Potentially Inappropriate End of Life Care and Healthcare Costs in the Last 30 Days of Life in Regions Providing Integrated Palliative Care in the Netherlands: A Registration-based Study.

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effect of integrated palliative care (IPC) on potentially inappropriate end- of-life care and healthcare-costs in the last 30 days of life in the Netherlands. Methods: Nationwide health-insurance claims data were used to assess potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (≥2 emergency room visits; ≥2 hospital admissions; >14 days hospitalization; chemotherapy; ICU admission; hospital death) and healthcare-costs in all deceased adults in IPC regions pre- and post- implementation and in those receiving IPC compared to a 1:2 matched control group. Results: In regions providing IPC deceased adults (n = 37,468) received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care post-implementation compared to pre-implementation (26.5% vs 27.9%; p < 0.05). Deceased adults who received IPC (n = 210) also received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care compared to a matched control group (14.8% vs 28.3%; p < 0.05). Mean hospital costs significantly decreased for deceased adults who received IPC (€2,817), while mean costs increased for general practitioner services (€311) and home care (€1,632). Discussion: These results highlight the importance of implementation of integrated palliative care and suitable payment. Further research in a larger sample is needed. Conclusion: This study shows less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care and a shift in healthcare costs from hospital to general practitioner and home care with IPC.

Association between Inappropriate End-of-Life Cancer Care and Specialist Palliative Care: A Retrospective Observational Study in Two Acute Care Hospitals.

A substantial number of patients with life-threatening illnesses like cancer receive inappropriate end-of-life care. Improving their quality of end-of-life care is a priority for patients and their families and for public health. To investigate the association between provision, timing, and initial setting of hospital-based specialist palliative care and potentially inappropriate end-of-life care for patients with cancer in two acute care hospitals in the Netherlands, we conducted a retrospective observational study using hospital administrative databases. All adults diagnosed with or treated for cancer in the year preceding their death in 2018 or 2019 were included. The main exposure was hospital-based specialist palliative care initiated >30 days before death. The outcome measures in the last 30 days of life were six quality indicators for inappropriate end-of-life care (≥2 ED-visits, ≥2 hospital admissions, >14 days hospitalization, ICU-admission, chemotherapy, hospital death). We identified 2603 deceased patients, of whom 14% (n = 359) received specialist palliative care >30 days before death (exposure group). Overall, 27% (n = 690) received potentially inappropriate end-of-life care: 19% in the exposure group, versus 28% in the non-exposure group (p < 0.001). The exposure group was 45% less likely to receive potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.73). Early (>90 days) and late (≤90 and >30 days) initiation of specialist palliative care, as well as outpatient and inpatient initiation, were all associated with less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (AOR 0.49; 0.62; 0.32; 0.64, respectively). Thus, timely access to hospital-based specialist palliative care is associated with less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care for patients with cancer. The outpatient initiation of specialist palliative care seems to enhance this result.

Evaluating quality of care at the end of life and setting best practice performance standards: a population-based observational study using linked routinely collected administrative databases.

BACKGROUND: A high percentage of people dying at home, and a low percentage of people being admitted to hospital and dying there are regarded as indicators of appropriate care at the end of life. However, performance standards for these quality indicators are often lacking, which makes it difficult to state whether an indicator score falls between the ranges of good or poor quality care. The aim of this study was to assess quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization in people with diseases relevant for palliative care, and to establish best practice performance standards based on indicator scores in 31 regions in the Netherlands. METHODS: A retrospective nationwide population-based observational study was conducted, using routinely collected administrative data concerning persons who died in 2017 in the Netherlands with underlying causes relevant for palliative care (N = 109,707). Data from four registries were linked for analysis. Scores on eight quality indicators concerning place of death and hospital care utilization were calculated, and compared across 31 healthcare insurance regions to establish relative benchmarks. RESULTS: On average, 36.4% of the study population died at home (range between regions 30.5%-42.6%) and 20.4% in hospital (range 16.6%-25.5%). Roughly half of the population who received hospital care at any time in the last year of life were found to (also) receive hospital care in the last month of life. In the last month, 32.0% of the study population were admitted to hospital (range 29.4-36.4%), 5.3% to an Intensive Care Unit (range 3.2-6.9%) and 23.9% visited an Emergency Department (range 21.0-27.4%). In the same time period, less than 1% of the study population was resuscitated in hospital or received tube or intravenous feeding in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The variation between regions points towards opportunities for practice improvement. The best practice performance standards as set in this study serve as ambitious but attainable targets for those regions that currently do not meet the standards. Policymakers, healthcare providers and researchers can use the suggested performance standards to further analyze causes of variance between regions and develop and test interventions that can improve practice.

Development of a national quality framework for palliative care in a mixed generalist and specialist care model: A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique.

In a predominantly biomedical healthcare model focused on cure, providing optimal, person-centred palliative care is challenging. The general public, patients, and healthcare professionals are often unaware of palliative care's benefits. Poor interdisciplinary teamwork and limited communication combined with a lack of early identification of patients with palliative care needs contribute to sub-optimal palliative care provision. We aimed to develop a national quality framework to improve availability and access to high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. We hypothesised that a whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique would be suitable to reach this aim. Analogous to the international AGREE guideline criteria and employing a whole-sector approach, an expert panel comprising mandated representatives for patients and their families, various healthcare associations, and health insurers answered the main question: 'What are the elements defining high-quality palliative care in the Netherlands?'. For constructing the quality framework, a bottleneck analysis of palliative care provision and a literature review were conducted. Six core documents were used in a modified Delphi technique to build the framework with the expert panel, while stakeholder organisations were involved and informed in round-table discussions. In the entire process, preparing and building relationships took one year and surveying, convening, discussing content, consulting peers, and obtaining final consent from all stakeholders took 18 months. A quality framework, including a glossary of terms, endorsed by organisations representing patients and their families, general practitioners, elderly care physicians, medical specialists, nurses, social workers, psychologists, spiritual caregivers, and health insurers was developed and annexed with a summary for patients and families. We successfully developed a national consensus-based patient-centred quality framework for high-quality palliative care in a mixed generalist-specialist palliative care model. A whole-sector approach and a modified Delphi technique are feasible structures to achieve this aim. The process we reported may guide other countries in their initiatives to enhance palliative care.

Inappropriate end-of-life cancer care in a generalist and specialist palliative care model: a nationwide retrospective population-based observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of provision and timing of palliative care (PC) on potentially inappropriate end-of-life care to patients with cancer in a mixed generalist-specialist PC model. METHOD: A retrospective population-based observational study using a national administrative health insurance database. All 43 067 adults in the Netherlands, who were diagnosed with or treated for cancer during the year preceding their death in 2017, were included. Main exposure was either generalist or specialist PC initiated >30 days before death (n=16 967). Outcomes were measured over the last 30 days of life, using quality indicators for potentially inappropriate end-of-life care. RESULTS: In total, 14 504 patients (34%) experienced potentially inappropriate end-of-life care; 2732 were provided with PC >30 days before death (exposure group) and 11 772 received no PC or ≤30 days before death (non-exposure group) (16% vs 45%, p<0.001). Most patients received generalist PC (88%). Patients provided with PC >30 days before death were 5 times less likely to experience potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (adjusted OR (AOR) 0.20; (95% CI 0.15 to 0.26)) than those with no PC or PC in the last 30 days. Both early (>90 days) and late (>30 and≤90 days) PC initiation had lower odds for potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (AOR 0.23 and 0.19, respectively). CONCLUSION: Timely access to PC in a mixed generalist-specialist PC model significantly decreases the likelihood of potentially inappropriate end-of-life care for patients with cancer. Generalist PC can play a substantial role.

Olanzapine Versus Haloperidol for Treatment of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Phase III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of delirium often includes haloperidol. Second-generation antipsychotics like olanzapine have emerged as an alternative with possibly fewer side effects. The aim of this multicenter, phase III, randomized clinical trial was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of olanzapine with haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible adult patients (≥18 years) with advanced cancer and delirium (Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 [DRS-R-98] total score ≥17.75) were randomized 1:1 to receive either haloperidol or olanzapine (age-adjusted, titratable doses). Primary endpoint was delirium response rate (DRR), defined as number of patients with DRS-R-98 severity score <15.25 and ≥4.5 points reduction. Secondary endpoints included time to response (TTR), tolerability, and delirium-related distress. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and June 2016, 98 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. DRR was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 31-59) for olanzapine and 57% (95% CI, 43-71) for haloperidol (Δ DRR -12%; odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4; p = .23). Mean TTR was 4.5 days (95% CI, 3.2-5.9 days) for olanzapine and 2.8 days (95% CI, 1.9-3.7 days; p = .18) for haloperidol. Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 5 patients (10.2%) and 10 patients (20.4%) in the olanzapine and haloperidol arm, respectively. Distress rates were similar in both groups. The study was terminated early because of futility. CONCLUSION: Delirium treatment with olanzapine in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer did not result in improvement of DRR or TTR compared with haloperidol. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01539733. Dutch Trial Register. NTR2559. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Guidelines recommend that pharmacological interventions for delirium treatment in adults with cancer should be limited to patients who have distressing delirium symptoms. It was suggested that atypical antipsychotics, such as olanzapine, outperform haloperidol in efficacy and safety. However, collective data comparing the efficacy and safety of typical versus atypical antipsychotics in patients with cancer are limited. If targeted and judicious use of antipsychotics is considered for the treatment of delirium in patients with advanced cancer, this study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference in response to haloperidol or olanzapine. Olanzapine showed an overall better safety profile compared with haloperidol, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Accuracy of the Delirium Observational Screening Scale (DOS) as a screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Delirium Observation Screening Scale (DOS) was developed to facilitate early recognition of delirium by nurses during routine clinical care. It has shown good validity in a variety of patient populations, but has not yet been validated in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, although the DOS is commonly used in this setting in daily practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the DOS in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer using the revised version of the Delirium Rating Scale (DRS-R- 98) as the gold standard. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer admitted to the medical oncology ward were screened for delirium with the DOS and DRS-R-98. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV) and positive predictive value (PPV) of the DOS were calculated, using a DOS score ≥ 3 as a cut-off for delirium. RESULTS: Ninety-five DOS negative and 98 DOS positive patients were identified. Sensitivity of the DOS, was > 99.9% (95%-CI, 95.8-100.0%), specificity was 99.5% (95%-CI 95.5-99.96%), PPV was 94.6% (95% CI 88.0-97.7), and NPV was > 99.9% (95% CI 96.1-100.0). CONCLUSIONS: The DOS is an accurate screening tool for delirium in patients with advanced cancer. Since it has the benefit of being easily implicated in daily practice, we recommend to educate caregivers to screen patients with advanced cancer by DOS analysis. By early recognition and adequate treatment of this distressing delirium syndrome the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer can be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01539733 (Feb 27, 2012 - retrospectively registered), Netherlands Trial Register NTR2559 (Oct 7, 2010).

[Gliomas: fighting until the end against epilepsy; administration of antiepileptic drugs in the end-of-life phase]. / Gliomen: tot het einde in de aanval tegen epilepsie; toediening anti-epileptica in de laatste levensfase.

In patients with high-grade glioma seizures occur relatively frequently during the end-of-life phase. At some point, the use of oral anti-epileptic drugs is no longer possible due to swallowing difficulties caused by advanced tumour progression. We have established a draft guideline and propose that anti-epileptic drugs be prescribed by alternative routes of administration in the end-of-life phase in glioma patients with known epilepsy who develop swallowing difficulties. Buccal clonazepam would be our drug of first choice as a maintenance treatment in addition to intranasal midazolam for the acute management of seizures. Adequate treatment of epileptic seizures, particularly during the end-of-life phase, can help to maintain quality of life as long as possible in patients with high-grade glioma.

On our way to targeted therapy for cachexia in cancer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cachexia, the occurrence of involuntary weight loss due to loss of adipose tissue and skeletal muscle mass, is among the most common and devastating symptoms in patients with advanced cancer. It is a significant factor contributing to the poor performance status and high mortality rate of these patients, and is a distressing problem for both patients and their families. Despite extensive research in an attempt to better understand the mechanisms involved, progress in the management of cancer cachexia has been slow. RECENT FINDINGS: The pathogenic mechanisms of cachexia and anorexia are multifactorial, but cytokines and tumour-derived factors are known to play a significant role, thereby representing suitable therapeutic targets. Moreover, recent advances in the field of molecular biology have shed light on other mediators involved in the mechanisms leading to muscle wasting, thus increasing potential targets for new therapies. SUMMARY: This review will focus on recent findings in relation to the molecular pathways leading to muscle wasting that have improved our current understanding of cachexia and will direct the future management of cachexia in cancer towards targeted therapies.