Search

Context: A daily nine-item "Handbook for Self-Care at Work" was created to increase the well-being and satisfaction of the staff at the department of palliative care of a tertiary oncological center in the United States. Objectives: To evaluate the perceived usefulness of and adherence to the Handbook. Design, Setting and Participants: An anonymous survey was conducted among the palliative care staff asking for the frequency of utilization and the perception of usefulness of the Handbook. Additional data collected included demographics, satisfaction with professional life, frequency of burnout, and frequency of callousness toward people. We also compared the use and perception of the Handbook before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of 52 palliative care clinicians, 39 (75%) completed the survey. Most participants were women and were <49 years. Most respondents (59%) found the Handbook useful or very useful. Offer help, ask for help, and hydration were perceived as the most useful items. The items most frequently achieved were movement, hydration, and eat light. The least useful perceived item was nap time, which was rarely achieved. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 32 (82%) respondents found the Handbook to be as/somewhat more/much more useful, and 29 (75%) were able to adhere to the items as/somewhat more/much more often than before. Conclusion: Most respondents found the Handbook useful and were able to accomplish the items most of the days. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the staff felt that the Handbook was more useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care improves patients' quality of life and survival. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer treatment guidelines are instrumental in standardizing cancer care, yet it is unclear how palliative and hospice care are integrated in these guidelines. In this study, we examined the frequency of occurrence of "palliative care" and "hospice care" in NCCN guidelines and compared between solid tumor and hematologic malignancy guidelines. Materials and Methods: We reviewed all 53 updated NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer. We documented the frequency of occurrence of "palliative care" and "hospice care," the definitions for these terms if available, and the recommended timing for these services. Results: We identified a total of 37 solid tumor and 16 hematologic malignancy guidelines. Palliative care was mentioned in 30 (57%) guidelines (24 solid tumor, 6 hematologic). Palliative care was mentioned more frequently in solid tumor than hematologic guidelines (median, 2 vs. 0; p =.04). Among the guidelines that included palliative care in the treatment recommendation, 25 (83%) only referred to NCCN palliative care guideline. Specialist palliative care referral was specifically mentioned in 5 of 30 (17%) guidelines. Only 14 of 24 (58%) solid tumor guidelines and 2 of 6 (33%) hematologic guidelines recommended palliative care in the front line setting for advanced malignancy. Few guidelines (n = 3/53, 6%) mentioned hospice care. Conclusion: "Palliative care" was absent in almost half of NCCN cancer treatment guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. Our findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines. Implications for Practice: Integration of specialist palliative care into routine oncologic care is associated with improved patient outcomes. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology have an important role to standardize palliative care involvement for cancer patients. It is unclear how often palliative care referral is recommended in these guidelines. In this study involving 53 NCCN Guidelines for Treatment of Cancer, the researchers found that palliative care was not mentioned in over 40% of NCCN guidelines and was rarely discussed in guidelines for hematologic malignancies. These findings underscored opportunities to standardize timely palliative care access across NCCN guidelines. The timing of palliative care referral is highly variable and often delayed. This article reviews NCCN guidelines for cancer treatment to gain a better understanding of the recommendations for palliative and hospice care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate if locus of control (LOC) predicts various quality of life (QOL) and mental well-being measures among terminally ill cancer patients at the time of palliative care consult.Methods: Multi-site analysis of patients with advanced cancer being seen as new patients in a Palliative and Supportive Care outpatient clinic. Patients completed the following surveys: locus of control (LOC) scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-General (FACT-G), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual (FACIT-Sp), Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS), and Herth Hope Index (HHI). Regression models were created to examine the effect of LOC upon QOL, symptoms, and other measures of mental well-being. These models adjusted for the effect of age, gender, race, partnership status, education, and months since diagnosis as potential confounders.Results: This study enrolled 100 patients. After adjusting for site, race, and partnership status, higher levels of LOC chance predicted decreased QOL (FACT-G) (p < 0.01). Higher levels of LOC chance also correlated with increased depression and anxiety (p ≤ 0.01) and decreased meaning/peace and faith (p ≤ 0.01). Additionally, higher levels of LOC chance predicted decreased hope (HHI) (p ≤ 0.001).Conclusions: Terminally ill cancer patients with a high LOC chance may be at risk for decreased physical and mental well-being at the end of life. Efforts should be made to identify these patients and design interventions to increase their feeling of control over the situation in order to improve physical and mental well-being at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sexual health of patients is frequently neglected. To evaluate the attitudes and beliefs of palliative care providers toward discussing the presence of sexual dysfunction (SD) in patients with cancer In this pilot study, an anonymous survey was conducted among palliative care professionals about their attitudes toward discussing SD Forty-nine (89%) palliative care providers completed the survey. Thirty-four (69%) responded that they rarely or never discussed sexuality with their patients and most believed it is the oncologist's responsibility. The top reasons for not discussing SD were that the patient did not raise the issue, lack of time and the presence of a third party. The majority acknowledged the need of more training and that printed materials would be helpful. Palliative care providers infrequently address the presence of SD among patients with cancer. Additional training and routine screening for SD might help addressing this problem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The aim of this study was to determine factors associated with the severity of cancer related fatigue (CRF) and predictors of improvement of CRF at the first follow-up visit in patients with advanced cancer referred to outpatient palliative care clinic (OPC). Methods: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with advanced cancer presenting to OPC. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) scores were obtained at the initial and subsequent visits between January 2003 and December 2008. All patients received interdisciplinary care led by palliative medicine specialists following an institutional protocol. Fatigue improvement was defined as a reduction of ≥2 points in ESAS score relative to the baseline. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characterstics. Univariate analyses were performed and only significant variables were included in multivariate regression analysis to determine factors associated with severity and improvement in CRF. Results: A total of 1778 evaluable patients were analyzed (median age, 59 years; 52% male). The median time between visits was 15 days. Median fatigue scores on the ESAS were 6 at baseline and 5 at follow-up. Severity of all ESAS items and low serum albumin were associated with fatigue at baseline (p < 0.0001). The improvement of fatigue was observed in 586 patients (33%). The hierarchical model showed that fatigue improved over time (b = −0.009; p = 0.0009). low appetite (odds ratio [OR] = 1.09 per point; p = 0.0113) and genitourinary cancer (OR = 1.74 per point; p = 0.0458) were significantly associated with improvement of fatigue. Conclusions: CRF is strongly associated with physical and emotional symptoms. Genitourinary cancer and low appetite at baseline were associated with successful improvement of fatigue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: Patients with advanced cancer may develop severe physical and psychosocial symptoms. There are limited data on the impact of an outpatient palliative consultation (PC) team on cancer-related symptoms. Objectives: To study the impact of the PC on symptoms in patients with advanced cancer receiving outpatient palliative care. Methods: Four hundred six consecutive patients referred to a supportive care outpatient center (OPC) from January 2006 to June 2007 with complete Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (0–10 scale) at the initial and follow-up visits were reviewed. Patient characteristics, change of symptoms at follow-up visit, and response rate were analyzed. Using logistic regression models, the predictors of improvement of pain and fatigue were assessed. Results: Median age was 59 years; 53% were female. Median interval between visits was 15 days. Mean scores at baseline and follow-up visits were fatigue 6.8 and 5.3 (P <0.0001), pain 5.3 and 4.1 (P <0.0001), depression 3.2 and 2.5 (P <0.0001), anxiety 3.7 and 2.8 (P <0.0001), dyspnea 2.7 and 2.5 (P =0.05), sleep 5 and 4 (P <0.0001), and well-being 5.2 and 4.4 (P <0.0001). Dyspnea (odds ratio and P-value, 0.90, 0.03), nausea (0.92, 0.06), and depression (0.91, 0.04) were associated with improvement in fatigue; drowsiness (1.10, 0.04), and feeling of well-being (0.87, 0.02) were associated with improvement in pain. Conclusion: The initial consult by PC achieved significant symptom improvement in patients receiving treatment in the OPC. Further prospective studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a source of distress in patients with advanced cancer; however, few studies have examined the extent of pandemic-related distress in the postvaccine era. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to examine pandemic-related distress among patients seen by palliative care after vaccine availability. Patients at our palliative care clinic were surveyed from April 2021 to March 2022 regarding 1) pandemic-related distress level, 2) potential contributors to pandemic-related distress, 3) coping strategies, 4) demographic factors and symptom burden. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified factors associated with pandemic-related distress. A total of 200 patients completed the survey. Of 79 (40%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 33%, 46%) reported worse pandemic-related distress. Patients who reported greater distress were more likely to report worse social isolation (67 [86%] vs. 52 [43%]), staying home more often (75 [95%] vs. 95 [79%]), more negative experience staying at home (26 [33%] vs. 11 [9%]), worse stress with child-care duties (14 [19%] vs. 4 [3%]), less seeing family/friends (63 [81%] vs. 72 [60%]), and more difficulty traveling to medical appointments (27 [35%] vs. 20 [17%]). Thirty-seven patients (19%) reported more difficulty getting medical appointments. In multivariable analysis, younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92–0.99; P = 0.01), worse isolation status (OR, 6.87; 95% CI, 2.76–17.12; P < 0.001), and more negative attitude towards staying home (OR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.6–12.57; P = 0.004) were associated with pandemic-related distress. Patients with advanced cancer continued to experience pandemic-related distress in the postvaccine era. Our findings highlight potential opportunities to support patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]