Search

Few studies regarding palliative sedation (PS) have been carried out in home care (HC) setting. A comparison of PS rate and practices between hospice (HS) and HC is also lacking.Comparing HC and HS settings for PS rate, patient clinical characteristics before and during PS, decision-making process, and clinical aspects of PS.About 38 HC/HS services in Italy participated in a multicenter observational longitudinal study. Consecutive adult cancer patients followed till death during a four-month period and undergoing PS were eligible. Symptom control and level of consciousness were registered every eight hours to death.About 4276 patients were screened, 2894 followed till death, and 531 (18%) underwent PS. PS rate was 15% in HC and 21% in HS (P 0.001). Principal refractory symptoms were delirium (54%) and dyspnea (45%), respectively, more common in HC (P 0.001) and HS (P = 0.03). Informed consent was not obtained in 72% of patients but achieved by 96% of families. Midazolam was the most used drug (94% HS vs. 75% HC; P 0.001) mainly by continuous infusion (74% HC vs. 89% HS; P 0.001). PS duration was less than 48 hours in 67% of patients. Hydration during PS was less frequent in HC (27% vs. 49%; P 0.001). In the eight hours before death, consciousness level was unrousable to mild physical stimulation in 81% and symptom control complete in 89% of cases.Our results show feasibility of PS in HC and HS and suggest setting differences in rates, indications, and practice of PS, possibly related to patients' selection or care organization.

The End-of-Life Preferences Interview (ELPI) was developed with the purpose of supporting physicians in communicating with advanced cancer patients.This study aimed to evaluate ELPI feasibility and compare home care/hospice (HC-H) vs. outpatient (OU) care settings.Twenty-eight physicians were trained in the use of the ELPI and were asked to apply the new instrument in their daily clinical practice for two months. ELPI feasibility was evaluated through three indices: the percentage of eligible patients, the percentage of patients to whom the ELPI was proposed, and the percentage of completed interviews.The 23 physicians participating in the data collection screened 633 patients, and 156 of them (25%, 95% confidence interval 21%-28%) were judged to be eligible. Eligibility in HC-H was lower than that in the OU setting (18% vs. 46%; P0.0001), whereas the differences were reduced when looking at patients to whom the ELPI was proposed (12% vs. 20%; P=0.017) and who completed the ELPI (8% vs. 18%; P0.001). The percentage of eligible patients refusing the interview was very low in the entire sample (1.9%).Results indicate that discussing end-of-life preferences in an earlier disease phase, such as in the OU setting, could be preferable but that its accomplishment in this setting may be more difficult, mainly as a result of organizational reasons. This observation could indicate that the system is not yet ready to offer patients such an opportunity and although communication on these sensitive issues cannot be reduced to a procedure, the ELPI can become a useful tool to help physicians in accomplishing this difficult task.

The aim of this work was to validate a previously constructed prognostic score for terminally ill cancer patients in order to determine its value in clinical practice. The Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP Score) was tested on a population of 451 evaluable patients consecutively entered in the hospice programs of 14 Italian Palliative Care Centers. The score subdivided patients into three specific risk classes based on the following six predictive factors of death: dyspnea, anorexia, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Clinical Prediction of Survival (CPS), total white blood count (WBC), and lymphocyte percentage. The performance of the PaP Score index in the training and testing sets was evaluated by comparing mortality rates in the 3 prognostic risk categories. The score was able to subdivide the validation-independent case series into three risk groups. Median survival was 76 days in group A (with a 86.6% probability of 30-day survival), 32 days in group B (with a 51.6% probability of 30-day survival), and 14 days in group C (with a 16.9% probability of 30-day survival). Survival medians were remarkably similar to those of the training set (64 days in group A, 32 days in group B, and 11 days in group C). In the complex process of staging terminally ill patients, the PaP Score is a simple instrument which permits a more accurate quantification of expected survival. It has been validated on an independent case series and is thus suitable for use in clinical practice.

The capability to make decisions about one's own dying and death is commonly considered a necessary component of a good death, but difficulties in communicating about imminent death have been documented. This paper attempts to describe the process of constructing an instrument to elicit individual preferences concerning dying, while respecting the patient's awareness, and to verify its applicability in a palliative care setting. The development of the End-of-Life Preferences Interview (ELPI) was performed through (a) a literature search aimed at identifying relevant issues; (b) examination by a panel of experts in the field of palliative care of the items generated; and (c) pretesting of feasibility on all eligible consecutive patients referred to three centers of palliative care during a two-month period. The final version of the ELPI consisted of two parts: The first level explores preferences about issues regarding the caregiving process, and the second level focuses on preparation for death. Each of the two parts is introduced by key questions aimed at allowing the patient to decide whether and when to stop exploring such sensitive matters. Among the 49 eligible patients (41%), the interview was proposed to only 13 of them (27%), and only one of them refused. The reasons for such a low compliance of physicians in proposing the ELPI were evaluated by a semi-structured interview and are herein discussed. The use of the ELPI in clinical practice can favor the passage to a greater consideration of the self-determination of the patient at the end of life, with due consideration of his or her cultural and emotional needs.