Inpatient and Outpatient Palliative Care Utilization Rates of Patients with Spine Metastases.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Spine Pub Date : 2025-04-10 DOI:10.1097/BRS.0000000000005127
Meghan Price, Edwin Owolo, Dana Rowe, Isabel Prado, Tara Dalton, Jacob Sperber, Harrison Hockenberry, James Herndon, Kerri-Anne Crowell, Elizabeth P Howell, Eli Johnson, Margaret Johnson, Elizabeth Fricklas, Christopher Jones, Arif Kamal, C Rory Goodwin
{"title":"Inpatient and Outpatient Palliative Care Utilization Rates of Patients with Spine Metastases.","authors":"Meghan Price, Edwin Owolo, Dana Rowe, Isabel Prado, Tara Dalton, Jacob Sperber, Harrison Hockenberry, James Herndon, Kerri-Anne Crowell, Elizabeth P Howell, Eli Johnson, Margaret Johnson, Elizabeth Fricklas, Christopher Jones, Arif Kamal, C Rory Goodwin","doi":"10.1097/BRS.0000000000005127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study design: </strong>Retrospective review.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Specialty Palliative Care (PC) can be instrumental in improving patient quality of life for patients with spine metastasis. It is important to identify disparities in access to PC to ensure that equitable care is provided to all patients. No prior study has assessed the impact of sociodemographic and treatment factors on the utilization of in-patient PC (IPPC) and outpatient PC (OPPC) in patients with spine metastases.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We examined IPPC and OPPC utilization in a cohort of 265 patients seen by our institution's Brain and Spine Metastases Tumor Board (BSMTB) between February 1, 2018, and February 31, 2020. Statistical analyses were performed comparing characteristics and outcomes between patients who did or did not utilize IPPC and/or OPPC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We observed no difference in rates of IPPC and OPPC consultation between patients across gender or race. Outpatient PC consultations varied across insurance and primary tumor type (P=0.056 and P=0.025, respectively). Patients who received surgical intervention or radiation therapy within 30 days of being presented at BSMTB had higher rates of OPPC utilization than those who did not (P=0.0032 and P=0.040, respectively). Patients who received an IPPC consult had worse overall survival than patients who did not consult IPPC (6.5 mo vs. 24.2 mo median survival) while those seen by OPPC had less of a survival disadvantage; median survival for OPPC was 11.2 months versus 19.2 months for those who were not seen by OPPC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified differences in PC utilization across insurance and primary tumor type. Additionally, we present the unique finding that patients who receive surgery or RT for their spine metastases had higher rates of OPPC consultations than those who did not. Further work is needed to better appreciate PC utilization trends and identify interventions that improve the accessibility of PC.</p>","PeriodicalId":22193,"journal":{"name":"Spine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000005127","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study design: Retrospective review.

Objective: Specialty Palliative Care (PC) can be instrumental in improving patient quality of life for patients with spine metastasis. It is important to identify disparities in access to PC to ensure that equitable care is provided to all patients. No prior study has assessed the impact of sociodemographic and treatment factors on the utilization of in-patient PC (IPPC) and outpatient PC (OPPC) in patients with spine metastases.

Methods: We examined IPPC and OPPC utilization in a cohort of 265 patients seen by our institution's Brain and Spine Metastases Tumor Board (BSMTB) between February 1, 2018, and February 31, 2020. Statistical analyses were performed comparing characteristics and outcomes between patients who did or did not utilize IPPC and/or OPPC.

Results: We observed no difference in rates of IPPC and OPPC consultation between patients across gender or race. Outpatient PC consultations varied across insurance and primary tumor type (P=0.056 and P=0.025, respectively). Patients who received surgical intervention or radiation therapy within 30 days of being presented at BSMTB had higher rates of OPPC utilization than those who did not (P=0.0032 and P=0.040, respectively). Patients who received an IPPC consult had worse overall survival than patients who did not consult IPPC (6.5 mo vs. 24.2 mo median survival) while those seen by OPPC had less of a survival disadvantage; median survival for OPPC was 11.2 months versus 19.2 months for those who were not seen by OPPC.

Conclusion: We identified differences in PC utilization across insurance and primary tumor type. Additionally, we present the unique finding that patients who receive surgery or RT for their spine metastases had higher rates of OPPC consultations than those who did not. Further work is needed to better appreciate PC utilization trends and identify interventions that improve the accessibility of PC.

脊柱转移患者住院和门诊姑息治疗使用率。
研究设计:回顾性研究。目的:专科姑息治疗(PC)有助于提高脊柱转移患者的生活质量。重要的是要确定在获得个人护理方面的差异,以确保向所有患者提供公平的护理。之前没有研究评估社会人口学和治疗因素对脊柱转移患者住院PC (IPPC)和门诊PC (OPPC)使用的影响。方法:我们对我院脑和脊柱转移瘤委员会(BSMTB)在2018年2月1日至2020年2月31日期间就诊的265例患者的IPPC和OPPC使用情况进行了研究。统计分析比较使用或未使用IPPC和/或OPPC的患者的特征和结果。结果:我们观察到不同性别或种族的患者在IPPC和OPPC咨询率上没有差异。门诊PC会诊因保险和原发肿瘤类型而异(P=0.056和P=0.025)。在BSMTB就诊后30天内接受手术或放疗的患者OPPC使用率高于未接受手术或放疗的患者(P=0.0032和P=0.040分别)。接受IPPC咨询的患者的总生存期比未接受IPPC咨询的患者更差(6.5个月对24.2个月),而OPPC患者的生存劣势较小;OPPC的中位生存期为11.2个月,而未见OPPC的中位生存期为19.2个月。结论:我们发现不同保险人群和原发肿瘤类型在PC使用方面存在差异。此外,我们提出了一个独特的发现,接受手术或RT治疗脊柱转移的患者比没有接受手术或RT治疗的患者有更高的OPPC咨询率。需要进一步的工作来更好地了解个人电脑的使用趋势,并确定改善个人电脑可及性的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Spine
Spine 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
361
审稿时长
6.0 months
期刊介绍: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins is a leading international publisher of professional health information for physicians, nurses, specialized clinicians and students. For a complete listing of titles currently published by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and detailed information about print, online, and other offerings, please visit the LWW Online Store. Recognized internationally as the leading journal in its field, Spine is an international, peer-reviewed, bi-weekly periodical that considers for publication original articles in the field of Spine. It is the leading subspecialty journal for the treatment of spinal disorders. Only original papers are considered for publication with the understanding that they are contributed solely to Spine. The Journal does not publish articles reporting material that has been reported at length elsewhere.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信