Citations

Abstract Background: Palliative care specialists provide supportive care for patients with hematologic diseases. However, the degree of engagement by palliative care physicians may be limited by the views of both palliative care physicians and hematologists. Prior studies have surveyed hematologists to identify barriers to delivery of palliative care, however palliative care physician views are unclear. This study aimed to examine views of palliative care 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 hematologic diseases, comfort providing care, opinions regarding palliative care and hospice involvement, and 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%) and hospice (26.2%) physicians were represented. Respondents were likelier to believe they understand the trajectories of lymphoma and myeloma than leukemia or patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (p < 0.001). They were more comfortable discussing prognosis (p =< 0.001) and managing symptoms (p < 0.001) in lymphoma and myeloma than leukemia and HSCT. They were likelier to believe that hematologists' perceptions of palliative care 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: Palliative care physicians' understanding of trajectories and comfort caring for patients varies by hematologic disease. They perceive that hematologists' perceptions are a larger barrier than their own and hospice referrals are delayed. These results provide insights into opportunities for better collaboration with hematologists. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Pain is one of the most commonly experienced and feared symptoms faced by patients with a serious illness. For these patients, intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDSs) provide greater potency and/or few systemic side effects. However, despite these benefits, the integration and management of IDDS for patients receiving hospice care has not been previous studied. An electronic, 18-question survey was sent to 200 hospice practitioners (physicians, nurse practitioners and nurses) in the state of Minnesota to explore their experience, confidence, and the perceived barriers to caring for patients with IDDS while being cared for on hospice. Providers were identified though mailing lists from the Minnesota Network of Hospice and Palliative Care organization. The survey was administered by the Mayo Clinic Survey Research Center with institutional review board approval. Slightly more than 50% of respondents have ever cared for a patient with an intrathecal pump. If a patient had a pump in place, only 28% of providers expressed confidence in managing their pain. Additionally, only 3 of 10 respondents felt that adjusting an intrathecal pump should be the first option when a patient with an IDDS in place had increased pain. Indeed, the vast majority (over 80%) of respondents preferred the use of systemic therapies for primary pain management. Access to IDDS vendors for changes/refills in the home is identified as another barrier with over 50% of respondents either unaware of an available vendor or reporting no vendor available. There are numerous self-reported barriers to ongoing use of IDDS with patients receiving hospice care.

Pain is one of the most feared symptoms that concern cancer patients and their families. Despite well-established guidelines set forth by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the treatment of cancer pain, nearly half of cancer patients report poorly controlled pain. One of the most serious side effects of systemic oral opioid use is neurotoxicity, which is characterized by altered mental status and systemic neurologic impairments. Treatment strategies are supportive in nature and focused on reducing or changing the offending opioid and correcting any metabolic deficiencies. Herein, we discuss a case of opioid-induced neurotoxicity treated with intrathecal targeted drug delivery (TDD). The timing and implementation of advanced therapies such as intrathecal TDD is not well delineated. More importantly, patients and their oncologic providers are often unaware of this useful tool in treating challenging cancer-associated pain and significantly minimizing systemic opioid side effects. To ensure that patients have comprehensive oncologic care, best-practice guidelines suggest involvement of an interdisciplinary team and coordinated care. Early referral to a pain and palliative specialist may allow for improved patient outcomes and removal of unnecessary barriers to optimal patient care.

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.