Search

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient were to die within the next 12 months?") is widely used to identify palliative patients, though with low predictive value. To improve timely identification of palliative care needs, we propose an additional Surprise Question (" Would I be surprised if this patient is still alive after 12 months?") if the original Surprise Question is answered with "no." The combination of the two questions is called the Double Surprise Question. Aim: To examine the prognostic accuracy of the Double Surprise Question in outpatients with cancer. Design: A prospective study. Participants: Twelve medical oncologists completed the Double Surprise Question for 379 patients. Results: In group 1 (original Surprise Question "yes": surprised if dead) 92.1% (176/191) of the patients were still alive after 1 year, in group 2a (original and additional Surprise Question "no": not surprised if dead and not surprised if alive) 60.0% (63/105), and in group 2b (original Surprise Question "no," additional Surprise Question "yes": surprised if alive) 26.5% (22/83) (p < 0.0001). The positive predictive value increased by using the Double Surprise Question; 74% (61/83) vs 55% (103/188). Anticipatory palliative care provision and Advance Care Planning items were most often documented in group 2b. Conclusions: The Double Surprise Question is a promising tool to more accurately identify outpatients with cancer at risk of dying within 1 year, and therefore, those in need of palliative care. Studies should reveal whether the implementation of the Double Surprise Question leads to more timely palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]