Cancer Pain Management in Patients Receiving Inpatient Specialized Palliative Care Services.

CONTEXT: Cancer pain is a common complication that is frequently undertreated in patients with cancer. OBJECTIVES: This study is aimed at assessing the time needed to achieve cancer pain management goals through specialized palliative care (SPC). METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received SPC. Patients were continuously followed up until they considered cancer pain management successful, and we estimated this duration using the Kaplan-Meier method. We investigated the effectiveness of pain management using multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quantitative measures, including pain intensity change in the Brief Pain Inventory. A paired-sample t-test was used to compare the pain intensity at the beginning and end of the observation period. RESULTS: Cancer pain management based on the PROs was achieved in 87.9% (385/438) of all cases. In 94.5% (364/385) of these cases, cancer pain management was achieved within 1 week, and the median time to pain management was 3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 2-3). The mean worst pain intensity in the last 24 h at the start and end of observation were 6.9 ± 2.2 and 4.0 ± 2.3, respectively, with a difference of -2.9 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.6; p < 0.01). Overall, 81.6% of the patients reported satisfaction with cancer pain management, and 62 adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: SPC achieved cancer pain management over a short period with a high level of patient satisfaction resulting in significant pain reduction and few documented adverse events.

Prevalence of opioid-induced adverse events across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan: a multicenter prospective longitudinal study.

PURPOSE: Although opioids have been shown to be effective for cancer pain, opioid-induced adverse events (AEs) are common. To date, little is known about the differences in risks of AEs by opioid type. This study was performed to compare the prevalence of AEs across opioids commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan. METHODS: This study was conducted as a preplanned secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received specialized palliative care for cancer pain relief. We assessed daily AEs until termination of follow-up. We rated the severity of AEs based on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. We computed adjusted odds ratios for each AE (constipation, nausea and vomiting, delirium, and drowsiness) with the following variables: opioid, age, sex, renal dysfunction, and primary cancer site. RESULTS: In total, 465 patients were analyzed. Based on the descriptive analysis, the top four most commonly used opioids were included in the analysis: oxycodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl, and tramadol. With respect to the prevalence of AEs among all analyzed patients, delirium (n = 25, 6.3%) was the most frequent, followed by drowsiness (n = 21, 5.3%), nausea and vomiting (n = 19, 4.8%), and constipation (n = 28, 4.6%). The multivariate logistic analysis showed that no single opioid was identified as a statistically significant independent predictor of any AE. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in the prevalence of AEs among oxycodone, fentanyl, hydromorphone, and tramadol, which are commonly used for analgesic treatment in Japan.

The effect of palliative care team intervention and symptom improvement using patient-reported outcomes: a multicenter prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Hospital-based palliative care teams (HPCTs) are widespread internationally, but multicenter studies about their effectiveness, using patient-reported outcomes (PROs), are limited to Australia and a few other countries. We conducted a multicenter, prospective observational study in Japan to explore the effectiveness of the HPCTs using PROs. METHODS: Nationwide, eight hospitals participated in the study. We included newly referred patients for one month in 2021 and followed them for one month. We asked the patients to complete the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale or the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System as PROs at the time of the intervention, three days later, and weekly after the intervention. RESULTS: A total of 318 participants were enrolled, of whom 86% were patients with cancer, 56% were undergoing cancer treatment, and 20% received the Best Supportive Care. After one week, the following 12 symptoms showed more than a 60% improvement from severe to moderate or less: vomiting (100%), shortness of breath (86%), nausea (83%), practical problems (80%), drowsiness (76%), pain (72%), poor sharing of feelings with family or friends (72%), weakness (71%), constipation (69%), not feeling at peace (64%), lack of information (63%), and sore or dry mouth (61%). Symptoms with improvement from severe/moderate to mild or less were vomiting (71%) and practical problems (68%). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study showed that HPCTs effectively improved symptoms in several severe conditions, as assessed by PROs. This study also demonstrated the difficulty of relieving symptoms in patients in palliative care and the need for improved care.

Classification by Nurses' Work Values and Their Characteristics: Latent Profile Analysis of Nurses Working in Japanese Hospitals.

This study aimed to classify nurses with similar work values into subgroups by examining their intrinsic, extrinsic, social, and prestige work values. Additionally, we clarified the characteristics of the obtained subgroups using personal attributes, work engagement, and life satisfaction. Using a cross-sectional observational study design, we randomly sampled 52 hospitals in the Tohoku region of Japan and conducted a self-administered questionnaire survey with 2600 nurses. Latent profile analysis was performed to identify the number of subgroups. Of the 1627 collected questionnaires, 1587 were regarded as valid. The latent profile analysis revealed the following five subgroups with strong statistical significance: (1) self-oriented, (2) low, (3) medium-low, (4) medium-high, and (5) high types. The means of work engagement and life satisfaction gradually increased from the (2) low- to (5) high-type subgroups. There were significant differences among the subgroups in terms of marital status, child status, and job title. The (5) high-type subgroup had many nurses with job titles, high work engagement, and high life satisfaction. The (2) low-type subgroup included many nurses who were young, had few years of experience, were married, had children, and had low levels of work engagement and life satisfaction. Preregistration: This study was not registered.

Quality indicators for palliative care in intensive care units: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Establishing appropriate quality assessment indicators for palliative care in intensive care units (ICUs) is vital. This systematic review summarizes the existing quality indicators (QIs) for palliative care in ICUs. It assesses the methodological quality of QI development to pave the way for more valid QIs. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane databases, and the Ichushi-web database for Japanese literature for all studies published until November 2021. The included QIs were drawn from the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care (NCP) and the Donabedian model of quality. Methodological quality was assessed based on the appraisal of indicators through the research and evaluation tool. RESULTS: Five studies were included, from which 109 indicators were extracted: 78% were process indicators, 5% were outcome indicators, and 17% were structure indicators. The most common indicators addressed the palliative care domain of "ethical and legal aspects of care" (n=38, 30%). Another distinctive feature of some indicators was a focus on supporting ICU staff. Regarding methodological quality, the "scientific evidence" varied (11-89%). Most of the data on QI measures and data sources were obtained from a review of electronic medical records (EMRs). Administrative data also provided a few measurable indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Out of all the QIs covered in this review, most were process indicators, and only a few were outcome indicators. Ethical and legal aspects of care and support for the ICU staff emerged as unique to palliative care. Although the existing QIs can be used for palliative care in ICUs, more specific indicators are urgently needed. Continuous quality assessment and improvement, as well as the addition of more palliative care practices in ICUs, would provide further evidence and help develop valid QIs.