Dataset Information

PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10).

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:The identification and referral of patients in need of palliative care should be improved. The French society for palliative support and care recommended to use the PALLIA-10 questionnaire and its score greater than 3 to refer patients to palliative care. We explored the use of the PALLIA-10 questionnaire and its related score in a population of advanced cancer patients. METHODS:This prospective multicentric study is to be conducted in authorized French comprehensive cancer centers on hospitalized patients on a given day. We aimed to use the PALLIA-10 score to determine the proportion of palliative patients with a score >3. Main secondary endpoints were to determine the proportion of patients already managed by palliative care teams at the study date or referred to palliative care in six following months, the prevalence of patients with a score greater than 5, and the overall survival using the predefined thresholds of 3 and 5. RESULTS:In 2015, eighteen French cancer centers enrolled 840 patients, including 687 (82%) palliative patients. 479 (69.5%) patients had a score >3, 230 (33.5%) had a score >5, 216 (31.4%) patients were already followed-up by a palliative care team, 152 patients were finally referred to PC in the six subsequent months. The PALLIA-10 score appeared as a reliable predictive (adjusted ORR ef?3 : 1.9 [1.17-3.16] and 3.59 [2.18-5.91]) and prognostic (adjusted HRR ef?3 = 1.58 [95%CI 1.20-2.08] and 2.18 [95%CI 1.63-2.92]) factor for patients scored 4-5 and >5, respectively. CONCLUSION:The PALLIA-10 questionnaire is an easy-to-use tool to refer cancer inpatients to palliative care in current practice. However a score greater than 5 using the PALLIA-10 questionnaire would be more appropriate for advanced cancer patients hospitalized in comprehensive cancer center.

SUBMITTER: Molin Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6558580 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10).

Molin Yann Y Gallay Caroline C Gautier Julien J Lardy-Cleaud Audrey A Mayet Romaine R Grach Marie-Christine MC Guesdon Gérard G Capodano Géraldine G Dubroeucq Olivier O Bouleuc Carole C Bremaud Nathalie N Fogliarini Anne A Henry Aline A Caunes-Hilary Nathalie N Villet Stéphanie S Villatte Christine C Frasie Véronique V Triolaire Valérie V Barbarot Véronique V Commer Jean-Marie JM Hutin Agnès A Chvetzoff Gisèle G

Cancer medicine 20190504 6

<h4>Purpose</h4>The identification and referral of patients in need of palliative care should be improved. The French society for palliative support and care recommended to use the PALLIA-10 questionnaire and its score greater than 3 to refer patients to palliative care. We explored the use of the PALLIA-10 questionnaire and its related score in a population of advanced cancer patients.<h4>Methods</h4>This prospective multicentric study is to be conducted in authorized French comprehensive cance ...[more]

PMID: 31055887

Similar Datasets

Project description:This project was done at specialist cancer hospital in Qatar. At a haematology-oncology inpatient department most patients were not getting access to palliative care unless they were at the very end stages of life. Data collected from 2008-2011 showed significant numbers of patients were dying within one month of their transfer to palliative care. There was no standard measure to identify the prospective palliative care patients. A multidisciplinary team developed a Palliative care referral screening tool based on the National Cancer Care Network guideline. Retrospective medical record review done from January to April 2012 showed a mean of 68% of patients who scored more than five were not consulted, 32% of patients who scored more than seven were not transferred to palliative care and seven percent died without any referral. The team used various kinds of quality planning, analysis and improvement tools in the form of process mapping, value analysis, Fish Bone diagrams, stakeholders' analysis and communication, physician survey, "Pareto's principal" (80 / 20 rule, the law of vital few) and other data collection tools. The palliative care referral process was standardised by preparing and implementing an objective scoring tool based on international best practice. It changed the referral culture and helped manage the psychological barriers of patients, families and caregivers. Extensive orientation and education of all key stakeholders was implemented. Monthly auditing of patient records was carried out. The aim has been achieved, exceeded and sustained, and we reduced the percentage of patients who scored more than five without palliative consultation from a mean of 68% to 16% and those who scored more than seven without palliative care transfer from a mean of thirty two percent to three percent, after four months of the project's implementation. Standardising the referral process and creating an objective referral tool is needed to facilitate safe, collaborative, continuous and patient centered care. Timely referral of cancer patients to palliative care minimises patient and caregiver distress, ensures better quality of life, and provides an appropriate measure for end of life care.

Project description:BackgroundFew hospitals and heart failure (HF) clinics offer concurrent palliative care (PC) together with life-prolonging therapies. To know the prevalence of patients in HF clinics needing PC and useful tools to recognize them are the first steps to extending PC in those settings. However, it is still unknown whether tools commonly used to identify patients with HF needing PC can correctly distinguish them. Two systematic reviews found that the NECesidades PALiativas (NECPAL) tool was one of the two most commonly used tools to asses PC needs in HF patients. Therefore, we assessed 1) the prevalence of PC needs in HF clinics according to the NECPAL tool, and 2) the characteristics of the patients identified as having PC; mainly, their quality of life (QoL), symptom burden, and psychosocial problems.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted at two HF clinics in Colombia. We assessed the prevalence of PC in the overall sample and in subgroups according to clinical and demographic variables. We assessed QoL, symptom burden, and psychosocial problems using the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12), the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). We compared the results of these tools between patients identified as having PC needs (+NECPAL) and patients identified as not having PC needs (-NECPAL).ResultsAmong the 178 patients, 78 (44%) had PC needs. The prevalence of PC needs was twice as nigh in patients NYHA III/IV as in patients NYHA I/II and almost twice as high in patients older than 70 years as in patients younger than 70 years. Compared to -NECPAL patients, +NECPAL patients had worse QoL, more severe shortness of breath, tiredness, drowsiness, and pain, and more psychosocial problems.ConclusionThe prevalence of PC needs in outpatient HF clinics is high and is even higher in older patients and in patients at more advanced NYHA stages. Compared to patients identified as not having PC needs, patients identified as having PC needs have worse QoL, more severe symptoms, and greater psychosocial problems. Including a PC provider in the multidisciplinary team of HF clinics may help to assess and cover these needs.

Project description:Evidence is needed about how to effectively support health care providers in implementing screening for social risks (adverse social determinants of health) and providing related referrals meant to address identified social risks. This need is greatest in underresourced care settings. The authors tested whether an implementation support intervention (6 months of technical assistance and coaching study clinics through a five-step implementation process) improved adoption of social risk activities in community health centers (CHCs). Thirty-one CHC clinics were block-randomized to six wedges that occurred sequentially. Over the 45-month study period from March 2018 to December 2021, data were collected for 6 or more months preintervention, the 6-month intervention period, and 6 or more months postintervention. The authors calculated clinic-level monthly rates of social risk screening results that were entered at in-person encounters and rates of social risk-related referrals. Secondary analyses measured impacts on diabetes-related outcomes. Intervention impact was assessed by comparing clinic performance based on whether they had versus had not yet received the intervention in the preintervention period compared with the intervention and postintervention periods. In assessing the results, the authors note that five clinics withdrew from the study for various bandwidth-related reasons. Of the remaining 26, a total of 19 fully or partially completed all 5 implementation steps, and 7 fully or partially completed at least the first 3 steps. Social risk screening was 2.45 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-4.39) higher during the intervention period compared with the preintervention period; this impact was not sustained postintervention (rate ratio, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.64-7.27). No significant difference was seen in social risk referral rates during the intervention or postintervention periods. The intervention was associated with greater blood pressure control among patients with diabetes and lower rates of diabetes biomarker screening postintervention. All results must be interpreted considering that the Covid-19 pandemic began midway through the trial, which affected care delivery generally and patients at CHCs particularly. Finally, the study results show that adaptive implementation support was effective at temporarily increasing social risk screening. It is possible that the intervention did not adequately address barriers to sustained implementation or that 6 months was not long enough to cement this change. Underresourced clinics may struggle to participate in support activities over longer periods without adequate resources, even if lengthier support is needed. As policies start requiring documentation of social risk activities, safety-net clinics may be unable to meet these requirements without adequate financial and coaching/technical support.

Project description:ObjectiveScreening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for adolescent alcohol and drug (AOD) use is recommended to occur with adolescents admitted to pediatric trauma centers. Most metrics on SBIRT service delivery only reference medical record documentation. In this analysis we examined changes in adolescents' perception of SBIRT services and concordance of adolescent-report and medical record data, among a sample of adolescents admitted before and after institutional SBIRT implementation.MethodsWe implemented SBIRT for adolescent AOD use using the Science to Service Laboratory implementation strategy and enrolled adolescents at 9 pediatric trauma centers. The recommended clinical workflow was for nursing to screen, social work to provide adolescents screening positive with brief intervention and referral to their PCP for continued AOD discussions with those. Adolescents screening as high-risk also referred to specialty services. Adolescents were enrolled and contacted 30 days after discharge and asked about their perception of any SBIRT services received. Data were also extracted from enrolled patient's medical record.ResultsThere were 430 adolescents enrolled, with 424 that were matched to their EHR data and 329 completed the 30-day survey. In this sample, EHR documented screening increased from pre-implementation to post-implementation (16.3%-65.7%) and brief interventions increased (27.1%-40.7%). Adolescents self-reported higher rates of being asked about alcohol or drug use than in EHR data both pre- and post-implementation (80.7%-81%). Both EHR data and adolescent self-reported data demonstrated low referral back to PCP for continued AOD discussions.ConclusionsImplementation of SBIRT at pediatric trauma centers was not associated with change in adolescent perceptions of SBIRT, despite improved documentation of delivery of AOD screening and interventions. Adolescents perceived being asked about AOD use more often than was documented. Referral to PCP or specialty care for continued AOD discussion remains an area of needed attention.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03297060.

Dataset Information

PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10).

Publications

PALLIA-10, a screening tool to identify patients needing palliative care referral in comprehensive cancer centers: A prospective multicentric study (PREPA-10).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets