Evidence-based palliative care in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 20 years, multiple interventions to better integrate palliative care and intensive care unit (ICU) care have been evaluated. This systematic review summarizes these studies and their outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science; performed a search of articles published by opinion leaders in the field; and reviewed hand-search articles as of August 13, 2012. The terms "palliative care" and "intensive care unit" were mapped to MeSH subject headings and "exploded." We included trials of adult patients that evaluated an ICU intervention and addressed Robert Wood Johnson group-identified domains of high-quality end-of-life care in the ICU. We excluded case series, editorials, and review articles. We compared two types of interventions, integrative and consultative, focusing on the outcomes of patient and family satisfaction, mortality, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), because these were most prevalent among studies. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 3328 references, of which we included 37 publications detailing 30 unique interventions. Interventions and outcome measures were heterogeneous, and many studies were underpowered and/or subject to multiple biases. Most of the interventions resulted in a decrease in hospital and ICU LOS. Few interventions significantly affected satisfaction. With one exception, the interventions decreased or had no effect on mortality. There was no evidence of harm from any intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity of interventions made comparison of ICU-based palliative care interventions difficult. However, existing evidence suggests proactive palliative care in the ICU, using either consultative or integrative palliative care interventions, decrease hospital and ICU LOS, do not affect satisfaction, and either decrease or do not affect mortality.

Methods for improving the quality of palliative care delivery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness for improving the outcomes across palliative care domains remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review of different types of quality improvement interventions relevant to palliative care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane for relevant articles published between 2000 and 2011. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials and 7 nonrandomized controlled trials were included. Of the 5 studies using relay of clinical information, 1 reported significant improvement in patient quality of life. Of the 5 studies targeting education and self-management, 4 found significant improvements in quality of life or patient symptoms. CONCLUSION: A minority of quality improvement interventions have succeeded in improving the quality of palliative care delivery. More studies are needed on specific quality improvement types, including organizational change and multiple types of interventions.

A systematic review of health care interventions for pain in patients with advanced cancer.

PURPOSE: Poorly controlled pain is common in advanced cancer. The objective of this article was to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of pain-focused interventions in this population. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through December 2011. We included prospective, controlled health care intervention studies in advanced cancer populations, focusing on pain. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria; most focused on nurse-led patient-centered interventions. In all, 9 (47%) of the 19 studies found a significant effect on pain. The most common intervention type was patient/caregiver education, in 17 (89%) of 19 studies, 7 of which demonstrated a significant decrease in pain. CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate strength of evidence that pain in advanced cancer can be improved using health care interventions, particularly nurse-led patient-centered interventions.

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for open-angle glaucoma: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Glaucoma is an acquired degeneration of the optic nerve and a leading cause of blindness worldwide. Medical and surgical treatments that decrease intraocular pressure may prevent visual impairment and blindness. PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of medical, laser, and surgical treatments in adults with open-angle glaucoma with regard to decreasing intraocular pressure and preventing optic nerve damage, vision loss, and visual impairment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and an existing database for systematic reviews (through 2 March 2011); MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and CENTRAL for primary studies (through 30 July 2012). STUDY SELECTION: English-language systematic reviews; randomized, controlled trials; and quasi-randomized, controlled trials for most outcomes and observational studies for quality of life and harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators abstracted or checked information about study design, participants, and outcomes and assessed risk of bias and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: High-level evidence suggests that medical, laser, and surgical treatments decrease intraocular pressure and that medical treatment and trabeculectomy reduce the risk for optic nerve damage and visual field loss compared with no treatment. The direct effect of treatments on visual impairment and the comparative efficacy of different treatments are not clear. Harms of medical treatment are primarily local (ocular redness, irritation); surgical treatment carries a small risk for more serious complications. LIMITATION: Heterogeneous outcome definitions and measurements among the included studies; exclusion of many treatment studies that did not stratify results by glaucoma type. CONCLUSION: Medical and surgical treatments for open-angle glaucoma lower intraocular pressure and reduce the risk for optic nerve damage over the short to medium term. Which treatments best prevent visual disability and improve patient-reported outcomes is unclear.

Support of personalized medicine through risk-stratified treatment recommendations - an environmental scan of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified treatment recommendations facilitate treatment decision-making that balances patient-specific risks and preferences. It is unclear if and how such recommendations are developed in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Our aim was to assess if and how CPGs develop risk-stratified treatment recommendations for the prevention or treatment of common chronic diseases. METHODS: We searched the United States National Guideline Clearinghouse for US, Canadian and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (United Kingdom) CPGs for heart disease, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and diabetes that make risk-stratified treatment recommendations. We included only those CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations based on risk assessment tools. Two reviewers independently identified CPGs and extracted information on recommended risk assessment tools; type of evidence about treatment benefits and harms; methods for linking risk estimates to treatment evidence and for developing treatment thresholds; and consideration of patient preferences. RESULTS: We identified 20 CPGs that made risk-stratified treatment recommendations out of 133 CPGs that made any type of treatment recommendations for the chronic diseases considered in this study. Of the included 20 CPGs, 16 (80%) used evidence about treatment benefits from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses or other guidelines, and the source of evidence was unclear in the remaining four (20%) CPGs. Nine CPGs (45%) used evidence on harms from randomized controlled trials or observational studies, while 11 CPGs (55%) did not clearly refer to harms. Nine CPGs (45%) explained how risk prediction and evidence about treatments effects were linked (for example, applying estimates of relative risk reductions to absolute risks), but only one CPG (5%) assessed benefit and harm quantitatively and three CPGs (15%) explicitly reported consideration of patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of CPGs for chronic diseases make risk-stratified treatment recommendations with a focus on heart disease and stroke prevention, diabetes and breast cancer. For most CPGs it is unclear how risk-stratified treatment recommendations were developed. As a consequence, it is uncertain if CPGs support patients and physicians in finding an acceptable benefit- harm balance that reflects both profile-specific outcome risks and preferences.

A systematic review of communication quality improvement interventions for patients with advanced and serious illness.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication is an interaction between two or more people that produces a desired effect and is a key element of quality of care for patients with advanced and serious illness and their family members. Suboptimal provider-patient/family communication is common, with negative effects on patient/family-centered outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence for effectiveness of communication-related quality improvement interventions for patients with advanced and serious illness and to explore the effectiveness of consultative and integrative interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through December 2011 and reference list of eligible articles and reviews. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Prospective, controlled quality improvement studies in populations with life-limiting or severe life-threatening illness with a primary intervention focus of improving communication with patients and/or families. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two investigators independently screened and abstracted data on patient/family-centered outcomes. RESULTS: We included 20 studies; 13 (65 %) were in intensive care. We found four intervention types: (1) family meetings with the usual team (11 studies, 77 % found improvement in healthcare utilization), (2) palliative care teams (5 studies, 50 % found improvement in healthcare utilization), (3) ethics consultation (2 studies, 100 % found improvement in healthcare utilization), and (4) physician-patient communication (2 studies, no significant improvement in healthcare utilization). Among studies addressing the outcomes of patient/family satisfaction, 22 % found improvement; among studies addressing healthcare utilization (e.g., length of stay), 73 % found improvement. Results suggest that consultative interventions, as opposed to integrative ones, may be more effective, but more research is needed. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity did not allow quantitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Communication in the care of patients with advanced and serious illness can be improved using quality improvement interventions, particularly for healthcare utilization as an outcome. Interventions may be more effective using a consultative approach.

Closing the quality gap: revisiting the state of the science (vol. 8: improving health care and palliative care for advanced and serious illness).

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence on the effectiveness of health care and palliative care interventions to improve outcomes for patients with advanced and serious illness. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and DARE from 2000 through 2011. We identified additional studies from reference lists of eligible articles and relevant reviews, as well as from technical experts. REVIEW METHODS: We developed questions in collaboration with technical experts. We excluded retrospective and uncontrolled studies. Two investigators independently screened search results and abstracted data from eligible studies. We adapted previous frameworks to categorize included studies (e.g., by improvement target, setting). Because many studies did not report effect sizes and almost all studies were small (lt 200 studies), in order to be able to quantitatively describe the literature, we calculated the percentage of studies with a significant improvement in outcomes with the intervention compared to control group for each category. We also checked that all other studies did not report significant results in the opposite direction and checked that there were not differences between larger and smaller studies. RESULTS: We included 90 studies described in 96 articles. Of the 23 studies targeting continuity, coordination, and transitions, 33 percent of studies that evaluated quality of life as an outcome, 67 percent that evaluated patient satisfaction, and 31 percent that evaluated health care utilization (admissions and length of stay) found a statistically significant improvement with the intervention. Of the 21 studies targeting pain, almost all focused on patient education and self-management; 48 percent of them found a statistically significant improvement with the intervention. Findings for larger (>100) and smaller (le 100) studies were similar. For distress, only 29 percent of the seven included studies found a statistically significant impact. Of the 20 studies in communication and decisionmaking, only 22 percent of studies addressing patient or family satisfaction found a statistically significant improvement for this outcome, compared to 73 percent for the outcome of health care utilization. We found only two studies within hospice programs, both of which found a statistically significant improvement in at least one outcome; nine studies were in nursing homes, 78 percent of which demonstrated a significant improvement with the intervention. In terms of types of quality improvement, for the target of continuity, studies including patient-centered quality improvement types, such as education and self-management, had the strongest evidence of effectiveness on patient- and family-centered domains such as satisfaction and quality of life. Studies of provider-focused interventions (e.g., education, reminders) were more likely to have an impact on health care utilization. Only one of five studies addressing multiple targets and focusing on facilitated relay of clinical data to providers demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in either quality of life or satisfaction. In terms of consultative and integrative interventions, for the target of communication and decisionmaking, three-quarters of consultative interventions showed a statistically significant improvement with the intervention, compared to half of integrative interventions. The literature was too heterogeneous and effect sizes were too infrequently reported for quantitative synthesis. There was moderate strength of evidence for the target of continuity, coordination, and transitions and the outcome of patient and caregiver satisfaction but low strength of evidence for other outcomes. For the target of pain, there was moderate strength of evidence for pain as an outcome. For the target of communication and decisionmaking, there was moderate strength of evidence for the outcome of health care utilization but low strength of evidence for other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found that evidence was strongest (moderate strength of evidence) for interventions for pain, and for the targets of communication and decisionmaking and continuity for selected outcomes. While a few high- and medium-quality, well-designed health care and palliative care interventions have been conducted to improve outcomes for patients with advanced and serious illness, this report highlights the continued presence of variable findings, quality deficiencies, vaguely defined interventions, and variable outcome measurement tools and reporting in much of this intervention literature. The evidence has a number of gaps, including few studies in the hospice setting or pediatrics. Future research needs include techniques for improving recruitment and retention to assure adequate sample size, better development and description of interventions, and further development and standardization of outcome measures and tools.