Journal of palliative medicine
-
Comparative Study
Withholding and Withdrawal of Treatments: Differences in Perceptions between Intensivists, Oncologists, and Prosecutors in Brazil.
Background: Legal concerns have been implicated in the occurrence of variability in decisions of limitations of medical treatment (LOMT) before death. Objective: We aimed to assess differences in perceptions between physicians and prosecutors toward LOMT. Measurements: We sent a survey to intensivists, oncologists, and prosecutors from Brazil, from February 2018 to May 2018. Respondents rated the degree of agreement with withholding or withdrawal of therapies in four different vignettes portraying a patient with terminal lung cancer. ⋯ Prosecutors were less likely than intensivists and oncologists to agree with withhold of chemotherapy (95.7% vs. 99.2% vs. 100%, respectively, p < 0.001) and withhold of MV (82.4% vs. 98.3% vs. 97.9%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas intensivists were more likely to agree with withdrawal of MV than oncologists (87.1% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.002). Moreover, prosecutors were more likely to agree with withholding of active cancer treatment than with withholding of MV [difference (95% confidence interval, CI) = 13.2% (5.2 to 21.6), p = 0.001], whereas physicians were more likely to agree with withholding than with withdrawal of MV [difference (95% CI) = 10.9% (7.8 to 14), p < 0.001]. Conclusions: This study found differences and agreements in perceptions toward LOMT between prosecutors, intensivists, and oncologists, which may inform the discourse aimed at improving end-of-life decisions.
-
Comparative Study
Protocol for a Noninferiority Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Home-Based Palliative Care (HomePal).
Introduction: As health care systems strive to meet the growing needs of seriously ill patients with high symptom burden and functional limitations, they need evidence about how best to deliver home-based palliative care (HBPC). We compare a standard HBPC model that includes routine home visits by nurses and prescribing clinicians with a tech-supported model that aims to promote timely interprofessional team coordination using video consultation with the prescribing clinician while the nurse is in the patient's home. We hypothesize that tech-supported HBPC will be no worse compared with standard HBPC. Methods: This study is a pragmatic, cluster randomized noninferiority trial conducted across 14 Kaiser Permanente sites in Southern California and the Pacific Northwest. ⋯ We built close partnerships with stakeholders across multiple representative groups to define the comparators, prioritize and refine measures and study conduct, and optimize rigor in our analytical approaches. We have also incorporated extensive fidelity monitoring, mixed-method implementation evaluations, and early planning for dissemination to anticipate and address challenges longitudinally. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT#03694431.
-
Background: Red blood cell transfusion is one therapeutic option for the treatment of anemia. Current transfusion practices and factors influencing the decision to prescribe this therapy are not well understood. Objective: To explore current transfusion practices, attitudes, and factors that influence the decision to transfuse among palliative care physicians. Design: Self-administered questionnaire addressing clinical experiences and decision making pertaining to blood transfusion. Setting/Subjects: Specialist palliative care physicians at two Canadian academic centers. Measurements: Descriptive, presented as the number/proportion of respondents indicating a specific answer. Results: Of 62 physicians surveyed, 29 (47%) responded to the study questionnaire. For patients with solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, respectively, 79% and 82% of respondents reported prescribing blood transfusion; 59% and 46% reported that they would seldom recommend its discontinuation. ⋯ Twenty-six (90%) respondents believed that transfusion provided symptomatic benefit; the majority had observed adverse reactions to transfusion. Most perceived a lack of evidence to guide transfusion therapy in palliative care, and 79% indicated willingness to enroll their patients in a trial aiming to address this question. Conclusions: Most palliative care specialists consider red blood cell transfusion to have a role in symptom management, but many clinical and nonclinical factors influence their decisions to provide or discontinue transfusions. Prospective clinical trials will likely be needed to inform transfusion practices in this population.
-
Background: Earlier palliative care consultation is associated with less intensive medical care and improved quality outcomes for patients with cancer. However, there are limited data about how the timing of palliative care affects utilization among noncancer patients exposed to palliative care consultation. Objective: Comparison of health care utilization for hospice decedents who received early versus late palliative care. ⋯ Only 6% of the early group used the ICU in the last month of life, whereas 56% of the late group did. Patients receiving early palliative care had a longer median hospice LOS than those with late palliative care (138 days vs. 8 days). Conclusions: Early palliative care appears to reduce intensive medical care and increase hospice LOS for patients with a variety of end-stage diseases.
-
Comparative Study
Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Trial Comparing Team-Based to Clinician-Focused Implementation of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care.
Introduction: For many patients, primary care is an appropriate setting for advance care planning (ACP). ACP focuses on what matters most to patients and ensuring health care supports patient-defined goals. ACP may involve interactions between a clinician and a patient, but for seriously ill patients ACP could be managed by a team. ⋯ Study Implementation: This trial was designed and is conducted by the Meta-network Learning and Research Center (Meta-LARC), a consortium of PBRNs focused on integrating engagement with patients, families, and other stakeholders into primary care research and practice. The trial pairs a comparative effectiveness study with implementation of a new program and is designed to balance fidelity to the assigned model with flexibility to allow each practice to adapt implementation to their environment and priorities. Our dissemination will report the results of comparing the two models and the implementation experience of the practices to create guidance for the spread of ACP in primary care.