Adherence to Measuring What Matters Items When Caring for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies Versus Solid Tumors.

CONTEXT: Measuring What Matters (MWM) prioritizes quality measures in palliative care practice. Hematologic malignancy patients are less likely to access palliative care, yet little is known about their unique needs. Differences in MWM adherence may highlight opportunities to improve palliative care in hematology. OBJECTIVES: To assess adherence to MWM measures by palliative care clinicians caring for patients with hematologic malignancies, compared to those with solid tumors. METHODS: We used the Quality Data Collection Tool to assess completion of MWM measures across nine sites. RESULTS: We included data from 678 patients' first visits and various care settings; 64 (9.4%) had a hematologic malignancy, whereas 614 (90.6%) had a solid tumor. Hematology patients were more likely to be seen in a hospital (52 or 81.3% vs. 420 or 68%), whereas solid tumor patients were more frequently seen at home or in clinics (160 or 26% vs. 7 or 10.9%). Of the nine MWM measures we assessed, high adherence (>90%) was seen regardless of tumor type in measures #3 (Pain Treatment), #7 (Spiritual Concerns), #8 (Treatment Preferences), and #9 (Care Consistent With Preferences). Clinicians seeing hematology patients were significantly less likely to meet measures #2 (Screening for Physical Symptoms; 57.8% vs. 84.2%, P < 0.001), and #5 (Discussion of Emotional Needs; 56.3% vs. 70.0%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: MWM adherence regarding symptom assessment and meeting emotional needs was lower for patients with hematologic malignancies compared to those with solid tumors. This finding suggests two key areas for quality improvement initiatives in palliative care for patients with hematologic malignancies.

Duke Scholars

Author Thomas William LeBlanc Medicine, Hematologic Malignancies and Cellular Therapy

Author Kimberly Sherell Johnson Medicine, Geriatrics

Author Arif H Kamal Medicine, Medical Oncology