The imPaCT study: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a hospital palliative care team.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hanks GW
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2364271 | biostudies-other | 2002 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionAn ageing population has become an urgent concern for Asia in recent times. In nursing homes, polypharmacy has also become a compounding issue. Deprescribing practice is an evidence-based strategy to provide a better outcome in this group of patients; however, its implementation in nursing homes is often challenging, and prospective outcome data on deprescribing practice in the elderly is lacking. Our study assesses the implementation of team-care deprescribing to understand the benefits of this practice in geriatric setting and to explore the factors affecting deprescribing practice.Methods and analysisThis multicentre prospective study consists of a prestudy interview questionnaire, and a preintervention and postintervention study to be conducted in the nursing home setting on residents at least 65 years old and on five or more medications. We will employ a cluster randomised stepped-wedge interventional design, based on a five-step (reviewing, checking, discussion, communication and documentation) team-care deprescribing practice coupled with the use of a deprescribing guide (consisting of Beers and STOPP criteria, as well as drug interaction checking), to assess the health and pharmacoeconomic outcome in nursing homes' practice. Primary outcome measures of the intervention will consist of fall risks using a fall risk assessment tool. Other outcomes assessed include fall rates, pill burden including number of pills per day, number of doses per day and number of medications prescribed. Cost-related measures will include the use of cost-benefit analysis, which is calculated from the medication cost savings from deprescribing. For the prestudy interview questionnaire, findings will be analysed qualitatively using thematic analysis.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Domain Specific Review Board of National Healthcare Group, Singapore (2016/00422) and Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (2016-1430-7791). The study findings shall be disseminated in international conferences and peer-reviewed publications. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02863341), Pre-results.
| S-EPMC5623346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical effect of a multidisciplinary collaboration team combined with a palliative care model in patients with terminal cancer.MethodA total of 84 patients diagnosed with terminal cancer in our hospital were included and randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group, with 42 cases in each group. Patients in the intervention group were treated by a multidisciplinary collaborative team combined with the palliative care model, and patients in the control group were treated by routine nursing intervention. The Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and the Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS) were used to evaluate negative emotions and anxiety and depression of patients before and after intervention. The Quality of Life Scale (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QLQ-C30) and Social Support Scale (SSRS) were used to evaluate the quality of life and social support of patients. This study has been registered in 13/01/2023 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05683236).ResultThe general data of the two groups were comparable. After intervention, the SAS (43.7 ± 7.4 vs. 54.2 ± 9.3) and SDS scores (38.4 ± 6.5 vs. 53.1 ± 8.4) of the intervention group were significantly lower than those of the control group. The total SSRS score, subjective support score, objective support score and utilisation of support of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The overall quality of life score of the intervention group was higher than that of the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (79.5 ± 4.5 vs. 73.2 ± 3.6, P < 0.05). The scores of each functional scale were significantly higher than those of the control group (P < 0.05).ConclusionCompared with conventional nursing, the application of the multidisciplinary collaborative team combined with tranquilisation therapy in patients with terminal cancer can significantly reduce the anxiety and depression of patients, enable patients to obtain comprehensive social support, and effectively improve the quality of life of patients.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT05683236, 13/01/2023, Retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC10262549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Methotrimeprazine is commonly used for the management of nausea but never tested formally against other drugs used in this setting. The aim was to demonstrate superior antiemetic efficacy. DESIGN:Double-blind, randomised, controlled trial of methotrimeprazine versus haloperidol. SETTING:11 palliative care sites in Australia. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were >18 years, had cancer, an average nausea score of ≥3/10 and able to tolerate oral medications. Ineligible patients had acute nausea related to treatment, nausea for which a specific antiemetic was indicated, were about to undergo a procedure or had received either of the study drugs or a change in glucocorticoid dose within the previous 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS:Based on previous studies, haloperidol was used as the control. Participants were randomised to encapsulated methotrimeprazine 6·25 mg or haloperidol 1·5 mg one time or two times per day and assessed every 24 hours for 72 hours. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:A ≥two-point reduction in nausea score at 72 hours from baseline. Secondary outcome measures were as follows: complete response at 72 hours (end nausea score less than 3), response at 24 and 48 hours, vomiting episodes, use of rescue antiemetics, harms and global impression of change. RESULTS:Response to treatment at 72 hours was 75% (44/59) in the haloperidol (H) arm and 63% (36/57) in the methotrimeprazine (M) arm with no difference between groups (intention-to-treat analysis). Complete response rates were 56% (H) and 51% (M). In the per protocol analysis, there was no difference in response rates: (85% (44/52) (H) and 74% (36/49) (M). Complete per protocol response rates were 64% (H) and 59% (M). Toxicity worse than baseline was minimal with a trend towards greater sedation in the methotrimeprazine arm. CONCLUSION:This study did not demonstrate any difference in response rate between methotrimeprazine and haloperidol in the control of nausea. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN 12615000177550.
| S-EPMC6747674 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative management of hypertension by primary care-pharmacist teams in community-based clinics. STUDY DESIGN: A 12-month prospective, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial in the Providence Primary Care Research Network of patients with hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure. METHODS: As compared to usual primary care, intervention consisted of pharmacy practitioners participating in the active management of hypertension in the primary care office according to established collaborative treatment protocols. At baseline, there was no significant difference in blood pressure between groups. Primary outcome measures were the differences in mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures between arms at study end. Secondary measures included blood pressure goal attainment (<140/90 mmHg), hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, home blood pressure monitoring, resource utilization, quality of life, and satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 463 subjects were enrolled (n = 233 control, n = 230 intervention). Subjects receiving the intervention achieved significantly lower systolic (p = 0.007) and diastolic (p = 0.002) blood pressures compared to control (137/75 mmHg vs. 143/78 mmHg). In addition, 62% of intervention subjects achieved target blood pressure compared to 44% of control subjects (p = 0.003). The intervention group received more total office visits (7.2 vs. 4.9, p < 0.0001), however had fewer physician visits (3.2 vs. 4.7, p < 0.0001) compared to control. Intervention subjects were prescribed more antihypertensive medications (2.7 vs. 2.4, p = 0.02), but did not take more antihypertensive pills per day (2.4 vs. 2.5, p = 0.87). There were minimal differences between groups in hypertension-related knowledge, medication adherence, quality of life, or satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients randomized to collaborative primary care-pharmacist hypertension management achieved significantly better blood pressure control compared to usual care with no difference in quality of life or satisfaction.
| S-EPMC2596500 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and evaluate a best practice model of general hospital acute medical care for older people with cognitive impairment.DesignRandomised controlled trial, adapted to take account of constraints imposed by a busy acute medical admission system.SettingLarge acute general hospital in the United Kingdom.Participants600 patients aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified as "confused" on admission.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to a specialist medical and mental health unit, designed to deliver best practice care for people with delirium or dementia, or to standard care (acute geriatric or general medical wards). Features of the specialist unit included joint staffing by medical and mental health professionals; enhanced staff training in delirium, dementia, and person centred dementia care; provision of organised purposeful activity; environmental modification to meet the needs of those with cognitive impairment; delirium prevention; and a proactive and inclusive approach to family carers.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomenumber of days spent at home over the 90 days after randomisation.Secondary outcomesstructured non-participant observations to ascertain patients' experiences; satisfaction of family carers with hospital care. When possible, outcome assessment was blind to allocation.ResultsThere was no significant difference in days spent at home between the specialist unit and standard care groups (median 51 v 45 days, 95% confidence interval for difference -12 to 24; P=0.3). Median index hospital stay was 11 versus 11 days, mortality 22% versus 25% (-9% to 4%), readmission 32% versus 35% (-10% to 5%), and new admission to care home 20% versus 28% (-16% to 0) for the specialist unit and standard care groups, respectively. Patients returning home spent a median of 70.5 versus 71.0 days at home (-6.0 to 6.5). Patients on the specialist unit spent significantly more time with positive mood or engagement (79% v 68%, 2% to 20%; P=0.03) and experienced more staff interactions that met emotional and psychological needs (median 4 v 1 per observation; P<0.001). More family carers were satisfied with care (overall 91% v 83%, 2% to 15%; P=0.004), and severe dissatisfaction was reduced (5% v 10%, -10% to 0%; P=0.05).ConclusionsSpecialist care for people with delirium and dementia improved the experience of patients and satisfaction of carers, but there were no convincing benefits in health status or service use. Patients' experience and carers' satisfaction might be more appropriate measures of success for frail older people approaching the end of life.Trial registrationClinical Trials NCT01136148.
| S-EPMC3698942 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8053288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives: Define the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on pediatric palliative care team structures, communication, and workflow; and describe the roles, responsibilities, and reflections of interdisciplinary team members. Methods: Cross-sectional online surveys were posted on seven professional Listservs from May 2020 to June 2020. Data were summarized descriptively and with semantic content analyses. Results: N = 207 surveys were completed by pediatric palliative program representatives from 80 cities, inclusive of physicians, nurses, child life, social workers, chaplains, and psychologists. Teams consulted on <20% of potential or presumed COVID-19 cases in their centers. Sixty percent of personnel were deemed "essential" during the pandemic. One-third of personnel remained in their usual work locale, with some shifting to support adult palliative services and others working remotely. Over 60% reported a sense of team "distance" compared with "close" team cohesion, associated with physical location of team members (p < 0.01) and frequency of team counseling, education, or support meetings (p < 0.02). All programs adopted a form of telehealth for patient care, although 41% did not receive telehealth training and 73% perceived unequal care quality with virtual care. Absence of pediatric patients' family members due to visitation policies, missing human presence and physical touch, concern for personal and colleague health, and fear of financial sustainability for programs were notable stressors. Conclusions: While the number of children diagnosed with COVID-19 receiving hands-on care from pediatric palliative care teams was reportedly low, the coronavirus pandemic vastly impacted pediatric palliative care team structure, daily services, and communication models warranting attentiveness to lessons learned and future direction.
| S-EPMC8309395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated the benefit of early integration of palliative care (PC) in oncology. However, patients continue to receive late referrals to PC even in comprehensive cancer centers. Patients and health professionals may perceive PC as 'a place to die,' and this stigma is a barrier to timely referrals and to patient acceptance of treatment.Methods/designThe primary objective is to evaluate the feasibility of psychosocial intervention and PC in patients with advanced cancer. The patients will be submitted to a series of brief psychosocial interventions that are based on cognitive behavioral therapy, and patient acceptance and satisfaction will be assessed. In addition, the impact of these interventions on depressive symptoms will be evaluated. A randomized, open-label, phase II trial with two intervention arms and a control group will be conducted. Patients who are started on palliative chemotherapy and who meet the inclusion criteria will be enrolled. The study participants will be recruited from the outpatient oncology clinics at Barretos Cancer Hospital and will be randomized into one of the following three treatment arms: Arm A, which will include five weekly psychosocial interventions based on CBT in combination with early PC; Arm B, which will include early PC only; and Arm C, which will include standard oncologic care. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-br), the Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care (FAMCARE)-Patient scale, and the Disease Understanding Protocol will be used for data collection. The patients will answer these questionnaires at baseline and 45, 90, 120 and 180 days after randomization.DiscussionDespite evidence of the positive impact of early PC, it is often provided to patients only at later stages. The inadequate awareness and stigmatization of PC as a place to die are barriers that complicate the early referral. Patients with advanced cancer may benefit from a psychosocial and educational strategy that adequately prepares them for initial PC appointments after an early referral to PC. We anticipate that benefits of psychological intervention shall be synergistic to secondary emotional benefits from the early integration of PC.Trial registrationThis trial was registered on 6 May 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02133274).
| S-EPMC4413544 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOne in three hospital acute medical admissions is of an older person with cognitive impairment. Their outcomes are poor and the quality of their care in hospital has been criticised. A specialist unit to care for older people with delirium and dementia (the Medical and Mental Health Unit, MMHU) was developed and then tested in a randomised controlled trial where it delivered significantly higher quality of, and satisfaction with, care, but no significant benefits in terms of health status outcomes at three months.ObjectiveTo examine the cost-effectiveness of the MMHU for older people with delirium and dementia in general hospitals, compared with standard care.MethodsSix hundred participants aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified on admission as cognitively impaired, were randomised to the MMHU or to standard care on acute geriatric or general medical wards. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, at 3-month follow-up, was assessed in trial-based economic evaluation (599/600 participants, intervention: 309). Multiple imputation and complete-case sample analyses were employed to deal with missing QALY data (55%).ResultsThe total adjusted health and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months was £7714 and £7862 for MMHU and standard care groups, respectively (difference -£149 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -298, 4)). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.001 (95% CI: -0.006, 0.008). The probability that the intervention was dominant was 58%, and the probability that it was cost-saving with QALY loss was 39%. At £20,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 94%, falling to 59% when cost-saving QALY loss cases were excluded.ConclusionsThe MMHU was strongly cost-effective using usual criteria, although considerably less so when the less acceptable situation with QALY loss and cost savings were excluded. Nevertheless, this model of care is worthy of further evaluation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01136148.
| S-EPMC4687694 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous studies in the US and Canada, have shown the positive impact of early palliative care programs for advanced cancer patients on quality of life (QoL) and even survival time. There has been a lack of similar research in Europe. In order to generalize the findings from the US and Canada research on a larger scale, similar studies are needed in different countries with different care settings. The aim of this paper is to describe the research protocol of a randomized controlled trial, situated in Flanders, Belgium, evaluating the effect of systematic early integration of palliative care in standard oncology care.A randomized controlled trial will be conducted as follows: 182 patients with advanced cancer will be recruited from the departments of Medical Oncology, Digestive Oncology and Thoracic Oncology of the Ghent University Hospital. The trial will randomize patients to either systematic early integration of palliative care in standard oncology care or standard oncology care alone. Patients and informal caregivers will be asked to fill out questionnaires on QoL, mood, illness understanding and satisfaction with care at baseline, 12 weeks and every six weeks thereafter. Other outcome measures are end-of-life care decisions and overall survival time.This trial will be the first randomized controlled trial in the Belgian health care setting to evaluate the effect of systematic early integration of palliative care for advanced cancer patients. The results will enable us to evaluate whether systematic early integration of palliative care has positive effects on QoL, mood and patient illness-understanding and which components of the intervention contribute to these effects.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01865396 , registered 24(th) of May, 2013.
| S-EPMC4678668 | biostudies-literature