Participants identified potentially avoidable reasons for hospital readmission as well as causes that require rethinking regarding how community support is targeted and delivered. Participant preference for aggressive care, inability to provide self-care, and lack of caregiver support suggest the need for new and innovative mechanisms to support seriously ill community-dwelling individuals.

IMPORTANCE Characterizing the quality of supportive cancer care can guide quality improvement. OBJECTIVE To evaluate nonhospice supportive cancer care comprehensively in a national sample of veterans. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Using a retrospective cohort study design, we measured evidence-based cancer care processes using previously validated indicators of care quality in patients with advanced cancer, addressing pain, nonpain symptoms, and information and care planning among 719 veterans with a 2008 Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry diagnosis of stage IV colorectal (37.0%), pancreatic (29.8%), or lung (33.2%) cancer. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES We abstracted medical records from diagnosis for 3 years or until death among eligible veterans (lived Ն30 days following diagnosis with Ն1 Veterans Affairs hospitalization or Ն2 Veterans Affairs outpatient visits). Each indicator identified a clinical scenario and an appropriate action. For each indicator for which a veteran was eligible, we determined whether appropriate care was provided. We also determined patient-level quality overall and by pain, nonpain symptoms, and information and care planning domains. RESULTS Most veterans were older (mean age, 66.2 years), male (97.2%), and white (74.3%). Eighty-five percent received both inpatient and outpatient care, and 92.5% died. Overall, the 719 veterans triggered a mean of 11.7 quality indicators (range, 1-22) and received a mean 49.5% of appropriate care. Notable gaps in care were that inpatient pain screening was common (96.5%) but lacking for outpatients (58.1%). With opioids, bowel prophylaxis occurred for only 52.2% of outpatients and 70.5% of inpatients. Few patients had a timely dyspnea evaluation (15.8%) or treatment (10.8%). Outpatient assessment of fatigue occurred for 31.3%. Of patients at high risk for diarrhea from chemotherapy, 24.2% were offered appropriate antidiarrheals. Only 17.7% of veterans had goals of care addressed in the month after a diagnosis of advanced cancer, and 63.7% had timely discussion of goals following intensive care unit admission. Most decedents (86.4%) were referred to palliative care or hospice before death. Single-vs multiple-fraction radiotherapy should have been considered in 28 veterans with bone metastasis, but none were offered this option. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These care gaps reflect important targets for improving the patient and family experience of cancer care.

Early care planning discussions are associated with lower rates of acute care use at the EOL in a system with already low rates of intensive EOL care.

No abstract

Background: Palliative care and preparation for liver transplantation are often perceived as conflicting for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD). We sought to improve both simultaneously through a case finding and care coordination quality improvement intervention. Methods: We identified patients with cirrhosis using validated ICD-9 codes and screened them for ESLD by assessing medical records at a VA hospital for either a model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) ‡ 14 or a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between October 2012 and January 2013. A care coordinator followed veterans from the index hospitalization through April 2013 and encouraged treating physicians to submit liver transplant evaluation consults for all veterans with a MELD ‡ 14 and palliative care consults for all veterans with a MELD ‡ 20 or inoperable HCC. Results: We compared rates of consultation for 49 hospitalized veterans and compared their outcomes to 61 pre-intervention veterans. Veterans were more likely to be considered for liver transplantation (77.6% versus 31.1%, p < 0.001) and receive palliative care consultation during the intervention period, although the latter finding did not reach statistical significance (62.5% versus 47.1%, p = 0.38). Conclusions: Active case finding improved consideration for liver transplantation without decreasing palliative care consultation.