Physicians' perceptions of patient participation and the involvement of family caregivers in the palliative care pathway.

INTRODUCTION: Patient participation is essential for quality palliative care, and physicians play a crucial role in promoting participation. This study explores physicians' perceptions of patients and family caregivers' involvement in the different phases of the palliative pathway and employs a qualitative design with thematic analysis and a hermeneutic approach. METHODS: A purposive sampling included physicians who worked in different phases of the palliative pathway. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 physicians in Norway between May and June 2020. RESULTS: Three main themes illustrate physicians' perceptions of patients' and family caregivers' involvement: (1) beneficence for the patient and the family caregivers in the early phase, (2) autonomy and shared decision-making in the middle phase, and (3) family involvement in the terminal phase. CONCLUSION: The physicians perceived bereavement conversations as essential, particularly if the pathway had been challenging. They also perceived patient participation and family caregivers' involvement as contextual. The results reveal that participation differs across the different phases of the palliative pathway. This type of knowledge should be included in the education of health-care professionals. Future research should explore elements vital to successful patient participation and family involvement in the different phases of care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: Family caregivers were involved in a previous study through individual interviews. The same interview guide used for the family caregivers was used when interviewing the physicians. The family caregivers' contribution led to nuanced questions in the interviews with the physicians, questions leaning on their stories told.

Interventions and symptom relief in hospital palliative cancer care: results from a prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: To study the use of interventions and symptom relief for adult patients with incurable cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit providing integrated oncology and palliative care services. METHODS: All admissions during 1 year were assessed. The use of interventions was evaluated for all hospitalizations. Patients with assessments for worst and average pain intensity, tiredness, drowsiness, nausea, appetite, dyspnea, depression, anxiety, well-being, constipation, and sleep were evaluated for symptom development during hospitalization. Descriptive statistics was applied for the use of interventions and the paired sample t-test to compare symptom intensities (SIs). RESULTS: For 451 admissions, mean hospital length of stay was 7.0 days and mean patient age 69 years. More than one-third received systemic cancer therapy. Diagnostic imaging was performed in 66% of the hospitalizations, intravenous rehydration in 45%, 37% received antibiotics, and 39% were attended by the multidisciplinary team. At admission and at discharge, respectively, 55% and 44% received oral opioids and 27% and 45% subcutaneous opioids. For the majority, opioid dose was adjusted during hospitalization. Symptom registrations were available for 180 patients. Tiredness yielded the highest mean SI score (5.6, NRS 0-10) at admission and nausea the lowest (2.2). Significant reductions during hospitalization were reported for all assessed SIs (p ≤ 0.01). Patients receiving systemic cancer therapy reported symptom relief similar to those not on systemic cancer therapy. CONCLUSION: Clinical practice and symptom relief during hospitalization were described. Symptom improvements were similar for oncological and palliative care patients.

An in-hospital clinical care pathway with integrated decision support for cancer pain management reduced pain intensity and needs for hospital stay.

PURPOSE: A clinical care pathway for pain management in a palliative care unit was studied with outcomes related to patients, physicians, and health care service. Mandatory use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physician-directed decision support (DS) were integrated parts of the pathway. METHODS: Adult cancer patients with pain intensity (PI) ≥ 5 (NRS 0-10) at admission were eligible. The patients reported average and worst PI at admission, day four, and discharge. The physicians completed the DS at admission and day four. The DS presented potential needs for treatment changes based on pain severity and pathophysiology. The physicians reported treatment changes due to input from the DS system. The two primary outcomes were average and worst PI changes from admission to discharge. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was registered. RESULTS: Of 52 included patients, 41 were discharged alive. For those, the mean average PI at admission and at discharge was 5.8 and 2.4, respectively, a reduction of 3.4 points (CI 95% 2.7-4.1). The corresponding worst pain intensities were 7.9 and 3.8, a reduction of 4.1 points (CI 95% 3.4-4.8). The physicians completed DS forms for all patients. Fifty-five percent (CI 95% 41-69) of the patients had pain intervention changes based on the DS. A significant reduction in LOS (4.4 days, CI 95% 0.5-8.3) was observed during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The interventions were implemented according to the intentions and PI was reduced as hypothesized. For evaluation of generalizability, the interventions should be studied in other settings and with a controlled design.

Sleep quality in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer: an observational study using self-reports of sleep and actigraphy.

PURPOSE: Although patients with advanced cancer report poor sleep quality, few studies have assessed sleep quality with a combination of subjective and objective measures. We aimed to examine sleep quality in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer by combining patient-reported outcome-measures (PROMs) and polysomnography (PSG) or actigraphy. METHODS: A one-night prospective observational study of sleep in hospitalized patients with metastatic cancer using WHO step III opioids was conducted. Total sleep time, sleep onset latency, number of awakenings, and wake after sleep onset were assessed by PROMs and actigraphy. Sleep quality was assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) (range; 0-21), where higher scores indicate worse sleep quality. RESULTS: Forty patients were monitored. Median age was 70, median oral morphine equivalent dose was 80 mg/24 h (10-1725), median Karnofsky Performance Score was 50 (20-90), and median time to death from inclusion was 38 days (4-319). Mean PSQI score was 6.5 (SD ± 3.4). PROMs and actigraphy of mean (SD) sleep onset latency were 46 (± 64) and 35 min (± 61), respectively, while mean time awake at night was 37 (± 35) and 40 min (± 21). PROMs and actigraphy differed on number of awakenings (mean 2 (± 1) vs. 24 (± 15), p Ë‚ 0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed large individual differences between PROMs and actigraphy. PSG was not feasible. CONCLUSIONS: PROMs and actigraphy documented poor sleep quality, but a lack of agreement across methods. The study demonstrates a need to improve assessment of sleep quality and treatment of sleep disturbance in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer near end of life.

Pain management index (PMI)-does it reflect cancer patients' wish for focus on pain?

BACKGROUND: The pain management index (PMI) was developed to combine information about the prescribed analgesics and the self-reported pain intensity in order to assess physicians' response to patients' pain. However, PMI has been used to explore undertreatment of cancer pain. The present study explores prevalence of negative PMI and its associations to clinical variables, including the patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain. METHODS: A single-center, cross-sectional, observational study of cancer patients was conducted. Data on demographics and clinical variables, as well as patient-perceived wish for more attention to pain, were registered. PMI was calculated. Negative PMI indicates that the analgesics prescribed might not be appropriate to the pain intensity reported by the patient, and associations to negative PMI were explored by logistic regression models. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-seven patients were included, 53% had a negative PMI score. Negative PMI scores were more frequent among patients with breast cancer (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.3, 13.5), in a follow-up setting (OR 12.1, 95% CI 1.4, 101.4), and were inversely associated to low performance status (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.65). Twenty-two percent of patients with negative PMI scores reported that they wanted more focus on pain management, versus 13% among patients with a non-negative PMI score; the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: A high prevalence of negative PMI was observed, but only 1/5 of patients with a negative PMI wanted more attention to pain by their physician. Our findings challenge the use of PMI as a measure of undertreatment of cancer pain.

Nurses' experiences of compassionate care in the palliative pathway.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to explore how nurses experience compassionate care for patients with cancer and family caregivers in different phases of the palliative pathway. BACKGROUND: Compassion is fundamental to palliative care and viewed as a cornerstone of high-quality care provision. Healthcare authorities emphasize that patients should have the opportunity to stay at home for as long as possible. There are, however, care deficiencies in the palliative pathway. DESIGN: This study employed a qualitative design using focus groups and a hermeneutic approach. METHODS: Four focus groups with three to seven female nurses in each group were conducted in Mid-Norway in 2018. Nurses' ages ranged from 28-60 years (mean age = 45 years), and they were recruited through purposive sampling (N = 21). Compassionate care was chosen as the theoretical framework. Reporting followed the COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Three themes expressing compassionate care related to different phases of the pathway were identified: (a) information and dialogue, (b) creating a space for dying and (c) family caregivers' acceptance of death. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that it was crucial to create a space for dying, characterized by trust, collaboration, good relationships, empathy, attention, silence, caution, slowness, symptom relief and the absence of noise and conflict. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The quality of compassion possessed by individual practitioners, as well as the overall design of the healthcare system, must be considered when creating compassionate care for patients and their family caregivers. Nursing educators and health authorities should pay attention to the development of compassion in education and practice. Further research should highlight patients' and family caregivers' experiences of compassionate care and determine how healthcare systems can support compassionate care.

A cross-sectional study examining the prevalence of cachexia and areas of unmet need in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: The semantics of defining cancer cachexia over the last decade has resulted in uncertainty as to the prevalence. This has further hindered the recognition and subsequent treatment of this condition. Following the consensus definition for cancer cachexia in 2011, there is now a need to establish estimates of prevalence. Therefore, the primary aim of the present study was to assess the prevalence of cachexia in an unselected cancer population. A secondary aim was to assess patient-perceived need of attention to cachexia. METHODS: A cross-sectional study in hospital patients was undertaken. Key inclusion criteria were the following: age > 18 years, cancer diagnosis, and no surgery the preceding 24 h. Data on demographics, disease, performance status, symptoms, cachexia, and patients' perceived need of attention to weight loss and nutrition were registered. RESULTS: Data were available on 386 of 426 eligible patients. Median age (IQR) was 65 years (56-72), 214 (55%) were male and 302 (78%) had a performance status of 0-1 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group). Prevalence of cachexia (inpatients/outpatients) was 51/22%. Prevalence was highest in patients with gastrointestinal cancer (62/42%) and lung cancer (83/36%). There was no major difference in prevalence between patients with metastatic (55/24%) and localized disease (47/19%). Twenty percent of inpatients and 15% of outpatients wanted more attention to weight loss and nutrition. Cachexia (p < 0.001), symptoms of mood disorder (p < 0.001), and male gender (p < 0.01) were independently associated with increased need of attention. CONCLUSION: Cachexia is a prevalent condition, affecting both patients with localized and metastatic cancer. Clinical attention to the condition is a sizeable unmet need.

Is it possible to detect an improvement in cancer pain management? A comparison of two Norwegian cross-sectional studies conducted 5 years apart.

PURPOSE: Cancer pain (CP) management is challenging. In recent years, efforts were undertaken to achieve better CP management, e.g. clinical research, new treatment modalities, development of guidelines, education and focus on implementation. The aim of the present study was to compare the prevalence and characteristics of pain and breakthrough pain (BTP) between cross-sectional studies conducted in 2008 and 2014. It was hypothesized that an improvement in pain control would be observed the years in between. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies were conducted where adult cancer patients answered questions from Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool for cancer patients. Physicians reported socio-demographic and medical data. Regression models were applied for analysis. RESULTS: In total, 168 inpatients, 92 in 2008 and 76 in 2014, and 675 outpatients, 301 in 2008 and 374 in 2014, were included. The patient characteristics of the samples were comparable. Prevalence of CP among inpatients was 55 % in 2008 and 53 % in 2014, and among outpatients, 39 and 35 %, respectively. Inpatients reported average pain intensity (0-10 numerical rating scale, NRS) of 3.60 (standard deviation, SD 1.84) (2008) and 4.08 (SD 2.11) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 52 % (2008) and 41 % (2014). For outpatients, average pain intensity was 3.60 (SD 2.04) (2008) and 3.86 (SD 2.20) (2014); prevalence of BTP was 43 % (2008) and 37 % (2014). None of the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Unexpectedly, no improvement in pain control was observed. Efforts are still needed to improve cancer pain management.

A cross-sectional study on prevalence of pain and breakthrough pain among an unselected group of outpatients in a tertiary cancer clinic.

PURPOSE: Systematic knowledge about the prevalence and the treatment effects of cancer pain in patients attending a general oncology outpatient department is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of pain in a large representative cohort of patients attending a general oncology outpatient department in order to guide further screening, classification, and treatment of pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study among patients visiting the outpatient clinic with histologically verified cancer, age≥18 years, adequate cognitive function, and no surgical procedures last 24 h were included. Pain was assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory and the Alberta Breakthrough Pain Assessment Tool. RESULTS: Three hundred five patients were included. The mean age was 60 years, 94% had a WHO performance status of 0-1 and 59% received oncological treatment with a curative intent. The mean score for average pain last 24 h (numerical rating scale, 0-10) and current pain was 1.84 and 1.08, respectively. Twenty-two percent reported pain score of ≥4 as their average pain in the previous 24 h. Twenty-one percent reported breakthrough pain (BTP). In multivariate analyses, sleep, BTP, age, treatment intent, and comorbidity was significantly associated with mean average pain in the previous 24 h and explained 29% of the variability of average pain in the previous 24 h. CONCLUSION: Of the patients at an oncology outpatient clinic, 22% reported clinically significant pain. These findings indicate that all patients are candidates to be screened for pain and, if present, a more detailed pain diagnosis should be established before any interventions can be recommended.

Appetite Loss in Patients with Advanced Cancer Treated at an Acute Palliative Care Unit.

Appetite loss is prevalent in patients with advanced cancer and negatively affects their quality of life. However, understanding of the factors associated with appetite loss is limited. The current study aims to explore characteristics and therapeutic interventions used for patients with and without appetite loss admitted to an acute palliative care unit. Patient characteristics and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), using the 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10), were registered. Descriptive statistics, independent samples T-tests and chi-square tests were utilized for data analysis. Of the 167 patients included in the analysis, 62% (104) had moderate to severe appetite loss at admission, whereof 63% (66) improved their appetite during their hospital stay. At admission, there was a significant association between appetite loss and having gastrointestinal cancer, living alone, poor performance status and withdrawn anticancer treatment. Patients with appetite loss also experienced more nausea, depression, fatigue, dyspnea and anxiety. In patients with improved appetite during hospitalization, mean decrease in NRS was 3.4 (standard error (SE) 0.27). Additionally, patients living alone were more likely to improve their appetite. Appetite improvement frequently coincided with alleviation of fatigue. Understanding these associations may help in developing better interventions for managing appetite loss in patients with advanced cancer.

Standardizing Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Across Service Levels: Challenges in Demonstrating Effects in a Prospective Controlled Intervention Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer often want to spend their final days at home. In Norway, most patients with cancer die in institutions. We hypothesized that full integration of oncology and palliative care services would result in more time spent at home during end-of-life. METHODS: A prospective non-randomized intervention trial was conducted in two rural regions of Mid-Norway. The hospitals' oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics and surrounding communities participated. An intervention including information, education, and a standardized care pathway was developed and implemented. Adult non-curative patients with cancer were eligible. Proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was the primary outcome. RESULTS: We included 129 patients in the intervention group (I) and 76 patients in the comparison group (C), of whom 82% of patients in I and 78% of patients in C died during follow-up. The mean proportion of last 90 days of life spent at home was 0.62 in I and 0.72 in C (p = 0.044), with 23% and 36% (p = 0.073), respectively, dying at home. A higher proportion died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level (12%). During the observation period the comparison region developed and implemented an alternative intervention to the study intervention, with the former more focused on end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of patients with cancer died at home in both groups compared to pre-study level. Patients with cancer in I did not spend more time at home during end-of-life compared to those in C. The study intervention focused on the whole disease trajectory, while the alternative intervention was more directed towards end-of-life care. "Simpler" and more focused interventions on end-of-life care may be relevant for future studies on integration of palliative care into oncology. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02170168.

Palliative care is an important part of cancer care to improve patients' quality of life. To be cared for and die in the preferred place are quality markers in palliative care. Patients with cancer often want to spend their final days at home. In Norway, most patients with cancer die in institutions. We hypothesized that full integration of cancer and palliative care would result in more time spent at home during end-of-life. An intervention that included information, education, and a standardized care pathway was developed and implemented in a region of Mid-Norway (the intervention region, I). A similar region served as comparison region (C). Adult patients with cancer treated with non-curative intent were eligible. Altogether, 129 patients in I and 76 patients in C were included in the study, of whom 82% in I and 78% in C died during follow-up. The mean proportion of time spent at home last 90 days of life was 0.62 in I and 0.72 in C (p = 0.044), and 22.6% and 35.6% (p = 0.073) died at home, respectively. A higher proportion died at home in both groups compared to pre-study national levels (12%). During the study period, C developed and implemented an alternative intervention to the study intervention, with the former placing more focus on end-of-life care compared to the she study intervention that focused on the whole disease trajectory. This may explain why the intervention did not result in more time spent at home during end-of-life as compared to C. "Simpler" interventions directed towards the study's primary outcome may be relevant for future studies on integration of palliative care into oncology.

Parenteral Nutrition in Palliative Cancer Care: Detrimental, Futile, or Beneficial?

Palliative cancer care patients may live for a long time, but malnutrition worsens the prognosis. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is suitable for replenishing a calorie deficit, but its advantages and tolerance late in the cancer trajectory are debated. We examined symptom development in hospitalized patients with and without PN. A total of 21 palliative cancer care patients receiving PN and 155 palliative cancer care patients not receiving PN during hospitalization in a specialized unit were retrospectively compared. We studied symptom intensity at admission, symptom relief during the hospital stay, and survival. The patients had locally advanced or metastatic cancer, a mean age of 70 years, and their median ECOG performance status was III. Symptom burden at admission was similar in the compared groups. Symptom relief during hospitalization was also similar. However, patients already on PN at admission reported more nausea and patients receiving PN during hospitalization reported better nausea relief compared to patients not receiving this intervention. Overall median survival was less than two months and similar in the compared groups. Based on a limited number of observations and a suboptimal study design, we were not able to demonstrate an increased symptom burden for palliative cancer care patients receiving PN late in the disease trajectory.

Midazolam Indications and Dosing in Palliative Medicine: Results from a Multinational Survey.

Despite sparse evidence and limited guidance on indications, use, and dosing, midazolam is widely used in palliative care. We aimed to describe and compare the use of midazolam in three different countries to improve clinical practice in palliative care. We performed an online survey among palliative care physicians in Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom (UK). The focus was indications, dosing, administration, and concomitant drugs. A web-based questionnaire was distributed to members of the respective national palliative medicine associations. The total response rate was 9.4%. Practices in the UK, Norway, and Denmark were overall similar regarding the indications of midazolam for anxiety, dyspnoea, and pain treatment in combination with opioids. However, physicians in the UK used a higher starting dose for anxiety, dyspnoea, and pain treatment compared to Norway and Denmark, as well as a higher maximum dose. Danish physicians preferred, to a higher degree, on-demand midazolam administration. Despite practice similarities in the UK, Norway, and Denmark, differences exist for midazolam dosing and administration in palliative medicine. We demonstrated a lack of consensus on how midazolam should be used in palliative care, setting the stage for future studies on the topic.

Breakthrough and Episodic Cancer Pain from a Palliative Care Perspective.

Cancer pain intensity (PI) fluctuates, but the relationship between pain flares and background pain with respect to pain management is not settled. We studied how flare and background PIs corresponded with treatment results for background cancer pain. Patients admitted to an acute palliative care unit with average and/or worst PI ≥ 1 on the 11-point numeric rating scale were included. Average and worst PI at admission and average PI at discharge were collected. We examined how the difference and ratio between worst and average PI and average PI at admission, were associated with average PI development during hospitalization. Positive differences between worst and average PI at admission were defined as pain flares. Ninety out of 131 patients had pain flares. The reduction in average PI for patients with flares was 0.9 and for those without, 1.9 (p = 0.02). Patients with large worst minus average PI differences reported the least improvement, as did those with large worst/average PI ratios. Patients with pain flares and average PI ≤ 4 at admission had unchanged average PI during hospitalization, while those with pain flares and average PI > 4 experienced pain reduction (2.1, p < 0.001). Large pain flares, in absolute values and compared to background PI, were associated with inferior pain relief.

Emergency Palliative Cancer Care: Dexmedetomidine Treatment Experiences-A Retrospective Brief Report on Nine Consecutive Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist with potential opioid sparing properties, is utilized in palliative medicine, but the knowledge base for this practice is limited. We describe concomitant use of dexmedetomidine and opioids in an acute palliative care unit. METHODS: We included all hospitalized palliative cancer care patients treated with dexmedetomidine from January 2019 to January 2021. Demographics, opioid doses, dexmedetomidine indications and dosing, reported effects and adverse responses, as well as treatment lengths were recorded. RESULTS: Three women and six men aged 42-66 years with metastatic cancer and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status I-IV used dexmedetomidine and opioids concomitantly. Indications for dexmedetomidine were pain (n = 7) and anxiety (n = 2). Dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously in two patients and subcutaneously in seven. All administrations were continuous infusions; initial doses ranged from 240 to 1344 µg/24 h with later doses from 240 to 2440 µg/24 h. Physicians reported relief from pain and anxiety, but two patients required neuraxial pain management during admission. At day 2 of dexmedetomidine treatment, the opioid dose was reduced in six out of nine patients. For all patients with available data at day 7, mean opioid dose was reduced to 74% of the initial dose. When excluding the two patients requiring neuraxial pain management, the corresponding number was 80%. Two patients had transient hypotension, but dexmedetomidine was well tolerated and in no cases withdrawn due to adverse effects. Mean dexmedetomidine treatment length was 40 days. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine treatment decreased opioid consumption and was well tolerated in a retrospective study of nine palliative cancer care patients. It may represent a treatment option late in the disease trajectory.

Antibiotic Therapy in Integrated Oncology and Palliative Cancer Care: An Observational Study.

Decision-making for antibiotic therapy in palliative cancer care implies avoiding futile interventions and to identify patients who benefit from treatment. We evaluated patient-reported outcome-measures (PROMs), physiological findings, and survival in palliative cancer care patients hospitalized with an infection. All acute admissions during one year, directly to a University Hospital unit that provided integrated services, were included. Serious infection was defined as a need to start intravenous antibiotics. PROMs, clinical and paraclinical variables, and survival were obtained. Sixty-two of 257 patients received intravenous antibiotic treatment. PROMs were generally similar in the infection group and the non-infection group, both in respect to intensities at admission and improvements during the stay. There were more physiological and paraclinical deviations at admission in patients in the infection group. These deviations improved during the stay. Survival was not poorer in the infection group compared to the non-infection group. Patients in integrated cancer care were as likely to be put on intravenous antibiotics but had longer survival. In integrated oncology and palliative cancer services, patients with an infection had similar outcomes as those without an infection. This argues that the use of intravenous antibiotics is appropriate in many patients admitted to palliative care.

Parenteral Nutrition in Advanced Cancer: The Healthcare Providers' Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence base for parenteral nutrition (PN) in advanced cancer patients is limited. We studied healthcare providers' (HCPs') experiences with PN in cancer patients, focusing on perceived treatment benefits and challenges. METHODS: An 18-item online survey was emailed to HCPs attending one of three regional palliative care seminars held within a 6-month period. The survey included single-response items, multiple-response items, and free text boxes concerning PN. Descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic content analysis were applied. RESULTS: One hundred and two seminar participants completed the survey. Ninety-three percent were female, 86% were nurses/oncological nurses, and 80% worked in primary care. Respondents reported a well-functioning collaboration across levels of care. They perceived that PN may increase the patients' level of energy, improve the general condition, and reduce eating-related distress. On the downside, HCPs observed burdensome side effects, that the treatment was resource-demanding, and that decisions on PN withdrawal were difficult. CONCLUSION: The study results are based on the perspectives of more than 100 HCPs with comprehensive clinical experience with PN. Their knowledge represents an important experience base for improvement of healthcare services and advanced care planning.

Implementing a Standardized Care Pathway Integrating Oncology, Palliative Care and Community Care in a Rural Region of Mid-Norway.

INTRODUCTION: To improve quality across levels of care, we developed a standardized care pathway (SCP) integrating palliative and oncology services for hospitalized and home-dwelling palliative cancer patients in a rural region. METHODS: A multifaceted implementation strategy was directed towards a combination of target groups. The implementation was conducted on a system level, and implementation-related activities were registered prospectively. Adult patients with advanced cancer treated with non-curative intent were included and interviewed. Healthcare leaders (HCLs) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the development of the SCP or exposed to the implementation strategy were interviewed. In addition, HCLs and HCPs exposed to the implementation strategy answered standardized questionnaires. Hospital admissions were registered prospectively. RESULTS: To assess the use of the SCP, 129 cancer patients were included. Fifteen patients were interviewed about their experiences with the patient-held record (PHR). Sixty interviews were performed among 1320 HCPs exposed to the implementation strategy. Two hundred and eighty-seven HCPs reported on their training in and use of the SCP. Despite organizational cultural differences, developing an SCP integrating palliative and oncology services across levels of care was feasible. Both HCLs and HCPs reported improved quality of care in the wake of the implementation process. Two and a half years after the implementation was launched, 28% of the HCPs used the SCP and 41% had received training in its use. Patients reported limited use and benefit of the PHR. CONCLUSION: An SCP may be a usable tool for integrating palliative and oncology services across care levels in a rural region. An extensive implementation process resulted in improvements of process outcomes, yet still limited use of the SCP in clinical practice. HCLs and HCPs reported improved quality of cancer care following the implementation process. Future research should address mandatory elements for usefulness and successful implementation of SCPs for palliative cancer patients.

When a patient has incurable cancer, it is beneficial to introduce palliative care early in the disease trajectory along with anti-cancer treatment. A standardized care pathway is a method to improve quality and reduce variation in healthcare. It can promote integrated healthcare services in palliative care, e.g. by specifying action points when the patient's situation is changing. In this study, a standardized care pathway for cancer patients with palliative care needs was developed in a rural region of Norway. The pathway focused on patients' needs and symptoms and on smooth transition between levels of care. An educational program and an information strategy were developed to ensure implementation. To evaluate the implementation, all activity regarding the implementation process was registered. Cancer patients and healthcare professionals were interviewed and answered questionnaires. One thousand three hundred and twenty healthcare professionals were exposed to the implementation strategy. One hundred and twenty-nine cancer patients were followed up according to the standardized care pathway. Despite different perspectives of care, it was feasible to develop a standardized care pathway for palliative cancer patients across care settings. A paper-based patient-held record was only found to be useful by a limited number of patients. An extensive implementation process was completed and resulted in improvements regarding healthcare professionals' experience with the quality of cancer care in the region, but limited use of the care pathway in clinical practice. Further research should identify the most important elements for usefulness and successful implementation of the care pathway.

Breakthrough cancer pain in 2020.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: An overview on breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP), including inherent limitations of the terminology, assessment, clinical presentation, and treatment options. RECENT FINDINGS: The estimated prevalence of BTCP is dependent on the defined cutoffs for controlled background pain and the magnitude of the pain flare. In addition, pain flares outside the definition of BTCP are prevalent. In the 11th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases, the temporal characteristics of cancer pain are described as continuous background pain and intermittent episodic pain. BTCP should be assessed by validated methods, and the patient perspective should be included. The pain may be related to neoplastic destruction of bone, viscera, or nerve tissue and is characterized by rapid onset, high intensity, and short duration. Treatment directed towards painful metastases must be considered. Due to pharmacological properties mirroring the pain characteristics, transmucosal fentanyl formulations are important for the treatment of BTCP. Oral immediate release opioids can be used for slow-onset or predictable BTCP. For more difficult pain conditions, parenteral, or even intrathecal pain medication, may be indicated. SUMMARY: All clinically relevant episodic pains must be adequately treated in accordance with the patient's preferences. Transmucosal fentanyl formulations are effective for BTCP.

Fully Integrated Oncology and Palliative Care Services at a Local Hospital in Mid-Norway: Development and Operation of an Innovative Care Delivery Model.

INTRODUCTION: Early access to cancer palliative care is recommended. Descriptions of structures and processes of outpatient palliative care clinics operated within smaller hospitals are scarce. This paper presents the development and operation of a fully integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital in a rural region of Mid-Norway offering palliative care concurrent with cancer treatment. A standardized care pathway was applied. METHODS: Palliative care is in Norway part of the public healthcare system. Official recommendations recent years point out action points to improve delivery of palliative care. An integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic at a local hospital and an innovative care delivery model was developed and operated in this setting. Patients were recruited for a descriptive study of the patient population. Clinical data were collected by clinical staff and 13 symptom intensities were reported by the patients. RESULTS: Cancer and palliative care were provided by one team of healthcare professionals trained in both fields. There was a close collaboration with the other departments at the hospital, with its affiliated tertiary hospital, and with community health and care services to provide timely referral, enhanced continuity, and improved coordination of care. Eighty-eight patients were included. Mean age was 65.6 years, the most common cancer diagnoses were digestive organs (22.7%), male genital organs (20.5%) or breast (25.0%), 75.0% had metastatic or locally advanced cancer, 59.1% were treated with non-curative intention and 93.1% had Karnofsky Performance Status ≥ 80%. Median scores of individual symptoms ranged from 0 to 3 (numerical rating scale, 0-10) and 61.0% reported at least one clinically significant symptom rating (≥ 4). CONCLUSION: This delivery model of integrated outpatient cancer and palliative care is particularly relevant in rural regions allowing cancer patients access to palliative care earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to home.

Palliative care is an important part of cancer care which aims at improving cancer patients' symptom burden and quality of life and support their carers. Palliative care has traditionally been separated from cancer care. During the last decade, one has become aware of the benefits of introducing palliative care early and concurrent with cancer treatment. Most cancer patients are nowadays treated as outpatients. Availability of palliative care as a routine part of outpatient cancer clinics is therefore important. Most of the described models of early palliative care in cancer care are within large tertiary hospitals. Here it is described how early palliative care was delivered to cancer patients in an outpatient clinic in a smaller hospital in a rural region of Mid-Norway. In this integrated cancer and palliative care outpatient clinic, cancer and palliative care were provided by one team of healthcare professionals trained in both fields. The integrated outpatient clinic collaborated closely with the other hospital departments and with community health and care services. This was needed to be able to offer palliative care to all cancer patients in need of it, and closer to their home. Many of the patients attending the integrated outpatient clinic could not be cured for their cancer. They did not have many symptoms of their cancer, and they had a high functional status. This demonstrated that the integrated outpatient clinic in this local hospital was a relevant place to offer palliative care early and concurrent with cancer treatment before symptoms became severe.