Association of goals of care meetings for hospitalized cancer patients at risk for critical care with patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Caring for cancer patients with advanced and refractory disease requires communication about care preferences, particularly when patients become ill enough to be at risk for critical care interventions potentially inconsistent with their preferences. AIM: To describe the use of goals of care discussions in patients with advanced/refractory cancer at risk for critical care interventions and evaluate associations between these discussions and outcomes. DESIGN: Cohort study describing patients/families' perceptions of goals of care meetings and comparing health care utilization outcomes of patients who did and did not have discussions. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient units of an academic cancer center. Included patients had metastatic solid tumors or relapsed/refractory lymphoma or leukemia and were at risk for critical care, defined as requiring supplemental oxygen and/or cardiac monitor. RESULTS: Of 86 patients enrolled, 34 (39%) had a reported goals of care discussion (study group). Patients/families reported their needs and goals were addressed moderately to quite a bit during the meetings. Patients in the study group were less likely to receive critical care (0% vs 22%, p = 0.003) and more likely to be discharged to hospice (48% vs 30%, p = 0.04) than the control group. Only one patient in the study group died during the index hospitalization (on comfort care) (3%) compared with 9(17%) in the control group (p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Goals of care meetings for advanced/refractory cancer inpatients at risk for critical care interventions can address patient and family goals and needs and improve health care utilization. These meetings should be part of routine care for these patients.

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.

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.

Evidence-based approaches to other symptoms in advanced cancer.

Dyspnea, nausea and vomiting, anorexia, fatigue, and sleep disturbances are common and distressing in advanced cancer. We updated previous systematic reviews of how these symptoms can be alleviated with targeted literature searches. The approach to these symptoms requires comprehensive symptom assessment; treating underlying causes when benefits exceed risks; prioritizing treatment, as patients usually have many symptoms; and addressing psychosocial and spiritual distress. For dyspnea, evidence supports systemic opioids and nonpharmacological treatments such as a fan. The strongest evidence supports metoclopramide for cancer-related nausea and octreotide for bowel obstruction. For anorexia, enteral or parenteral nutrition is indicated with obstruction and expected prognosis of at least 6 weeks. Evidence supports several drugs for appetite affecting quality of life. For fatigue, evidence supports psychosocial interventions and methylphenidate. For insomnia, evidence supports cognitive-behavioral therapy in cancer; no sleep agents have superior effectiveness.