Journal of palliative medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
A Palliative Care Intervention for Patients on Phase 1 Studies.
Background: Phase 1 clinical trials remain vital for oncology care. Patients on these trials require supportive care for quality-of-life (QOL) concerns. Objective: To test a Palliative Care Intervention (PCI) for patients with solid tumors enrolled in Phase I therapeutic trials with a priori hypothesis that psychological distress, QOL, satisfaction, symptoms, and resource utilization would be improved in the PCI group. ⋯ Conclusions: A nurse-delivered PCI can improve some QOL outcomes and distress for patients participating in Phase 1 trials. Greater integration of PC is needed to provide quality care to these patients and to support transitions from treatment to supportive care, especially at the end of life. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01612598.
-
Objectives: Determine feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of the Palliative Care Social Worker-led ALIGN (Assessing & Listening to Individual Goals and Needs) intervention in older persons admitted to Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) and their caregivers. Design: A pilot pragmatic randomized stepped wedge design of ALIGN versus usual care in three SNFs. Setting and Participants: One hundred and twenty older adults and caregivers (optional) with advanced medical illnesses. ⋯ Further research is warranted to understand effects on caregivers and health care utilization. The current model for SNF does not address the palliative care needs of patients. ALIGN has potential to be an effective, scalable, acceptable, and reproducible intervention to improve certain palliative care outcomes within subacute settings.
-
Background: Oncologists routinely have opportunities for goals-of-care (GoC) discussions with patients. GoC discussions increase the likelihood that patients receive care consistent with their values. However, oncologists often feel ill-equipped to discuss end-of-life care. ⋯ Assessing for understanding, offering "I wish" statements, and providing prognosis were the least utilized skills among all oncologists. Conclusion: Our real-time communication skills coaching INT resulted in a significant increase in oncologists' ability to elicit patient values during GoC discussions, suggesting that skill acquisition can occur in the face of less intensive training. Future studies can highlight gaps leading to the lack of differences in utilization of other skills.
-
Objective: To examine the relationship between admission Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and discharge disposition. Background: Little is known about the relationship between functional status before hospitalization and discharge disposition. Methods: In a retrospective cohort study of patients seen by Mount Sinai Hospital Medicine Primary Palliative Care Program (HPPC), we used demographic and clinical data to compare discharge disposition by patients' functional status before admission into the hospital. ⋯ Key Message: This retrospective cohort study examined the relationship between KPS before hospital admission and discharge disposition in hospitalized seriously ill patients admitted to the hospital medicine service who received a HPPC consultation. The results suggest that those with a higher admission KPS (more functional) are more likely to be discharged home, whereas those with a lower KPS (less functional) are more likely to be discharged to a facility or hospice. KPS before hospital admission could guide palliative care resource allocation and discharge needs.
-
Purpose: Guidelines suggest that advance care planning (ACP) and goals-of-care discussions should be conducted for patients with advanced cancer early in the course of their disease. A recent audit of our health system found that these discussions were rarely being documented in the electronic medical record (EMR). We conducted a quality improvement initiative to improve rates of documentation of goals and wishes among patients with advanced cancer. ⋯ Total rates of documentation increased between the preimplementation and implementation period (4.2%-5.4% for clinician A and 0%-7.3% for clinician B). Conclusion: Implementation of the SICP resulted in increased rates of documentation, but the target number of conversations was not met. Further improvement cycles are required to address barriers to conducting and documenting routine serious illness conversations.