Palliative Care Symptom Management.

Aggressively managing the symptoms of patients with critical life-limiting illness or terminal disease can improve the quality of life for patients and loved ones, regardless of how much time they have remaining. Palliative symptom management approaches disease in a holistic manner, addressing not only the physical aspect of symptoms but also the psychological, social, and spiritual dimensions of suffering for total symptom relief. Pain is the most common reason for critical care palliative consultation, and using the World Health Organization Pain Ladder to systematically quantify, treat, and titrate pain is effective. Options include both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment.

Intervention to improve care at life's end in inpatient settings: the BEACON trial.

BACKGROUND: Widespread implementation of palliative care treatment plans could reduce suffering in the last days of life by adopting best practices of traditionally home-based hospice care in inpatient settings. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multi-modal intervention strategy to improve processes of end-of-life care in inpatient settings. DESIGN: Implementation trial with an intervention staggered across hospitals using a multiple-baseline, stepped wedge design. PARTICIPANTS: Six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). INTERVENTION: Staff training was targeted to all hospital providers and focused on identifying actively dying patients and implementing best practices from home-based hospice care, supported with an electronic order set and paper-based educational tools. MAIN MEASURES: Several processes of care were identified as quality endpoints for end-of-life care (last 7 days) and abstracted from electronic medical records of veterans who died before or after intervention (n = 6,066). Primary endpoints were proportion with an order for opioid pain medication at time of death, do-not-resuscitate order, location of death, nasogastric tube, intravenous line infusing, and physical restraints. Secondary endpoints were administration of opioids, order/administration of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and scopolamine (for death rattle); sublingual administration; advance directives; palliative care consultations; and pastoral care services. Generalized estimating equations were conducted adjusting for longitudinal trends. KEY RESULTS: Significant intervention effects were observed for orders for opioid pain medication (OR: 1.39), antipsychotic medications (OR: 1.98), benzodiazepines (OR: 1.39), death rattle medications (OR: 2.77), sublingual administration (OR: 4.12), nasogastric tubes (OR: 0.71), and advance directives (OR: 1.47). Intervention effects were not significant for location of death, do-not-resuscitate orders, intravenous lines, or restraints. CONCLUSIONS: This broadly targeted intervention strategy led to modest but statistically significant changes in several processes of care, indicating its potential for widespread dissemination to improve end-of-life care for thousands of patients who die each year in inpatient settings.

A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 20 years, both inpatient units and outpatient clinics have developed programs for geriatric evaluation and management. However, the effects of these interventions on survival and functional status remain uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial involving frail patients 65 years of age or older who were hospitalized at 11 Veterans Affairs medical centers. After their condition had been stabilized, patients were randomly assigned, according to a two-by-two factorial design, to receive either care in an inpatient geriatric unit or usual inpatient care, followed by either care at an outpatient geriatric clinic or usual outpatient care. The interventions involved teams that provided geriatric assessment and management according to Veterans Affairs standards and published guidelines. The primary outcomes were survival and health-related quality of life, measured with the use of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form General Health Survey (SF-36), one year after randomization. Secondary outcomes were the ability to perform activities of daily living, physical performance, utilization of health services, and costs. RESULTS: A total of 1388 patients were enrolled and followed. Neither the inpatient nor the outpatient intervention had a significant effect on mortality (21 percent at one year overall), nor were there any synergistic effects between the two interventions. At discharge, patients assigned to the inpatient geriatric units had significantly greater improvements in the scores for four of the eight SF-36 subscales, activities of daily living, and physical performance than did those assigned to usual inpatient care. At one year, patients assigned to the outpatient geriatric clinics had better scores on the SF-36 mental health subscale, even after adjustment for the score at discharge, than those assigned to usual outpatient care. Total costs at one year were similar for the intervention and usual-care groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial, care provided in inpatient geriatric units and outpatient geriatric clinics had no significant effects on survival. There were significant reductions in functional decline with inpatient geriatric evaluation and management and improvements in mental health with outpatient geriatric evaluation and management, with no increase in costs.