The PCIS has been accepted in our tertiary cancer center on the basis of its clinical utility and financial viability.

No abstract

BACKGROUND:Palliative care has been progressively adopted by American cancer centers; however, referrals to palliative care continue to occur late in the trajectory of illness. It was hypothesized that the perceived association between the name palliative care and hospice was a barrier to early patients' referral. The objectives of this study were to determine the perception of the impact of the name palliative care compared with supportive care on patient referral and to determine whether there was an association between demographic factors and the perceptions of the 2 names by medical oncologists and their midlevel providers (advance practice nurses and physician assistants) at a comprehensive cancer center.METHODS:A survey was conducted among a random sample of 100 medical oncologists and 100 midlevel providers from The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Information was collected on demographics, previous experience in palliative care, and attitudes and beliefs toward the impact of the name palliative care compared with supportive care on patient referral.RESULTS:A total of 140 of 200 (70%) participants responded (74 midlevel providers and 66 medical oncologists). Median age was 43 years (range, 34.5‐50 years), and there were 83 (60%) women. Midlevel providers and medical oncologists generally agreed in their responses to most of the items. More participants preferred the name supportive care (80, 57%) compared with palliative care (27, 19% P < .0001). Medical oncologists and midlevel providers stated increased likelihood to refer patients on active primary (79 vs 45%, P < .0001) and advanced cancer (89 vs 69%, P < .0001) treatments to a service named supportive care. The name palliative care compared with supportive care was perceived more frequently by medical oncologists and midlevel providers as a barrier to referral (23 vs 6% P < .0001), decreasing hope (44 vs 11% P < .0001), and causing distress (33 vs 3% P < .0001) in patients and families. There were no significant associations among the perception of the 2 names and age (P = .82), sex (P = .35), or prior training in palliative care (P > .99).CONCLUSIONS:The name palliative care was perceived by medical oncologists and midlevel providers as more distressing and reducing hope to patients and families. Medical oncologists and midlevel providers significantly prefer the name supportive care and stated more likelihood to refer patients on active primary and advanced cancer treatments to a service named supportive care. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

Objectives. This study portrays the characteristics of patients who attended an integrative oncology clinic at a large comprehensive cancer center and evaluated whether this service addressed patients' concerns about complementary and integrative medicine (CIM). Methods. Patient information was collected prior to an integrative consultation, including demographics, previous use of CIM, and primary reason for requesting the consultation. Concerns and outcomes were measured using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Well-being (MYCaW) Scale at the consultation and then again at follow-up (6-12 weeks later). Patients met with a physician for an integrative consultation that included a discussion of nutrition, supplements, physical activity, useful complementary therapies, and the mind-body-spirit connection. Results. A total of 238 patients were referred for consultation regarding the integration of CIM into their care. The majority of participants were female (60%, n = 143), and the mean age was 56 years (range, 21-90 years), with all major cancer types represented. Patients' leading concerns were related to "What else can I do?" and "How can I better cope?" Although distressed over these concerns at the initial consultation, intense distress (5-6 out of 6 on the MYCaW scale) was reduced to less than half (31%) by the follow-up visit. Additional qualitative data revealed that patients value the process of obtaining reliable information that empowers them to be more involved in managing their care. Conclusions. Integrative medicine consultations at a large comprehensive cancer center appear to provide some benefit in addressing patients' concerns about CIM use.

e20581 Background: Increased numbers of cancer patients are searching for additional options outside of their conventional medical care to improve their clinical outcome, quality of life, and overall wellbeing. Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM)) is one of the main options that patients are incorporating. The objectives of this study were to assess the outcome and value of an integrative medicine clinical consultation. Methods: Patients attending academic integrative medicine clinic evaluated their concerns and wellbeing using the Measure Yourself Concerns and Wellbeing (MYCaW) scale, a validated tool assessing outcome of complementary consultation for cancer patients. Prior to each visit patients completed the MYCaW and listed their two main concerns, the severity of the concern (0 = does not bother me at all to 6 = bothers me greatly), and their wellbeing (0 = as good as can be to 6 = as bad as can be). All patients met with a physician who provided an integrative consultation that included discussion of nutrition, supplements, exercise, useful complementary therapies, and the mind-body-spirit connection. At the follow up visit (usually 2–3 months later) patients completed the MYCaW to evaluate if the initial concerns were met. Results: Oncologists in the cancer center referred 197 patients for consultation about the integration of complementary medicine to their care. The majority of the participants were female (n=121), mean age was 56, range 21–90. Patients had been using a large range of CIM therapies including nutritional supplements (n=144), dietary changes (n=36), and acupuncture (n=33). The leading diagnosis was breast cancer followed by prostate cancer, but all major cancer diagnoses were represented. The leading concerns were related to “What else can I do?” and “How can I better cope?” From pre to post there was a reduction in severity of the concerns scores in 79% of patients, no change for 8%, and an increase for 13% (mean pre = 4.6; mean post = 2.6). For the question of Well being there was a reduction for 49%, no change for 32%, and an increase for 18% of the patients (mean pre = 2.5; mean post = 1.82). Conclusions: Integrative medicine consultations for cancer patients appear to be a valuable service that addresses patients’ main concerns and improves well being. No significant financial relationships to disclose.