Dataset Information

Specialist palliative and end-of-life care for patients with cancer and SARS-CoV-2 infection: a European perspective.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Specialist palliative care team (SPCT) involvement has been shown to improve symptom control and end-of-life care for patients with cancer, but little is known as to how these have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report SPCT involvement during the first wave of the pandemic and compare outcomes for patients with cancer who received and did not receive SPCT input from multiple European cancer centres.

Methods

From the OnCovid repository (N = 1318), we analysed cancer patients aged ⩾18 diagnosed with COVID-19 between 26 February and 22 June 2020 who had complete specialist palliative care team data (SPCT+ referred; SPCT- not referred).

Results

Of 555 eligible patients, 317 were male (57.1%), with a median age of 70 years (IQR 20). At COVID-19 diagnosis, 44.7% were on anti-cancer therapy and 53.3% had ⩾1 co-morbidity. Two hundred and six patients received SPCT input for symptom control (80.1%), psychological support (54.4%) and/or advance care planning (51%). SPCT+ patients had more 'Do not attempt cardio-pulmonary resuscitation' orders completed prior to (12.6% versus 3.7%) and during admission (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001), with more SPCT+ patients deemed suitable for treatment escalation (50% versus 22.1%, p < 0.001). SPCT involvement was associated with higher discharge rates from hospital for end-of-life care (9.7% versus 0%, p < 0.001). End-of-life anticipatory prescribing was higher in SPCT+ patients, with opioids (96.3% versus 47.1%) and benzodiazepines (82.9% versus 41.2%) being used frequently for symptom control.

Conclusion

SPCT referral facilitated symptom control, emergency care and discharge planning, as well as high rates of referral for psychological support than previously reported. Our study highlighted the critical need of SPCTs for patients with cancer during the pandemic and should inform service planning for this population.

SUBMITTER: Soosaipillai G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419540 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimsThe use and costs of health care rise substantially in the months prior to death, and although the use of palliative care services may be expected to lead to less costly care, the evidence is mixed. We analysed the costs of care over the last year of life and the extent to which these are associated with the use and duration of specialist palliative care (SPC) for decedents who died from cancer or another life-limiting illness.MethodsThe decedents were participants in a cohort study of older residents of the state of New South Wales, Australia. Using linked survey and administrative health data from 2007 to 2016, two cohorts were identified: n = 10,535 where the cause of death was cancer; and n = 11,179 where the cause of death was another life-limiting illness. Costs of various types were analysed with separate risk-adjusted linear regression models for the last 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months before death and for both cohorts. SPC was categorised according to time to death from first contact with the service as 1-7 days, 7-30 days, 30-180 days and more than 180 days.ResultsSPC use was higher among the cancer cohort (30.0%) relative to the non-cancer cohort (4.8%). The mean costs over the final year of life were AU$55,037 (SD 45,059) for the cancer cohort and AU$35,318 (SD 41,948) for the non-cancer cohort. Earlier use of SPC was associated with higher costs over the last year of life but lower costs in the last 1 and 3 months for both cohorts. Initiating SPC use more than 180 days before death was associated with a mean difference relative to the no SPC group of AU$15,590 (95% CI 10,617 to 20,562) and AU$13,739 (95% CI 733 to 26,746) over the last year of life for those dying from cancer and another illness, respectively. The same differences over the last month of life were - AU$2810 (95% CI - 3945 to - 1676) and - AU$4345 (95% CI - 6625 to - 2066). Admitted hospital care was the major driver of costs, with longer SPC associated with lower rates of death in hospital for both cohorts.ConclusionEarly initiation of SPC was associated with higher costs over the last year of life and lower costs over the last months of life. This was the case for both the cancer and non-cancer cohorts, and appeared to be largely attributed to reduced hospitalisation. Although further investigation is required, our results suggest that expanding the availability of SPC services to provide more equitable access could enable patients to spend more time at their usual place of residence, reduce pressure on inpatient services and facilitate death at home when that is preferred.

Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted ongoing challenges to optimal supportive end-of-life care for adults living in long-term care (LTC) facilities. A supportive end-of-life care approach emphasises family involvement, optimal symptom control, multidisciplinary team collaboration and death and bereavement support services for residents and families. Community-based and palliative care specialist physicians who visit residents in LTC facilities play an important role in supportive end-of-life care. Yet, perspectives, experiences and perceptions of these physicians remain unknown. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to optimal supportive end-of-life palliative care in LTC through the experiences and perceptions of community-based and palliative specialist physicians who visit LTC facilities.DesignQualitative study using semi-structured interviews, basic qualitative description and directed content analysis using the COM-B (capability, opportunity, motivation - behaviour) theoretical framework.SettingResidential long-term care.Participants23 physicians who visit LTC facilities from across Alberta, Canada, including both in urban and rural settings of whom 18 were community-based physicians and 5 were specialist palliative care physicians.ResultsMotivation barriers include families' lack of frailty knowledge, unrealistic expectations and emotional reactions to grief and uncertainty. Capability barriers include lack of symptom assessment tools, as well as palliative care knowledge, training and mentorship. Physical and social design barriers include lack of dedicated spaces for death and bereavement, inadequate staff, and mental health and spiritual services of insufficient scope for the population.ConclusionFindings reveal that validating families' concerns, having appropriate symptom assessment tools, providing mentorship in palliative care and adapting the physical and social environment to support dying and grieving with dignity facilitates supportive, end-of-life care within LTC.

Project description:The increasing demand for palliative care in New Zealand presents a potential threat to the quality of service delivery. One strategy to overcome this is through the implementation of valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measures. This mixed-methods study aimed to (1) implement measurement-based palliative care (MBPC) in a community palliative care service in Auckland, New Zealand; (2) evaluate the clinical utility of MBPC perceived by clinicians; (3) describe patient characteristics as measured by the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), the Australasian Modified Karnofsky Performance Scale (AKPS), and Phase of Illness (POI); and (4) evaluate the internal consistency of the IPOS. Participants were over 18 years of age from a community outpatient palliative care service. In a phased approach to implementation, healthcare staff were educated on each instrument used for patient assessment. Uptake and internal consistency were evaluated through descriptive statistics. An interpretive descriptive methodology was used to explore the clinical utility of MBPC through semi-structured interviews with seven clinical staff members. Individual patient assessments (n = 1507) were undertaken predominantly on admission, with decreasing frequency as patients advanced through to the terminal phase of their care. Mean total IPOS scores were 17.97 (SD = 10.39, α = 0.78). The POI showed that 65% of patients were in the stable phase, 20% were in the unstable phase, 9% were in the deteriorating phase, and 2% were in the terminal phase. Clinicians reported that MBPC facilitated holistic and comprehensive assessments, as well as the development of a common interdisciplinary language. Clinicians expressed discomfort using the psychosocial and spiritual items. Measurement-based palliative care was only partially implemented but it was valued by staff and perceived to increase the quality of service delivery. Future research should determine the optimal timing of assessments, cultural responsivity for Māori and Pacific patients, and the role of MBPC in decision support for clinicians.

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research.MethodsA mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.ResultsParticipants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities.ConclusionsProfessionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.