ABSTRACT
This paper reviews and summarises the evidence of short-term psychosocial interventions (up to 12 sessions delivered within less than eight weeks) on anxiety, depression, and emotional distress in palliative patients in inpatient settings. We screened publications from the following five databases, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL, from their inception to 10 September 2021. The eligible studies included controls receiving standard palliative care, actively treated controls, and wait-list controls. Nine studies met the eligibility criteria and reported the effects of five psychosocial interventions in a total of N = 543 patients. We followed PRISMA-guidelines for outcome reporting and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for assessing study quality. This paper used the network meta-analysis to compare multiple treatments by providing greater statistical power and the cross-validation of observed treatment effects, using the R package BUGSnet. Compared to control groups, the following psychosocial interventions in inpatient settings showed to be superior: life review interventions were the best ranked treatment for improving anxiety and distress, while the top ranked treatment for reducing depression was outlook intervention. The short-term psychosocial interventions investigated in this meta-analysis, especially life review intervention, are feasible and can potentially improve anxiety, depression, and distress in palliative inpatients and should therefore be offered in inpatient settings.
Subject(s)
Palliative Care , Psychotherapy , Bayes Theorem , Humans , Inpatients , Network Meta-Analysis , Psychosocial InterventionABSTRACT
Background: Repeat hospitalizations, complications, and psychosocial burdens are common in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD). Specialist palliative care (sPC) involvement supports patients during decision-making until end-of-life. In the United States, guidelines recommend early specialist palliative care (esPC) involvement prior to implantation. Yet, data about sPC and esPC involvement in Europe are scarce. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective descriptive study of deceased LVAD patients who had received sPC during their LVAD-related admissions to two university hospitals in Duesseldorf, Germany and Basel, Switzerland from 2010 to 2021. The main objectives were to assess: To which extent have LVAD patients received sPC, how early is sPC involved? What are the characteristics of those, how did sPC take place and what are key challenges in end-of-life care? Results: In total, 288 patients were implanted with a LVAD, including 31 who received sPC (11%). Twenty-two deceased LVAD patients (19 male) with sPC were included. Mean patient age at the time of implantation was 67 (range 49-79) years. Thirteen patients (59%) received LVAD as destination therapy, eight patients (36%) were implanted as bridge to transplantation (BTT), and one as an emergency LVAD after cardiogenic shock (5%). None of the eight BTT patients received a heart transplantation before dying. Most (n = 13) patients lived with their family and mean Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status was three. Mean time between LVAD implantation and first sPC contact was 1.71 years, with a range of first sPC contact from 49 days prior to implantation to more than 6 years after. Two patients received esPC before implantation. In Duesseldorf, mean time between first sPC contact and in-hospital death was 10.2 (1-42) days. In Basel, patients died 16 (0.7-44) months after first sPC contact, only one died on the external sPC unit. Based on thorough examination of two case reports, we describe key challenges of sPC in LVAD patients including the necessity for sPC expertise, ethical and communicative issues as well as the available resources in this setting. Conclusion: Despite unequivocal recommendations for sPC in LVAD patients, the integration of sPC for these patients is yet not well established.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Care for palliative care patients is often provided by unpaid caregivers (eg, family members) who take care of the patient's daily needs (eg, bathing, dressing). Family members of palliative care patients are involved in numerous ways. These tasks and responsibilities can make them feel burdened and even overburdened. AIM: We specifically looked at patients' medical records to determine what is being reported about burden and overburden and who seems to be mostly affected. Burden was understood as a weight or task that is difficult to accept or carry, whereas overburden indicates that this weight or task cannot be carried anymore. METHODS: We looked at 300 medical records of palliative care patients written by health-care professionals. Written notes were analyzed using latent content analysis as it helps to analyze large amounts of textual data qualitatively and to understand the underlying concepts of what was said. RESULTS: Most (73.5%) patients had a cancer diagnosis. Mean age was 67.6 years (range, 22-98 years). Burden and overburden were identified as main categories and further divided into the following subcategories: for patients and families. According to the written notes, patients often felt burdened by their disease, financial problems, situation at home, and families' reactions to their disease. By and large, patients felt overburdened by their own disease. Families often felt burdened because of issues related to patients' medical condition, providing home care, or financial and social aspects. Families mentioned home care and the decision-making process as being overburdening. CONCLUSION: Findings in the palliative care patients' medical records are inasmuch important, as they point at the health-care staff's awareness of possible weights and tasks that might be burdensome for patients and their families. Attention should be drawn to the documentation of medical records in order to identify recurrent difficulties and to help discuss these.
