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.

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of delirium on the survival of advanced cancer patients also assessed with a validated prognostic score (the palliative prognostic [PaP] score). METHODS The study population was a prospective multicenter consecutive case series of advanced cancer patients for whom chemotherapy was no longer considered viable and who were referred to palliative care programs. Clinical and biologic prognostic factors included in the PaP score were assessed at study entry. The Confusion Assessment Method criteria were applied to screen patients presenting with delirium. Survival times were measured from time of enrollment and death taken as an outcome. Survival curves were traced with the Kaplan–Meier method and comparison were based on log rank tests. RESULTS Delirium was found in 109 cases among 393 consecutive patients (27.7%). The diagnosis of delirium was independently associated with male gender, central nervous system metastases, lower performance status, worse clinical prediction of survival, and progestational treatment. The survival curve of patients with delirium was significantly different from the nondelirious patients curve (log rank, 31.6, P < 0.0001). The median survival time was 21 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 16–27) for the delirious patients and 39 days (95% CI 33–49) for the others. Multivariate analysis showed that the diagnosis of delirium and PaP score were independently associated with prognosis. CONCLUSIONS The diagnosis of delirium significantly worsens life expectancy prognosticated with the PaP score. By using the PaP score together with the assessment of cognitive status, physicians can correctly predict patients 30-day survival in greater than 70% of cases. Cancer 2000;89:1145–9. © 2000 American Cancer Society.

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.

Background. The individualization of prognostic factors in the various stages of cancer facilitates the planning of a therapeutic assistance program aimed at various subsets of patients. The prognostic factors for survival in patients terminally ill with cancer have been investigated in case studies that are often retrospective, monocentric and/or include a mixture of patients in advanced disease stages. The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to verify those clinical factors predictive of survival in a population of patients with terminal cancer. Methods. This prospective and multicentric study was performed on 540 patients with solid tumors in the disseminated phase, no longer subject to specific therapy. Patients were evaluated at study entry and every 4 weeks thereafter. The analysis was performed for 23 clinical parameters. Results. Of 530 assessable patients with a median survival of 32 days, 15 factors were found to be statistically significant prognostic factors. By univariate analysis, 13 factors were found to be indicators of a worse survival: age older than 65 years (P = 0.05) ; palliative corticosteroid treatment (P < 0.001), anorexia (P < 0.001) ; dry mouth (P < 0.001) ; dysphagia (P < 0.001) ; hospitalization (P < 0.001) ; transfusion (P < 0.001) ; weight loss greater than or equal to 10% (P = 0.001) ; dyspnea (P = 0.01) ; pain (P = 0.006) ; increasing amount of pain-killer treatment (P = 0.01) ; increasing number of symptoms (P < 0.001) ; and worse clinical prediction of survival (P < 0.001). Two factors that correlated with a better survival rate were palliative progestin treatment (P = 0.03) and a higher Karnofsky performance status (P < 0.001). Multiple regression analysis revealed that only clinical prediction of survival, anorexia, dyspnea, palliative steroidal treatment, Karnofsky performance status, and hospitalization were independent predictors of survival. Conclusions. The importance of certain clinical parameters as prognostic indicators for patients with terminal cancer (clinical experience, physical activity level, clinical symptoms relating to and unrelated to nutritional state) were confirmed ; some others possible factors, such as treatment with corticosteroids and hospitalization, also were noted. These may be useful factors in the therapeutic, assistance decision-making process and may eliminate overtreatment and undertreatment resulting from philosophically preconceived attitudes, rather than from considering the patient's true pathologic condition. Cancer 1995 ;75 :2613-22.

Background Assessing the quality of care and service delivery through the analysis of ad hoc indicators is a relevant process for quality monitoring and improvement with a view to providing patients, the community and administrators alike with appropriate elements of evaluation. This paper describes the key results of a certification process based on the Joint Commission International (JCI) criteria for the home hospitalisation model implemented by the palliative care units of seven Milan hospitals for terminally ill patients with cancer. Methods In 2006, the interhospital working team implemented a certification project based on the JCI Disease or Condition-Specific Care (DSCS) programme. Thirty standards subdivided into five functional areas with 150 measurable elements were the starting-point for periodic improvement plans within and across participating hospitals. Programme compliance was analysed in terms of annual performance improvement and consistency across the seven PCUs involved in achieving set goals. The JCI standards were applied on 3316 terminally ill patients with cancer treated at home from 2005 to 2009. Results As a result of the work carried out, the JCI survey conducted 3 years after project implementation demonstrated full compliance with the established standards, leading to the JCI certification award (for the first time in this clinical setting internationally). Conclusion The work carried out with a view to certification has confirmed the possibility that facilities spread across different hospitals can actually share common processes and standardise the activities for the care of end-of-life patients with cancer at home as if they were one single service provider.

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.