. We included first specialty palliative care consultations from January 1, 2014, to July 2, 2015, across 15 sites within the Global Palliative Care Quality Alliance registry. Demographics, disease, performance status, advance care planning, and symptom prevalence/severity were compared. Results: Of 775 patients, 12.9% (N = 100) were AA. African Americans were younger (63 vs 75.4 years, P < .0001). A larger proportion of AAs had a diagnosis of cancer (45.0% vs 36.3%, P = .09) and in the hospital (71% vs 61.8%, P = .07). African Americans were more likely to have a Palliative Performance Score of 0 to 30 (35.6% vs 23.7%, P = .049). Around 50% in both racial groups were full code; slightly more than 40% had an advance directive. Nearly two-thirds in both racial groups reported 3 or more symptoms of any severity; one-third reported 3 or more moderate or severe symptoms. A larger proportion of Africans than whites reported pain of any severity (66.0% vs 56.1%, P = .06). Conclusion: All patients present to palliative care consultations with significant symptom and advance care planning needs. Further research is needed to identify how to deliver palliative care: earlier, in noncancer conditions, and improve pain management in AA populations.