Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncology clinicians, patients, family and friend caregivers, and palliative care specialists to update the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care for all patients diagnosed with cancer. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel of members of the ASCO Ad Hoc Palliative Care Expert Panel to develop an update. The 2012 PCO was based on a review of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by the National Cancer Institute Physicians Data Query and additional trials. The panel conducted an updated systematic review seeking randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, as well as secondary analyses of RCTs in the 2012 PCO, published from March 2010 to January 2016. Results The guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline. Nine RCTs, one quasiexperimental trial, and five secondary analyses from RCTs in the 2012 PCO on providing palliative care services to patients with cancer and/or their caregivers, including family caregivers, were found to inform the update. Recommendations Inpatients and outpatients with advanced cancer should receive dedicated palliative care services, early in the disease course, concurrent with active treatment. Referral of patients to interdisciplinary palliative care teams is optimal, and services may complement existing programs. Providers may refer family and friend caregivers of patients with early or advanced cancer to palliative care services.

Fuller integration of specialist palliative care services, timely sharing of information and mutual respect increase generalists' perceptions of effective collaboration. Further research is needed regarding the experiences of non-physician and non-nursing professionals as their views were either not included or not explicitly reported.

A significant change for patients and families during SARs-CoV-2 has been the restriction of visitors for hospitalized patients. We analyzed SARs-CoV-2 hospital visitation policies and found widespread variation in both development and content. This variation has the potential to engender inequity in access. We propose guidance for hospital visitation policies for this pandemic to protect, respect, and support patients, visitors, clinicians, and communities.

BackgroundInpatient, generalist social workers in discharge planning roles work alongside specialist palliative care social workers to care for patients, often resulting in two social workers being concurrently involved in the same patient’s care. Previous studies identifying components of effective collaboration, which impacts patient outcomes, care efficiency, professional job satisfaction, and healthcare costs, were conducted with nurses and physicians but not social workers. This study explores ward social workers’ perceptions of what facilitates or hinders collaboration with palliative care social workers.MethodsGrounded theory was used to explore the research aim. In-depth qualitative interviews with masters trained ward social workers (n = 14) working in six hospitals located in the Midwest, United States were conducted between February 2014 and January 2015. A theoretical model of ward social workers’ collaboration with palliative care social workers was developed.ResultsThe emerging model of collaboration consists of: 1) trust, which is comprised of a) ability, b) benevolence, and c) integrity, 2) information sharing, and 3) role negotiation. Effective collaboration occurs when all elements of the model are present.ConclusionCollaboration is facilitated when ward social workers’ perceptions of trust are high, pertinent information is communicated in a time-sensitive manner, and a flexible approach to roles is taken. The theoretical model of collaboration can inform organisational policy and social work clinical practice guidelines, and may be of use to other healthcare professionals, as improvements in collaboration among healthcare providers may have a positive impact on patient outcomes.

No abstract

Despite known benefits, palliative care (PC) consultation for hospitalized patients remains underutilized. The objective was to improve frequency and timeliness of appropriate inpatient PC consultation. On 2 of 11 hospitalist teams, a PC representative attended discharge rounds twice a week. Control teams' discharge rounds were unenhanced. Subjects were all patients admitted to a hospitalist service in a quaternary academic medical center. The primary outcome was change in provision of PC consultation over time; the secondary outcome was change in time-to-consult (days). Hospitalists were surveyed regarding the intervention. The unadjusted proportion of patients receiving PC consultation increased from 2.7% to 5.2% on the intervention teams. Compared to control teams over time and adjusting for multiple covariates, the intervention increased PC consultation (difference-in-difference [DID] = 1.0 percentage-point increase [95% CI = 0.3%-1.8%]) and decreased time to consult (DID = -5 days [95% CI = -11 to -1]) in patients admitted for noncancer diagnoses. Hospitalists thought the intervention facilitated effective patient care without increased burden.

Objectives To determine whether an interprofessional intervention would improve the use and timing of a geriatric consultation on a hospitalist service. Design Difference‐in‐differences (DID), which measures the difference in improvement over time between intervention and control team patients attributable to the intervention. Setting 1,000‐bed U.S. academic medical center. Participants Individuals aged 60 and older admitted to a general medicine hospitalist service (N=7,038; n = 718 on intervention teams, n = 686 historical controls, n = 5,634 on control teams (concurrent and historic). Intervention On 2 of 11 hospitalist teams, a geriatrician attended multidisciplinary discharge rounds twice weekly and advised on the benefits of a geriatric consultation for individuals aged 60 and older. Measurements Primary outcome was percentage of hospitalizations resulting in a geriatric consultation. Secondary outcome was days to geriatric consultation. Both outcomes were controlled for age, sex, comorbidity, mean daily intensity of inpatient care utilization, and admission in the prior 30 days. In the primary analysis, length of stay was controlled. Results Intervention participants were more likely to have a geriatric consultation (DID = 2.35% absolute percentage points, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.59–4.39%) and to have a consultation sooner (DID = 3.61 fewer days, 95% CI = −1 to −7). Conclusion An interprofessional intervention that focused on hospitalist ordering practices increased use of appropriate geriatric consultation and decreased time to consultation. This model of interprofessional effort is effective. Future adaptations are needed to target scarce geriatric resources without increasing overall use. J Am Geriatr Soc 66:2372–2376, 2018.

During inhospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempts, a designated family support person (FSP) may provide guidance and support to family members. Research on nurses and chaplains in this role has been published. Social workers also regularly fulfill this service, however, little is known about how they perceive and enact this role. To explore their experiences, qualitative interviews (n = 10) were conducted with FSP social workers. Critical realist thematic analysis identified five themes: walking in cold, promoting family presence, responding to the whole spectrum of grief, going beyond the family support role, and repercussions of bearing witness. Social workers perform a variety of tasks to promote family presence during resuscitation attempts and provide psychosocial support over the continuum of care. The FSP role impacts social workers emotionally and professionally. Implications for hospital policy, staffing, and clinical practice are discussed.