Search

Aim The aim of this study was to compare patients' global impression (PGI) and the achievement of personalised symptom goal response (PSGR), after a comprehensive palliative care treatment in advanced cancer patients having high (HPSG) and low symptom goals (LPSG). Patients and methods Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptoms intensity by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after one week of comprehensive palliative care treatment. For each symptom, patients were divided into two groups, according to their patient symptom goal (PSG): ≥4 (HPSG), and 0-2 (LPSG). PGI and PSGR were evaluated after one week of palliative care. The Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) was assessed at admission. Results After one week of palliative care, changes in ESAS items were significantly larger in the HPSG group. HPSG patients had a better PGI and reached their target more frequently than LPSG patients for pain, weakness, and poor well-being. LPSG patients were more likely to obtain their target for appetite and insomnia. HPSG patients were more likely to have a lower Karnofsky, a lower educational level, older age, or higher MDAS values for the different ESAS items. Conclusion Advanced cancer patients with low expectations (HPSG) were more likely to achieve their PSGR after a comprehensive palliative care treatment, reporting also a better PGI for some leading symptoms such as pain, weakness, and poor well-being. More fragile patients seem to have lower expectations and to be more likely to be satisfied.

Objective To assess the personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG), the achievement of a personalized pain goal response (PPGR), and patients' global impression (PGI) in advanced cancer patients after a comprehensive pain and symptom management. Design Prospective, longitudinal Setting Acute pain relief and palliative/supportive care. Subjects 689 advanced cancer patients. Methods Measurement of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) and personalized pain intensity goal (PPIG) at admission (T0). After a week (T7) personalized pain goal response (PPGR) and patients' global impression (PGI) were evaluated. Results The mean PPIG was 1.33 (SD 1.59). A mean decrease in pain intensity of − 2.09 was required on PPIG to perceive a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). A better improvement corresponded to a mean change of − 3.41 points, while a much better improvement corresponded to a mean of − 4.59 points. Patients perceived a MCID (little worse) with a mean increase in pain intensity of 0.25, and a worse with a mean increase of 2.33 points. Higher pain intensity at T0 and lower pain intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. 207 (30.0%) patients achieved PPGR. PPGR was associated with higher PPIG at T0 and T7, and inversely associated to pain intensity at T0 and T7, and Karnofsky level. Patients with high pain intensity at T0 achieved a favorable PGI, even when PPIG was not achieved by PPGR. Conclusion PPIG, PPGR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of pain, assisting decision-making process according to patients' expectations. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and the clinical response.

Patients with complex palliative care needs can experience delayed discharge, which causes an inappropriate occupancy of hospital beds. Post-acute care facilities (PACFs) have emerged as an alternative discharge destination for some of these patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency of admissions and characteristics of palliative care patients discharged from hospitals to a PACF. We conducted a retrospective analysis of PACF admissions between 2014 and 2016 that were linked to hospital discharge reports and electronic health records, to gather information about hospital-to-PACF transitions. In total, 205 consecutive patients were discharged from 6 different hospitals to our PACF. Palliative care patients were involved in 32% (n = 67) of these discharges. The most common conditions were terminal cancer (n = 42, 63%), advanced dementia (n = 17, 25%), and stroke (n = 5, 8%). During acute hospital stays, patients with cancer had significant shorter lengths of stay (13 vs 99 days, P = .004), a lower use of intensive care services (2% vs 64%, P < .001) and mechanical ventilation (2% vs 40%, P < .001), when compared to noncancer patients. Approximately one-third of discharges from hospitals to a PACF involved a heterogeneous group of patients in need of palliative care. Further studies are necessary to understand the trajectory of posthospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses and what factors influence their decision to choose a PACF as a discharge destination and place of death. We advocate that palliative care should be integrated into the portfolio of post-acute services.

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) often receive poor-quality end-of-life care. This study aimed to identify trends in end-of-life care among patients with HM in Brazil. We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2015-2018) of patients who died with HM, using electronic medical records linked to health insurance databank, to evaluate outcomes consistent with health-care resource utilization at the end of life. Among 111 patients with HM, in the last 30 days of life, we found high rates of emergency department visits (67%, n = 75), intensive care unit admissions (56%, n = 62), acute renal replacement therapy (10%, n = 11), blood transfusions (45%, n = 50), and medical imaging utilization (59%, n = 66). Patients received an average of 13 days of inpatient care and the majority of them died in the hospital (53%, n = 58). We also found that almost 40% of patients (38%, n = 42) used chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life. These patients were more likely to be male (64% vs 22%; P < .001), to receive blood transfusions (57% vs 38%; P = .05), and to die in the hospital (76% vs 39%; P = .009) than patients who did not use chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life. This study suggests that patients with HM have high rates of health-care utilization at the end of life in Brazil. Patients who used chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life were more likely to receive blood transfusions and to die in the hospital.

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the Personalized Insomnia Intensity Goal (PIIG), the achievement of Personalized Goal Response (PGR), and Patient Global Impression (PGI) after a comprehensive symptom management. Patients and methods: Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated pain and symptoms intensity and their PIIG by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) (T0). In patients with significant levels of insomnia, the achievement of target expected (PIIG) was measured (patient goal response, PIGR), as well the patient global impression (PGI), by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), after a comprehensive symptom management (T7). Results: Three hundred ninety-seven patients with a level of insomnia of ≥ 3 on ESAS were analyzed in this study. The mean values of PIIG at T0 and T7 were 1.2 (SD 1.5) and 0.9 (SD 1.4), respectively. Most patients (n = 406, 89.8%) indicated a PIIG of ≤ 3 as a target at T0. Such target was significantly lower at T7 (p = < 0.0005). PGI, expressed as MCID, was perceived with a mean decrease in insomnia intensity of − 2.3. In a minority of patients (n = 26; 5.8%) insomnia worsened, with a MCID of 0.50 (SD 2.8). Higher insomnia intensity at T0 and lower insomnia intensity at T7 were independently related to PGI. PIGR was achieved in 87.9% of patients. PIGR was associated with PIIG at T0, and inversely associated to insomnia intensity at T0 and T7, and PIIG at T7. Conclusion: PGIR and PGI seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of insomnia, suggesting therapeutic decisions according to PIIG. Some factors influencing the individual target and clinical response have been detected.

Background The clinical response after comprehensive symptom management is difficult to determine in terms of a clinically important difference. Moreover, therapies should try to reach the threshold perceived by the individual patient for the determination of a favorable response to a treatment. Measures The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) was measured at admission (T0), and seven days after starting palliative care (T7). Patient Global Impression and Goal Response after one week of palliative care and its relation with the Personalized Dyspnea Goal were measured at T7. Intervention Patients admitted to palliative care units underwent a comprehensive symptom assessment by a specialist palliative care team. At T0, patients were asked about their Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal on ESAS. One week later (T7), after a comprehensive palliative care treatment, Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goals were measured again. Patients were considered to have achieved a Patient Dyspnea Goal Response if dyspnea intensity (measured at T7) was equal or less than their expected Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal. At the same interval (T7), Patient Global Impression (improvement or deterioration) was measured. Outcomes 279 patients were analyzed in this study. The mean Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal at T0 and T7 were 0.97 (SD 1.3), and 0.71 (SD 2.1), respectively. 263 patients (94.2%) indicated a Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal of ≤3 as a target at T0. Patients perceived a bit better, a better improvement, and a much better improvement with a mean decrease in dyspnea intensity of -2.1, -3.5, and -4.3 points on the dyspnea intensity scale, respectively. In 60 patients (21.5%), dyspnea intensity did not change, and in 4.7%, dyspnea intensity worsened. Patients perceived a Minimal Clinically Important Difference (little worse) with a mean increase in dyspnea intensity of 0.10, and they perceived a worse with a mean increase of 1.7 points. Higher dyspnea intensity at T0 and lower dyspnea intensity at T7 were independently related to Patient Global Impression. At T7, 93 (33.3%) patients achieved their Personalized Goal Response, based on Personalized Dyspnea Intensity. Patient Dyspnea Goal Response was associated with Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale score and Personalized Dyspnea Intensity Goal at T0, and inversely associated with dyspnea intensity at T0 and T7, and lower Karnofsky level. For Patient Dyspnea Goal Response, no significant differences among categories of dyspnea intensity were found (P>0.05). Conclusion Patient Dyspnea Goal Response and Patient Global Impression seem to be relevant for evaluating the effects of a comprehensive management of symptoms, including dyspnea, assisting decision making process. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response. A personalized symptom goal may translate in terms of therapeutic intervention, according to the achievement of the patients' expectations. High values of dyspnea intensity, a lower Karnofsky level, as well as high level of Dyspnea Intensity Goal (that is less patients' expectations) favor the achievement of the target.

Over the last years, attention has shifted towards the benefits of integration of palliative care into the standard oncology practice. The early provision of palliative care can improve quality of life, survival, and reduce symptom burden among cancer patients (1). Although, there are more than 16,000 palliative care services worldwide (2), very little is known about what is the best palliative care model, and how to promote such integration in a cost-effective and sustainable way.

Background The aim of this study was to assess the patients’ global impression (PGI) after symptom management, as well as the achievement of personalized symptom goals (PSG). The secondary outcome was to assess related factors. Subjects, Materials, and Methods Advanced cancer patients admitted to palliative care units rated symptom intensity by using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS) at admission and then after 1 week. For each symptom, patient-reported PGI and PSG, as well as the rate of PSG response, were evaluated. Results Eight hundred seventy-six patients were taken into consideration for this study. A mean of 1.71–2.16 points was necessary to perceive a bit better improvement of symptom intensity. Most patients had a PSG of ≤3. A statistically significant number of patients achieved their PSG after starting palliative care. Patients with high intensity of ESAS items at admission achieved a more favorable PGI response. In the multivariate analysis, symptom intensity and PSG were the most frequent factors independently associated to a best PGI, whereas high levels of Karnofsky had a lower odd ratio. Conclusion PSG and PGI seem to be relevant for patients’ assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response. Implications for Practice Personalized symptom goals and global impression of change are relevant for patients’ assessment and decision-making process, translating in terms of therapeutic intervention. Some factors may be implicated in determining the individual target and clinical response.