Dataset Information

Access to hospital and community palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The UK National Health Service is striving to improve access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer however limited information exists on the level of palliative care support currently provided in the UK. We aimed to establish the duration and intensity of palliative care received by patients with advanced cancer and identify which cancer patients are missing out.

Methods

Retrospective cancer registry, primary care and secondary care data were obtained and linked for 2474 patients who died of cancer between 2010 and 2012 within a large metropolitan UK city. Associations between the type, duration, and amount of palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received were assessed using Chi-squared, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the odds of receiving community and/or hospital palliative care compared to no palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received.

Results

Overall 64.6% of patients received palliative care. The average palliative care input was two contacts over six weeks. Community palliative care was associated with more palliative care events (p<0.001) for a longer duration (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to receive palliative care if they were: male (p = 0.002), aged 80 years or over (p<0.05), diagnosed with lung cancer (p<0.05), had not received an opioid prescription (p<0.001), or had not received chemotherapy (p<0.001). Patients given radiotherapy were more likely to receive community only palliative care compared to no palliative care (Odds Ratio = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.16-1.90).

Conclusion

Timely supportive care for cancer patients is advocated but these results suggest that older patients and those who do not receive anti-cancer treatment or opioid analgesics miss out. These patients should be targeted for assessment to identify unmet needs which could benefit from palliative care input.

SUBMITTER: Craigs CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6082504 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Access to hospital and community palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis.

Craigs Cheryl L CL West Robert M RM Hurlow Adam A Bennett Michael I MI Ziegler Lucy E LE

PloS one 20180808 8

<h4>Background</h4>The UK National Health Service is striving to improve access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer however limited information exists on the level of palliative care support currently provided in the UK. We aimed to establish the duration and intensity of palliative care received by patients with advanced cancer and identify which cancer patients are missing out.<h4>Methods</h4>Retrospective cancer registry, primary care and secondary care data were obtained and ...[more]

PMID: 30089106

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTeam-based and timely integrated palliative care is a gold standard of care in oncology, but issues concerning its optimal organization remain. Palliative Care in Day-Hospital (PCDH) could be one of the most efficient service model of palliative care to deliver interdisciplinary and multidimensional care addressing the complex supportive care needs of patients with advanced cancer. We hypothesize that, compared to conventional outpatient palliative care, PCDH allows the clinical benefits of palliative care to be enhanced.Methods/designThis study is a multicentre parallel group trial with stratified randomization. Patient management in PCDH will be compared to conventional outpatient palliative care. The inclusion criteria are advanced cancer patients referred to a palliative care team with an estimated life expectancy of more than 2 months and less than 1 year. The primary endpoint is health-related quality of life with deterioration-free survival based on the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. The secondary objectives are the following: increase in patient satisfaction with care using the EORTC PATSAT-C33 and OUT-PATSAT7 questionnaires, better understanding of the prognosis using the PTPQ questionnaire and advance care planning; decrease in the need for supportive care among relatives using the SCNS-P&C-F questionnaire, and reduction in end-of-life care aggressiveness. Patients will complete one to five questionnaires on a tablet before each monthly visit over 6 months and will be followed for 1 year. A qualitative study will take place, aiming to understand the specificity of palliative care management in PCDH. Cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and, an additional economic evaluation based on capability approach will be conducted from a societal point of view.DiscussionThe first strength of this study is that it combines the main relevant outcomes assessing integrated palliative care; patient quality of life and satisfaction; discussion of the prognosis and advance care planning, family well-being and end-of-life care aggressiveness. The second strength of the study is that it is a mixed-method study associating a qualitative analysis of the specificity of PCDH organization, with a medical-economic study to analyse the cost of care.Trial registrationName of the registry: IDRCB 2019-A03116-51 Trial registration number: NCT04604873 Date of registration: October 27, 2020 URL of trial registry record.

Project description:BackgroundDignity is a basic principle of palliative care and is intrinsic in the daily practice of professionals assisting individuals with incurable diseases. Dignity Therapy (DT) is a short-term intervention aimed at improving the sense of purpose, meaning and self-worth and at reducing the existential distress of patients facing advanced illness. Few studies have examined how DT works in countries of non-Anglo Saxon culture and in different real-life settings. Moreover, most studies do not provide detailed information on how DT is conducted, limiting a reliable assessment of DT protocol application and of its evaluation procedure. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led DT intervention in advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care.MethodThis is a mixed-method study using before and after evaluation and semistructured interviews. Cancer patients referred to a hospital palliative care unit were recruited and provided with DT. The duration of sessions, and timeframes concerning each step of the study, were recorded, and descriptive statistical analyses were performed. The patients' dignity-related distress and feedback toward the intervention were assessed through the Patient Dignity Inventory and the Dignity Therapy Patient Feedback Questionnaire, respectively. Three nurses were interviewed on their experience in delivering the intervention, and the data were analyzed qualitatively.ResultsA total of 37/50 patients were enrolled (74.0%), of whom 28 (75.7%) completed the assessment. In 76.7% of cases, patients completed the intervention in the time limit scheduled in the study. No statistically significant reduction in the Patient Dignity Inventory scores was observed at the end of the intervention; most patients found DT to be helpful and satisfactory. Building opportunities for personal growth and providing holistic care emerged among the facilitators to DT implementation. Nurses also highlighted too great of a time commitment and a difficult collaboration with ward colleagues among the barriers.ConclusionsOur findings strongly support the acceptability, but only partially support the feasibility, of nurse-led DT in advanced cancer patients in a hospital setting. Further research is needed on how to transfer the potential benefits of DT into clinical practice.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered on ClinicalTrial.gov NCT04738305 .

Project description:BackgroundPalliative sedation (PS) is an intervention to treat refractory symptoms and to relieve suffering at the end of life. Its prevalence and practice patterns vary widely worldwide. The aim of our study was to evaluate the frequency, clinical indications and outcomes of PS in advanced cancer patients admitted to our tertiary comprehensive cancer center.MethodsWe retrospectively studied the use of PS in advanced cancer patients who died between March 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2014. PS was defined as the use of continuous infusion of midazolam or neuroleptics for refractory symptoms in the end of life. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of our institution (project number 2481-15).ResultsDuring the study period, 552 cancer patients died at the institution and 374 met the inclusion criteria for this study. Main reason for exclusion was death in the Intensive Care Unit. Among all included patients, 54.2% (n?=?203) received PS. Patients who received PS as compared to those not sedated were younger (67.8 vs. 76.4 years-old, p?<?0.001) and more likely to have a diagnosis of lung cancer (23% vs. 14%, p?=?0.028). The most common indications for sedation were dyspnea (55%) and delirium (19.7%) and the most common drugs used were midazolam (52.7%) or midazolam and a neuroleptic (39.4%). Median initial midazolam infusion rate was 0.75 mg/h (interquartile range - IQR - 0.6-1.5) and final rate was 1.5 mg/h (IQR 0.9-3.0). Patient survival (length of hospital stay from admission to death) of those who had PS was more than the double of those who did not (33.6 days vs 16 days, p?<?0.001). The palliative care team was involved in the care of 12% (n?=?25) of sedated patients.ConclusionsPS is a relatively common practice in the end-of-life of cancer patients at our hospital and it is not associated with shortening of hospital stay. Involvement of a dedicated palliative care team is strongly recommended if this procedure is being considered. Further research is needed to identify factors that may affect the frequency and outcomes associated with PS.

Project description:ImportanceLimited data suggest that early palliative care (EPC) improves quality of life (QOL) and survival in patients with advanced cancer.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether comprehensive EPC improves QOL; relieves mental, social, and existential burdens; increases survival rates; and helps patients develop coping skills.Design, setting, and participantsThis nonblinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) recruited patients from 12 hospitals in South Korea from September 2017 to October 2018. Patients aged 20 years or older with advanced cancer who were not terminally ill but for whom standard chemotherapy has not been effective were eligible. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the control (receiving usual supportive oncological care) or intervention (receiving EPC with usual oncological care) group. Intention-to-treat data analysis was conducted between September and December 2022.InterventionsThe intervention group received EPC through a structured program of self-study education materials, telephone coaching, and regular assessments by an integrated palliative care team.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in overall QOL score (assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 Palliative Care) from baseline to 24 weeks after enrollment, with evaluations also conducted at 12 and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were social and existential burdens (assessed with the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire) as well as crisis-overcoming capacity and 2-year survival.ResultsA total of 144 patients (83 males [57.6%]; mean [SD] age, 60.7 (7.2) years) were enrolled, of whom 73 were randomized to the intervention group and 71 to the control group. The intervention group demonstrated significantly greater changes in scores in overall health status or QOL from baseline, especially at 18 weeks (11.00 [95% CI, 0.78-21.22] points; P = .04; effect size = 0.42). However, at 12 and 24 weeks, there were no significant differences observed. Compared with the control group, the intervention group also showed significant improvement in self-management or coping skills over 24 weeks (20.51 [95% CI, 12.41-28.61] points; P < .001; effect size = 0.93). While the overall survival rate was higher in the intervention vs control group, the difference was not significant. In the intervention group, however, those who received 10 or more EPC interventions (eg, telephone coaching sessions and care team meetings) showed a significantly increased probability of 2-year survival (53.6%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis RCT demonstrated that EPC enhanced QOL at 18 weeks; however, no significant improvements were observed at 12 and 24 weeks. An increased number of interventions sessions was associated with increased 2-year survival rates in the intervention group.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03181854.

Dataset Information

Access to hospital and community palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Access to hospital and community palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets