Dataset Information

Addressing palliative care and end-of-life issues in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of communication interventions for physicians not specialised in palliative care.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify and summarise evaluated interventions aiming to improve the communication of palliative care (PC) and end-of-life (EoL) issues in physicians caring for cancer patients. Such interventions are needed with regard to the aim of an earlier communication of those issues in oncology daily practice, which is associated with a range of benefits for patients and caregivers but is often impeded by physicians' communication insecurities.

Design

Systematic review based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Data sources

Relevant publications were systematically searched in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science databases in September 2020 with an update in July 2021.

Eligibility criteria

We included publications reporting a quantitative evaluation of a communication intervention on one or more PC/EoL issues with a communication-related main outcome. Target group had to be physicians caring for cancer patients non-specialist in PC.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent raters extracted intervention characteristics, publication characteristics and publication quality. Results were narratively synthesised.

Results

24 publications reporting 22 interventions were included. 13 publications reported randomised controlled trials. A majority of the interventions addressed one specific PC/EoL issue, most often breaking bad news. Teaching strategies mostly involved role-plays. Target group were mainly oncologists. In addition to self-reported outcome measurements for evaluation, most publications also reported the use of external rating data. All but one publication reported significant intervention effects on at least one outcome parameter. Publication quality was overall moderate.

Conclusions

The empirically tested communication interventions on PC/EoL issues seem to effectively improve physicians' communication. Future interventions should focus on other issues than breaking bad news, such as preparing for the future. Target group should also be organ-specific oncologists, as all primary caring physicians are responsible for timely communication. Our risk-of-bias assessment revealed some weaknesses, indicating that more high-quality studies for evaluation are needed.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020191054.

SUBMITTER: Harnischfeger N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207918 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care focuses on identifying, from a holistic perspective, the needs of those experiencing problems associated with life-threatening illnesses. As older people approach the end of their lives, they can experience a complex series of problems that health-care professionals must identify and document in their patients' records. Documentation is thus important for ensuring high-quality patient care. Previous studies of documentation in older people's patient records performed in various care contexts have shown that such documentation almost exclusively concerns physical problems. This study explores, in the context of Swedish specialised palliative care, the content of documentation in older people's patient records, focusing on documented problems, wishes, aspects of wellbeing, use of assessment tools, interventions, and documentation associated with the person's death.MethodsA retrospective review based on randomly selected records (n = 92) of older people receiving specialised palliative care, at home or in a palliative in-patient ward, who died in 2017. A review template was developed based on the literature and on a review of sampled records of patients who died the preceding year. The template was checked for inter-rater agreement and used to code all clinical notes in the patients' records. Data were processed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe most common clinical notes in older people's patient records concerned interventions (n = 16,031, 71%), mostly related to pharmacological interventions (n = 4318, 27%). The second most common clinical notes concerned problems (n = 2804, 12%), pain being the most frequent, followed by circulatory, nutrition, and anxiety problems. Clinical notes concerning people's wishes and wellbeing-related details were documented, but not frequently. Symptom assessment tools, except for pain assessments, were rarely used. More people who received care in palliative in-patient wards died alone than did people who received care in their own homes.ConclusionsIdentifying and documenting the complexity of problems in a more structured and planned way could be a method for implementing a more holistic approach to end-of-life care. Using patient-reported outcome measures capturing more than one symptom or problem, and a systematic documentation structure would help in identifying unmet needs and developing holistic documentation of end-of-life care.

Project description:ImportanceEvidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes.ObjectiveTo inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system.Evidence reviewSystematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015).ResultsRandomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p < 0.05), as did those in congestive heart failure (CHF) (62%, 13 of 21), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 58%, 11 of 19), and dementia (60%, 15 of 25). Most prognostic criteria used clinicians' judgment (73%, 22 of 30). Most interventions included a nurse (70%, 69 of 98), and many were nurse-only (39%, 27 of 69). Social workers were well represented, and home-based approaches were common (56%, 70 of 124). Home interventions with visits were more effective than those without (64%, 28 of 44; vs. 46%, 12 of 26). Interventions improved communication and care planning (70%, 12 of 18), psychosocial health (36%, 12 of 33, for depressive symptoms; 41%, 9 of 22, for anxiety), and patient (40%, 8 of 20) and caregiver experiences (63%, 5 of 8). Many interventions reduced hospital use (65%, 11 of 17), but most other economic outcomes, including costs, were poorly characterized. Palliative care teams did not reliably lower healthcare costs (20%, 2 of 10).ConclusionsPalliative care improves cancer, CHF, COPD, and dementia outcomes. Effective models include nurses, social workers, and home-based components, and a focus on communication, psychosocial support, and the patient or caregiver experience. High-quality research on intervention costs and cost outcomes in palliative care is limited.