Impact of Palliative Care Consultation Service on Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A 9-Year Observational Cohort Study in Taiwan.

The palliative care consultation service (PCCS) that has been enthusiastically promoted in Taiwan since 2005 was designed to provide comprehensive end-of-life care for terminally ill patients with qualified interdisciplinary specialists in acute care ward setting. This study aims to evaluate the impact of PCCS on terminally ill cancer patients.A total of 10,594 terminal cancer patients who were referred to PCCS from a single medical center in Taiwan between 2006 and 2014 were enrolled. The percentages of patients' and their families' disease awareness, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) designation, refusal and acceptance of palliative care among terminally ill cancer patients were analyzed retrospectively.At the beginning of PCCS, the percentages of disease awareness among patients and their family were increased from 25.4% to 37.9% (P = 0.007) and from 61.2% to 84.7% between 2006 and 2014 (P = 0.001), respectively. Patients' disease awareness after PCCS referral between 2006 and 2014 was increased from 47.1% to 64.5% (P = 0.016). Family's awareness of diagnosis and prognosis after PCCS referral researched to a steady plateau, 94.1% to 97.8% in different year cohort (P = 0.34). The percentage of DNR designation rate at the beginning of PCCS (in 2006) was 15.5%, and the designation rate was increased annually and finally reached to 42.0% in 2014 (P = 0.004). The percentage of DNR consents after PCCS was also improved from 44.0% in 2006 up to 80.0% in 2014 (P = 0.005). PCCS refusal rate decreased gradually and dropped to 1.6% in 2014 (P = 0.005). The percentage of PCCS utilization was increased 5-fold during the 9-year period after the promotion of PCCSIn the program of PCCS promotion, an increasing trend of PCCS utilization, better patients' and their families' awareness of diagnosis and prognosis, more consent to DNR, more patients were discharged with stable condition at the end of PCCS and a decrease refusal rate of end-of-life palliative care among terminal cancer patients were observed in Taiwan between 2006 and 2014.

Combination of initial palliative prognostic index and score change provides a better prognostic value for terminally ill cancer patients: a six-year observational cohort study.

CONTEXT: The Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) is among the most popular scores used to predict life expectancy in terminally ill patients worldwide. PPI assessed on the first day of palliative care might be inappropriate because the contribution from subsequent changes in a patient's condition are not taken into account. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to determine the utility of sequential PPI assessments as a better prognostic tool for patients with terminal cancer. METHODS: In total, 2392 terminally ill cancer patients with initial and one-week PPI assessments under the palliative care consultation service between January 2006 and December 2011 at a single medical center in Taiwan were selected. Patients were categorized into initial PPI, Week 1 PPI, score change (initial PPI - Week 1 PPI; Δscore), and combined initial PPI and Δscore subgroups for survival analysis. RESULTS: Overall median survival was 32 days (range eight to 180 days), and 2183 patients (91.3%) died within 180 days of palliative care consultation service care. A significant difference in survival was observed among patient subgroups (P < 0.001). Subgroup survival analysis showed significant difference in patients with Δscores >0, 0, and <0 in each prognostic group categorized by initial PPI. The c-statistic for predicting life expectancy <30 days was significantly higher with the combined initial PPI and Δscore (c-statistic, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.694-0.731) than with the initial PPI (c-statistic, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.65), Week 1 PPI (c-statistic, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.652-0.690), or Δscore (c-statistic, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.62-0.66). CONCLUSION: Combination of initial PPI and score change is more useful than initial PPI for identifying patients with poor outcomes in good prognostic groups and patients with better outcomes in poor prognostic groups.