Characteristics of Patients with Cancer Readmitted Within 30 Days to an Acute Palliative Care Unit.

OBJECTIVE(S): For patients with cancer, the emergence of acute palliative care units (APCU) may hold promise in curtailing hospital readmissions. The study aims to describe the characteristics of patients readmitted to an APCU. METHODS: This retrospective study examined patients with cancer readmitted within 30 days to an APCU. Readmissions were further classified as either potentially preventable or non-preventable. RESULTS: Out of 734 discharges from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2015, 69 (9%) readmissions were identified and analyzed. For index admissions, median length of stay was five days, and one (1%) was discharged home with hospice care. For readmissions, median time from index admission to readmission was nine days, median length of stay was six days, three (4%) patients died, and 20 (30%) went home with hospice. Ten (14.5%) readmissions were deemed potentially preventable (95% CI 7.2-25.0%). Race/ethnicity-White/Black/Hispanic/Others-was 60%, 10%, 20% and 10%, respectively, among potentially preventable readmissions and 76%, 22%, 2% and 0%, respectively, among potentially non-preventable readmissions (P = .012). Potentially preventable readmissions were more likely to have venous thromboembolism (40% vs. 12%, P = .046) and more reasons for readmission (median 2 vs. 1, P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer readmitted to an APCU, one out of seven was potentially preventable and a far larger proportion was discharged with hospice care compared to the index admission. Recognition of disease course, meaningful goals of care discussions and timely transition to hospice care may reduce rehospitalization in this population.

Considering intellectual, in addition to financial, conflicts of interest proved important in a clinical practice guideline: a descriptive study.

OBJECTIVES: The American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines ninth iteration placed restrictions on panelists with recommendations on which they disclosed a primary conflict of interest (COI). We aimed to describe panelists' financial and intellectual COI and evaluate to what extent, beyond assessing financial COI, assessing intellectual COI affected COI management. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We classified financial and intellectual COI into primary (causes voting restriction) and secondary (no restrictions). We analyzed disclosures respectively with panelists and recommendations as units of analysis. RESULTS: One hundred two panelists made 4,030 disclosures for 431 recommendations. The median number (and range) of panelists per recommendation who disclosed the various categories of COI was 0 (0-5) for primary financial COI, 0 (0-4) for secondary financial COI, 0 (0-7) for primary intellectual COI, and 1 (0-6) for secondary intellectual COI. Of the 431 recommendations, 63 (15%) had at least one panelist with a primary intellectual COI but no primary financial COI. CONCLUSION: COI had a relatively low prevalence and a skewed distribution, many panelists with none and some with many disclosures. A substantial number of disclosures should have resulted in restrictions based on intellectual COI in the absence of financial COI.

Systematic evaluation of the methodology of randomized controlled trials of anticoagulation in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that are inappropriately designed or executed may provide biased findings and mislead clinical practice. In view of recent interest in the treatment and prevention of thrombotic complications in cancer patients we evaluated the characteristics, risk of bias and their time trends in RCTs of anticoagulation in patients with cancer. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search, including a search of four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI the Web of Science, and CENTRAL) up to February 2010. We included RCTs in which the intervention and/or comparison consisted of: vitamin K antagonists, unfractionated heparin (UFH), low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), direct thrombin inhibitors or fondaparinux. We performed descriptive analyses and assessed the association between the variables of interest and the year of publication. RESULTS: We included 67 RCTs with 24,071 participants. In twenty one trials (31%) DVT diagnosis was triggered by clinical suspicion; the remaining trials either screened for DVT or were unclear about their approach. 41 (61%), 22 (33%), and 11 (16%) trials respectively reported on major bleeding, minor bleeding, and thrombocytopenia. The percentages of trials satisfying risk of bias criteria were: adequate sequence generation (85%), adequate allocation concealment (61%), participants' blinding (39%), data collectors' blinding (44%), providers' blinding (41%), outcome assessors' blinding (75%), data analysts' blinding (15%), intention to treat analysis (57%), no selective outcome reporting (12%), no stopping early for benefit (97%). The mean follow-up rate was 96%. Adequate allocation concealment and the reporting of intention to treat analysis were the only two quality criteria that improved over time. CONCLUSIONS: Many RCTs of anticoagulation in patients with cancer appear to use insufficiently rigorous outcome assessment methods and to have deficiencies in key methodological features. It is not clear whether this reflects a problem in the design, conduct or the reporting of these trials, or both. Future trials should avoid the shortcomings described in this article.