Care Patterns and Barriers to Outpatient Care for Adults With AML Following Intensive Chemotherapy at NCCN Member Institutions.

IF 14.8 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2024.7026
Anna B Halpern, Jessica M Sugalski, Lindsey Bandini, Megan Othus, F Marc Stewart, Roland B Walter
{"title":"Care Patterns and Barriers to Outpatient Care for Adults With AML Following Intensive Chemotherapy at NCCN Member Institutions.","authors":"Anna B Halpern, Jessica M Sugalski, Lindsey Bandini, Megan Othus, F Marc Stewart, Roland B Walter","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2024.7026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prolonged hospitalization following intensive (re)induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), while standard, is costly and resource intense, limits inpatient bed capacity, and negatively impacts quality of life. Early hospital discharge (EHD) following completion of chemotherapy has proven safe as an alternative at select institutions, but is not widely implemented.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>From February 2023 through May 2023, the NCCN Best Practices Committee conducted a survey evaluating AML hospitalization patterns, care models, and barriers to EHD at its 33 member institutions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 (91%) institutions completed the survey; two-thirds treat >100 patients with AML annually and 45% treat more than half of these with intensive chemotherapy. In the (re)induction setting, 80% of institutions keep patients hospitalized until blood count recovery, whereas 20% aim to discharge patients after completion of chemotherapy if medically stable and logistically feasible. The predominant reasons for the perceived need for ongoing hospitalization were high risk of infection, treatment toxicities, and lack of nearby/accessible housing. There was no significant association between ability to practice EHD and annual AML volume or treatment intensity patterns (P=.60 and P=.11, respectively). In contrast, in the postremission setting, 87% of centers support patients following chemotherapy in the outpatient setting unless toxicities arise requiring readmission. Survey responses showed that 80% of centers were interested in exploring EHD after (re)induction but noted significant barriers, including accessible housing (71%), transportation (50%), high toxicity/infection rate (50%), high transfusion burden (50%), and limited bed availability for rehospitalization (50%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hospitalization and care patterns following intensive AML therapy vary widely across major US cancer institutions. Although only 20% of surveyed centers practice EHD following intensive (re)induction chemotherapy, 87% do so following postremission therapy. Given the interest in exploring the EHD approach given potential advantages of EHD for both patients and health care systems, strategies to address identified medical and logistical barriers should be explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":17483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","volume":" ","pages":"469-474"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2024.7026","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prolonged hospitalization following intensive (re)induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), while standard, is costly and resource intense, limits inpatient bed capacity, and negatively impacts quality of life. Early hospital discharge (EHD) following completion of chemotherapy has proven safe as an alternative at select institutions, but is not widely implemented.

Patients and methods: From February 2023 through May 2023, the NCCN Best Practices Committee conducted a survey evaluating AML hospitalization patterns, care models, and barriers to EHD at its 33 member institutions.

Results: A total of 30 (91%) institutions completed the survey; two-thirds treat >100 patients with AML annually and 45% treat more than half of these with intensive chemotherapy. In the (re)induction setting, 80% of institutions keep patients hospitalized until blood count recovery, whereas 20% aim to discharge patients after completion of chemotherapy if medically stable and logistically feasible. The predominant reasons for the perceived need for ongoing hospitalization were high risk of infection, treatment toxicities, and lack of nearby/accessible housing. There was no significant association between ability to practice EHD and annual AML volume or treatment intensity patterns (P=.60 and P=.11, respectively). In contrast, in the postremission setting, 87% of centers support patients following chemotherapy in the outpatient setting unless toxicities arise requiring readmission. Survey responses showed that 80% of centers were interested in exploring EHD after (re)induction but noted significant barriers, including accessible housing (71%), transportation (50%), high toxicity/infection rate (50%), high transfusion burden (50%), and limited bed availability for rehospitalization (50%).

Conclusions: Hospitalization and care patterns following intensive AML therapy vary widely across major US cancer institutions. Although only 20% of surveyed centers practice EHD following intensive (re)induction chemotherapy, 87% do so following postremission therapy. Given the interest in exploring the EHD approach given potential advantages of EHD for both patients and health care systems, strategies to address identified medical and logistical barriers should be explored.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
NCCN 成员机构为接受强化化疗的急性髓细胞性白血病成人患者提供的护理模式和门诊护理障碍。
背景:急性髓性白血病(AML)强化(再)诱导化疗后的长期住院治疗虽然是标准治疗,但费用高昂、资源紧张、限制了住院床位,并对生活质量产生负面影响。化疗结束后提前出院(EHD)作为一种替代方案已在部分机构证明是安全的,但并未广泛实施:从 2023 年 2 月到 2023 年 5 月,NCCN 最佳实践委员会对其 33 个成员机构的急性髓细胞性白血病住院模式、护理模式和 EHD 的障碍进行了调查评估:共有 30 家(91%)机构完成了调查;三分之二的机构每年治疗的急性髓细胞性白血病患者超过 100 人,45% 的机构对其中一半以上的患者进行了强化化疗。在(再)诱导治疗中,80%的机构会让患者住院直至血细胞计数恢复,而20%的机构则希望患者在完成化疗后出院,前提是病情稳定且在后勤上可行。患者认为需要继续住院治疗的主要原因是感染风险高、治疗毒性反应以及附近/交通不便。实施 EHD 的能力与每年急性髓细胞白血病的治疗量或治疗强度模式之间没有明显联系(分别为 P=.60 和 P=.11)。相比之下,在缓解后的治疗中,87%的中心支持患者在门诊接受化疗,除非出现需要再次入院的毒性反应。调查结果显示,80%的中心有兴趣在(再)诱导后探索EHD,但也注意到了一些重大障碍,包括无障碍住房(71%)、交通(50%)、高毒性/感染率(50%)、高输血负担(50%)以及再住院的床位有限(50%):结论:美国各大癌症机构在急性髓细胞白血病强化治疗后的住院和护理模式差异很大。尽管只有 20% 的受访中心在强化(再)诱导化疗后实施 EHD,但 87% 的中心在缓解后治疗后实施 EHD。鉴于EHD对患者和医疗系统的潜在优势,人们对探索EHD方法很感兴趣,因此应探索解决已发现的医疗和后勤障碍的策略。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
388
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is a peer-reviewed medical journal read by over 25,000 oncologists and cancer care professionals nationwide. This indexed publication delivers the latest insights into best clinical practices, oncology health services research, and translational medicine. Notably, JNCCN provides updates on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology® (NCCN Guidelines®), review articles elaborating on guideline recommendations, health services research, and case reports that spotlight molecular insights in patient care. Guided by its vision, JNCCN seeks to advance the mission of NCCN by serving as the primary resource for information on NCCN Guidelines®, innovation in translational medicine, and scientific studies related to oncology health services research. This encompasses quality care and value, bioethics, comparative and cost effectiveness, public policy, and interventional research on supportive care and survivorship. JNCCN boasts indexing by prominent databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Chemical Abstracts, Embase, EmCare, and Scopus, reinforcing its standing as a reputable source for comprehensive information in the field of oncology.
期刊最新文献
Proportion of Gleason Score ≥8 Prostate Cancer on Biopsy and Tumor Aggressiveness in Matched Cohorts of East Asian and Non-East Asian Men. Local Recurrence and Survival in Patients With Melanoma >2 mm in Thickness at Difficult Sites Treated With 1-cm Versus 2-cm Margins. Oncology Survivorship Care Clinics: Design and Implementation of Survivorship Care Delivery Systems at NCCN Member Institutions. Achieving Adherence With NCCN Guidelines for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Regarding Peripheral and Deep En Face Margin Assessment (PDEMA). Authors' Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Wu Re: Enhancing the Readability of Online Patient-Facing Content Using AI Chatbots.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1