Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Support Care Cancer ; 24(10): 4273-81, 2016 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27165052

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Conversations about end-of-life (EOL) wishes are challenging for many clinicians. The Go Wish card game (GWG) was developed to facilitate these conversations. Little is known about the type and consistency of EOL wishes using the GWG in advanced cancer patients. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the EOL wishes of 100 patients with advanced cancer treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The purpose of this study was to determine the EOL wishes of patients with advanced cancer and to compare patients' preference between the GWG and List of wishes/statements (LOS) containing the same number of items. Patients were randomized into four groups and completed either the GWG or a checklist of 35 LOS and one opened statement found on the GWG cards; patients were asked to categorize these wishes as very, somewhat, or not important. After 4-24 h, the patients were asked to complete the same or other test. Group A (n = 25) received LOS-LOS, group B (n = 25) received GWG-GWG, group C (n = 26) received GWG-LOS, and group D (n = 24) received LOS-GWG. All patients completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for adults before and after the first test. RESULTS: Median age (interquartile range = IQR): 56 (27-83) years. Age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, religion, education, and cancer diagnosis did not differ significantly among the four groups. All patients were able to complete the GWG and/or LOS. The ten most common wishes identified as very important by patients in the first and second test were to be at peace with God (74 vs. 71 %); to pray (62 vs. 61 %); and to have family present (57 vs. 61 %). to be free from pain (54 vs. 60 %); not being a burden to my family (48 vs. 49 %); to trust my doctor (44 vs. 45 %); to keep my sense of humor (41 vs. 45 %); to say goodbye to important people in my life (41 vs. 37 %); to have my family prepared for my death (40 vs. 49 %); and to be able to help others (36 vs. 31 %). There was significant association among the frequency of responses of the study groups. Of the 50 patients exposed to both tests, 43 (86 %) agreed that the GWG instructions were clear, 45 (90 %) agreed that the GWG was easy to understand, 31 (62 %) preferred the GWG, 39 (78 %) agreed that the GWG did not increase their anxiety and 31 (62 %) agreed that having conversations about EOL priorities was beneficial. The median STAI score after GWG was 48 (interquartile range, 39-59) vs. 47 (interquartile range, 27-63) after LOS (p = 0.2952). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced cancer assigned high importance to spirituality and the presence/relationships of family, and these wishes were consistent over the two tests. The GWG did not worsen anxiety.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms/therapy , Patient Preference/psychology , Terminal Care/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Communication , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Spirituality
2.
J Pain Symptom Manage ; 57(1): 86-92, 2019 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30315915

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Optimal benefits from palliative care (PC) are achieved when first consults (PC1) occur early, in the outpatient setting. Late PC1, like those in the intensive care unit (ICU), limit these benefits. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the proportion of PC1 over time in the outpatient, ICU, and inpatient non-ICU settings. We also examined patients' baseline characteristics and the timing of PC access (from PC1 to death) by the setting of PC1. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive cancer patients' records at our cancer center to ascertain the annual number of PC1 and its distribution across settings (2011-2017). ICU PC1 (n = 309) and a random sample of an equal number of outpatient and inpatient non-ICU PC1 were reviewed to retrieve patients' characteristics and death date. RESULTS: PC1 total annual number increased by 58% from 2011 (n = 2286) to 2017 (n = 3615). We found a significant decrease in the proportion of ICU PC1 (from 2.3% in 2011 to 1% in 2017, P < 0.001). There were no significant changes in the proportion of PC1 at outpatient versus inpatient settings (P = 0.2). Hematologic cancer patients were more likely to have an ICU PC1 (P < 0.001). Median survival (months) was 7.7 (6.3-9.7), 3.4 (2.4-4.5), and 0.1 (0.1-0.1) for outpatient, inpatient, and ICU, respectively (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: PC1 total annual number has increased, and the proportion of PC1 at ICU, a very late clinical setting, is decreasing. Further efforts are needed to integrate PC in hematologic cancer care.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , Critical Care , Delivery of Health Care/trends , Hospitalization , Palliative Care/trends , Referral and Consultation/trends , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Ambulatory Care/trends , Critical Care/trends , Female , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Young Adult
3.
J Pain Symptom Manage ; 58(2): 275-281, 2019 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31029808

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT: Current guidelines recommend early referral to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer; however, no studies have examined the optimal timing of referral from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: To examine patients' perceptions of timeliness of referral and its association with survival among patients with advanced cancer referred to an outpatient supportive care (SC) clinic. METHODS: This cross-sectional prospective study in an SC clinic at a comprehensive cancer center included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic cancer. Patients were asked to complete an anonymous survey regarding the timeliness and perceived usefulness of SC referral within four weeks of their first SC consultation. RESULTS: Of 253 eligible patients, 209 (83%) enrolled in the study and 200 completed the survey. Median survival was 10.3 months. Most patients (72%) perceived that referral occurred "just in time," whereas 21% felt it was "late," and 7% felt "early." A majority (83%) found the referral useful, and 88% would recommend it to other patients with cancer. The perception of being referred early was associated with lower reported levels of pain (P = 0.043), fatigue (P = 0.004), drowsiness (P = 0.005), appetite loss (P = 0.041), poor well-being (P = 0.041), and lower physical (P = 0.001) and overall symptom distress (P = 0.001). No other associations were found between perceived timeliness and usefulness and patients' baseline characteristics. CONCLUSION: Most patients with a median survival of 10 months perceived that SC referral was timely and useful. Patient care needs rather than the timing of advanced cancer diagnosis drove this perception of referral timing. Lower symptom burden was associated with the perception of being referred to early.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care , Health Services Needs and Demand , Neoplasms , Palliative Care , Terminal Care , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Outpatients , Referral and Consultation , Time Factors
4.
Rev Esp Salud Publica ; 86(1): 21-35, 2012.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22991027

ABSTRACT

The health protection while ensuring the access to safe drinking water to the entire population is one of the main objectives all over the world. In this regard, the European Union, through Directive 98/83/EC, sets the parameters and maximum allowable parametric values to ensure the quality of water intended for human consumption. The aim of this paper is to give an overview of the values established in the European Directive in comparison with other countries and organizations, such as the World Health Organization, based on toxicological justification, doing special mention to the case of pesticides, in which there is great difference between the parametric values set. It also presents a comparison with the values fixed by the Directive 91/414/EEC concerning maximum residue limits of pesticides in food, highlighting the importance of joining criteria.


Subject(s)
Drinking Water/standards , Health Policy , Pesticides/standards , Water Pollutants, Chemical/standards , Water Pollution, Chemical/legislation & jurisprudence , Water Quality/standards , Drinking Water/chemistry , European Union , Global Health , Humans , Pesticides/analysis , Pesticides/toxicity , Reference Values , Water Pollutants, Chemical/analysis , Water Pollutants, Chemical/toxicity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL