Dataset Information

Emergency Department-Initiated Palliative Care in Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The delivery of palliative care is not standard of care within most emergency departments (EDs).

Objective

To compare quality of life, depression, health care utilization, and survival in ED patients with advanced cancer randomized to ED-initiated palliative care consultation vs care as usual.

Design, setting, and participants

A single-blind, randomized clinical trial of ED-initiated palliative care consultation for patients with advanced cancer vs usual care took place from June 2011 to April 2014 at an urban, academic ED at a quaternary care referral center. Adult patients with advanced cancer who were able to pass a cognitive screen, had never been seen by palliative care, spoke English or Spanish, and presented to the ED met eligibility criteria; 136 of 298 eligible patients were approached and enrolled in the ED and randomized via balanced block randomization.

Interventions

Intervention participants received a comprehensive palliative care consultation by the inpatient team, including an assessment of symptoms, spiritual and/or social needs, and goals of care.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Measure (FACT-G) score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included major depressive disorder as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, health care utilization at 180 days, and survival at 1 year.

Results

A total of 136 participants were enrolled, and 69 allocated to palliative care (mean [SD], 55.1 [13.1] years) and 67 were randomized to usual care (mean [SD], 57.8 [14.7] years). Quality of life, as measured by a change in FACT-G score from enrollment to 12 weeks, was significantly higher in patients randomized to the intervention group, who demonstrated a mean (SD) increase of 5.91 (16.65) points compared with 1.08 (16.00) in controls (P = .03 using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test). Median estimates of survival were longer in the intervention group than the control group: 289 (95% CI, 128-453) days vs 132 (95% CI, 80-302) days, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = .20). There were no statistically significant differences in depression, admission to the intensive care unit, and discharge to hospice.

Conclusions and relevance

Emergency department-initiated palliative care consultation in advanced cancer improves quality of life in patients with advanced cancer and does not seem to shorten survival; the impact on health care utilization and depression is less clear and warrants further study.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01358110.

SUBMITTER: Grudzen CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9252442 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:For patients with advanced cancer, visits to the emergency department (ED) are common. Such patients present to the ED with a specific profile of palliative care needs, including burdensome symptoms such as pain, dyspnea, or vomiting that cannot be controlled in other settings and a lack of well-defined goals of care. The goals of this study are: i) to test the feasibility of recruiting, enrolling, and randomizing patients with serious illness in the ED; and ii) to evaluate the impact of ED-initiated palliative care on health care utilization, quality of life, and survival. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a protocol for a single center parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in ED patients with metastatic solid tumors comparing ED-initiated palliative care referral to a control group receiving usual care. We plan to enroll 125 to 150 ED-advanced cancer patients at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, USA, who meet the following criteria: i) pass a brief cognitive screen; ii) speak fluent English or Spanish; and iii) have never been seen by palliative care. We will use balanced block randomization in groups of 50 to assign patients to the intervention or control group after completion of a baseline questionnaire. All research staff performing assessment or analysis will be blinded to patient assignment. We will measure the impact of the palliative care intervention on the following outcomes: i) timing and rate of palliative care consultation; ii) quality of life and depression at 12 weeks, measured using the FACT-G and PHQ-9; iii) health care utilization; and iv) length of survival. The primary analysis will be based on intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION:This pilot randomized controlled trial will test the feasibility of recruiting, enrolling, and randomizing patients with advanced cancer in the ED, and provide a preliminary estimate of the impact of palliative care referral on health care utilization, quality of life, and survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01358110 (Entered 5/19/2011).

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Opioid-dependent patients often use the emergency department (ED) for medical care. OBJECTIVE:To test the efficacy of 3 interventions for opioid dependence: (1) screening and referral to treatment (referral); (2) screening, brief intervention, and facilitated referral to community-based treatment services (brief intervention); and (3) screening, brief intervention, ED-initiated treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone, and referral to primary care for 10-week follow-up (buprenorphine). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A randomized clinical trial involving 329 opioid-dependent patients who were treated at an urban teaching hospital ED from April 7, 2009, through June 25, 2013. INTERVENTIONS:After screening, 104 patients were randomized to the referral group, 111 to the brief intervention group, and 114 to the buprenorphine treatment group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Enrollment in and receiving addiction treatment 30 days after randomization was the primary outcome. Self-reported days of illicit opioid use, urine testing for illicit opioids, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) risk, and use of addiction treatment services were the secondary outcomes. RESULTS:Seventy-eight percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (89 of 114 [95% CI, 70%-85%]) vs 37% in the referral group (38 of 102 [95% CI, 28%-47%]) and 45% in the brief intervention group (50 of 111 [95% CI, 36%-54%]) were engaged in addiction treatment on the 30th day after randomization (P?<?.001). The buprenorphine group reduced the number of days of illicit opioid use per week from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 0.9 days (95% CI, 0.5-1.3) vs a reduction from 5.4 days (95% CI, 5.1-5.7) to 2.3 days (95% CI, 1.7-3.0) in the referral group and from 5.6 days (95% CI, 5.3-5.9) to 2.4 days (95% CI, 1.8-3.0) in the brief intervention group (P?<?.001 for both time and intervention effects; P?=?.02 for the interaction effect). The rates of urine samples that tested negative for opioids did not differ statistically across groups, with 53.8% (95% CI, 42%-65%) in the referral group, 42.9% (95% CI, 31%-55%) in the brief intervention group, and 57.6% (95% CI, 47%-68%) in the buprenorphine group (P?=?.17). There were no statistically significant differences in HIV risk across groups (P?=?.66). Eleven percent of patients in the buprenorphine group (95% CI, 6%-19%) used inpatient addiction treatment services, whereas 37% in the referral group (95% CI, 27%-48%) and 35% in the brief intervention group (95% CI, 25%-37%) used inpatient addiction treatment services (P?<?.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Among opioid-dependent patients, ED-initiated buprenorphine treatment vs brief intervention and referral significantly increased engagement in addiction treatment, reduced self-reported illicit opioid use, and decreased use of inpatient addiction treatment services but did not significantly decrease the rates of urine samples that tested positive for opioids or of HIV risk. These findings require replication in other centers before widespread adoption. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00913770.

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial is a large, multicenter, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial in emergency department (ED) patients comparing two models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. This report aims to: 1) report baseline demographic and quality of life (QOL) data for the EMPallA cohort, 2) identify the association between illness type and baseline QOL while controlling for other factors, and 3) explore baseline relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.MethodsPatients aged 50+ years with advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumor) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association Class III or IV heart failure, end stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate < 15 mL/min/m2, or Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease Stage III, IV, or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease defined as FEV1 < 50%) are eligible for enrollment. Baseline data includes self-reported demographics, QOL measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), loneliness measured by the Three-Item UCLA Loneliness Scale, and symptom burden measured by the Edmonton Revised Symptom Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic variables, a linear regression model measured the importance of illness type in predicting QOL, and chi-square tests of independence were used to quantify relationships between illness type, symptom burden, and loneliness.ResultsBetween April 2018 and April 3, 2020, 500 patients were enrolled. On average, end-stage organ failure patients had lower QOL as measured by the FACT-G scale than cancer patients with an estimated difference of 9.6 points (95% CI: 5.9, 13.3), and patients with multiple conditions had a further reduction of 7.4 points (95% CI: 2.4, 12.5), when adjusting for age, education level, race, sex, immigrant status, presence of a caregiver, and hospital setting. Symptom burden and loneliness were greater in end-stage organ failure than in cancer.ConclusionsThe EMPallA trial is enrolling a diverse sample of ED patients. Differences by illness type in QOL, symptom burden, and loneliness demonstrate how distinct disease trajectories manifest in the ED.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03325985 . Registered October 30, 2017.

Project description:Study objectiveWe determine whether an emergency department (ED)-initiated fall-prevention intervention can reduce subsequent fall-related and all-cause ED visits and hospitalizations in older adults.MethodsThe Geriatric Acute and Post-acute Fall Prevention intervention was a randomized controlled trial conducted from January 2018 to October 2019. Participants at 2 urban academic EDs were randomly assigned (1:1) to an intervention or usual care arm. Intervention participants received a brief, tailored, structured, pharmacy and physical therapy consultation in the ED, with automated communication of the recommendations to their primary care physicians.ResultsOf 284 study-eligible participants, 110 noninstitutionalized older adults (≥65 years) with a recent fall consented to participate; median age was 81 years, 67% were women, 94% were white, and 16.3% had cognitive impairment. Compared with usual care participants (n=55), intervention participants (n=55) were half as likely to experience a subsequent ED visit (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.47 [95% CI 0.29 to 0.74]) and one third as likely to have fall-related ED visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.34 [95% CI 0.15 to 0.76]) within 6 months. Intervention participants experienced half the rate of all hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.57 [95% CI 0.31 to 1.04]), but confidence intervals were wide. There was no difference in fall-related hospitalizations between groups (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.31 to 3.27]). Self-reported adherence to pharmacy and physical therapy recommendations was moderate; 73% of pharmacy recommendations were adhered to and 68% of physical therapy recommendations were followed.ConclusionGeriatric Acute and Post-acute Fall Prevention, a postfall, in-ED, multidisciplinary intervention with pharmacists and physical therapists, reduced 6-month ED encounters in 2 urban EDs. The intervention could provide a model of care to other health care systems aiming to reduce costly and burdensome fall-related events in older adults.

Project description:BackgroundTo investigate the value of a novel simulation-based palliative care educational intervention within an emergency medicine (EM) residency curriculum.MethodsA palliative care scenario was designed and implemented in the simulation program at an urban academic emergency department (ED) with a 3-year EM residency program. EM residents attended one of eight high-fidelity simulation sessions, in groups of 5-6. A standardized participant portrayed the patient's family member. One resident from each session managed the scenario while the others observed. A 45-min debriefing session and small group discussion followed the scenario, facilitated by an EM simulation faculty member and a resident investigator. Best practices in palliative care were highlighted along with focused learner performance feedback. Participants completed an anonymous pre/post education intervention survey.ResultsForty of 42 EM residents (95%) participated in the study. Confidence in implementing palliative care skills and perceived importance of palliative care improved after this educational intervention. Specifically, residents 1) felt EM physicians had an important role in palliative care, 2) had increased confidence in the ability to determine patient decision-making capacity, 3) had improved confidence in initiating palliative discussions/treatment, 4) believed palliative education was important in residency, and 5) felt simulation was an effective means to learn palliative care. Differences noted between PGY1 and PGY 3 training levels in survey responses disappeared post-intervention. Residents noted being most comfortable with delivering bad news and symptom management and least comfortable with disease prognostication. Residents reported time constraints and implementation logistics in the ED as the most challenging factors for palliative care initiation.ConclusionOur case-based simulation intervention was associated with an increase in both the perceived importance of ED palliative care and self-reported confidence in implementing palliative care skills. Time constraints and implementation logistics were rated as the most challenging factors for palliative care initiation in the ED.