Assessing Involvement and Training of Academic Palliative Care Programs in the Care of Patients with Sickle Cell Disease: A Nationwide Survey.
cross_sectional · Level IV
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 42482399.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1177/10966218261472552.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Despite high symptom burden and limited lifespan associated with sickle cell disease (SCD), specialty palliative care (PC) services remain underutilized in this marginalized population.<sup>1,2</sup> The extent of routine involvement, barriers to care, and training in the care of SCD patients at academic PC programs in the United States has not been quantified. To assess PC involvement and training in SCD care, identify barriers to access, and inform integration strategies. An anonymous Qualtrics survey, developed through literature review and expert panel, was emailed to 180 palliative medicine fellowship program directors or surrogates (June 18-July 25, 2025) in the United States. The survey included demographics, program practices regarding SCD and other chronic conditions (cystic fibrosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and chronic nonmalignant pain), frequency of routine SCD education, and perceived barriers to providing care to these patients. Fifty-one responses were received (28.3% response rate). Only 37% of programs routinely care for SCD patients (31.5% inpatient only, 10.5% outpatient, 58% both). Among these, 68% regularly prescribed opioids. Programs not routinely involved reported exceptions for patients with limited prognosis, comorbidities such as active cancer, or imminent end-of-life needs. The most common reported barriers to seeing patients with SCD were lack of outpatient resources (46%) and staffing constraints (44%). Free-text responses cited limited referrals, competing specialty ownership (hematology), institutional restrictions, and scope-of-practice limitations. Only 38% of programs included SCD in their fellowship curriculum, and 20% offered routine training for all PC team members. Fewer than half of academic PC programs routinely care for SCD patients, and most programs lack formal SCD training. Institutional and systemic barriers limit access, highlighting the need for resources and education to expand PC integration into SCD care. There is a need for consensus guidelines stratifying PC involvement in SCD patients.