Improving End-of-Life Care and Advance Care Planning for Frail Older Adults in Canad.

We present five Key Concepts that describe priorities for improving end-of-life care for frail older adults in Canada, and recommendations based on each Key Concept. Key Concept #1: Our end-of-life care system is focused on cancer, not frailty. Key Concept #2: We need better strategies to systematically identify frail older adults who would benefit from a palliative approach. Key Concept #3: The majority of palliative and end-of-life care will be, and should be, provided by clinicians who are not palliative care specialists. Key Concept #4: Organizational change and innovative funding models could deliver far better end-of-life care to frail individuals for less than we are currently spending. Key Concept #5: Improving the quality and quantity of advance care planning for frail older adults could reduce unwanted intensive care and costs at the end of life, and improve the experience for individuals and family members alike.

Factors influencing communication and decision-making about life-sustaining technology during serious illness: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify factors influencing communication and decision-making, and to learn how physicians and nurses view their roles in deciding about the use of life-sustaining technology for seriously ill hospitalised patients and their families. DESIGN: The qualitative study used Flanagan's critical incident technique to guide interpretive description of open-ended in-depth individual interviews. SETTING: Participants were recruited from the medical wards at 3 Canadian hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Interviews were completed with 30 healthcare professionals (9 staff physicians, 9 residents and 12 nurses; aged 25-63 years; 73% female) involved in decisions about the care of seriously ill hospitalised patients and their families. MEASURES: Participants described encounters with patients and families in which communication and decision-making about life-sustaining technology went particularly well and unwell (ie, critical incidents). We further explored their roles, context and challenges. Analysis proceeded using constant comparative methods to form themes independently and with the interprofessional research team. RESULTS: We identified several key factors that influenced communication and decision-making about life-sustaining technology. The overarching factor was how those involved in such communication and decision-making (healthcare providers, patients and families) conceptualised the goals of medical practice. Additional key factors related to how preferences and decision-making were shaped through relationships, particularly how people worked toward 'making sense of the situation', how physicians and nurses approached the inherent and systemic tensions in achieving consensus with families, and how physicians and nurses conducted professional work within teams. Participants described incidents in which these key factors interacted in dynamic and unpredictable ways to influence decision-making for any particular patient and family. CONCLUSIONS: A focus on more meaningful and productive dialogue with patients and families by (and between) each member of the healthcare team may improve decisions about life-sustaining technology. Work is needed to acknowledge and support the non-curative role of healthcare and build capacity for the interprofessional team to engage in effective decision-making discussions.

Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: For more than a century, appendicectomy has been the treatment of choice for appendicitis. Recent trials have challenged this view. This study assessed the benefits and harms of antibiotic therapy compared with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted for randomized trials comparing antibiotic therapy with appendicectomy in patients with non-perforated appendicitis. Key outcomes were analysed using random-effects meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Five studies including 1116 patients reported major complications in 25 (4·9 per cent) of 510 patients in the antibiotic and 41 (8·4 per cent) of 489 in the appendicectomy group: risk difference -2·6 (95 per cent c.i. -6·3 to 1·1) per cent (low-quality evidence). Minor complications occurred in 11 (2·2 per cent) of 510 and 61 (12·5 per cent) of 489 patients respectively: risk difference -7·2 (-18·1 to 3·8) per cent (very low-quality evidence). Of 550 patients in the antibiotic group, 47 underwent appendicectomy within 1 month: pooled estimate 8·2 (95 per cent c.i. 5·2 to 11·8) per cent (high-quality evidence). Within 1 year, appendicitis recurred in 114 of 510 patients in the antibiotic group: pooled estimate 22·6 (15·6 to 30·4) per cent (high-quality evidence). For every 100 patients with non-perforated appendicitis, initial antibiotic therapy compared with prompt appendicectomy may result in 92 fewer patients receiving surgery within the first month, and 23 more experiencing recurrent appendicitis within the first year. CONCLUSION: The choice of medical versus surgical management in patients with clearly uncomplicated appendicitis is value- and preference-dependent, suggesting a change in practice towards shared decision-making is necessary.

Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials.

BACKGROUND: Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS: Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.

(18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography-computed tomography to diagnose recurrent cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sometimes the diagnosis of recurrent cancer in patients with a previous malignancy can be challenging. This prospective cohort study assessed the clinical utility of (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography-computed tomography ((18)F-FDG PET-CT) in the diagnosis of clinically suspected recurrence of cancer. METHODS: Patients were eligible if cancer recurrence (non-small-cell lung (NSCL), breast, head and neck, ovarian, oesophageal, Hodgkin's or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) was suspected clinically, and if conventional imaging was non-diagnostic. Clinicians were asked to indicate their management plan before and after (18)F-FDG PET-CT scanning. The primary outcome was change in planned management after (18)F-FDG PET-CT. RESULTS: Between April 2009 and June 2011, 101 patients (age, median 65 years; 55% female) were enroled from four cancer centres in Ontario, Canada. Distribution by primary tumour type was: NSCL (55%), breast (19%), ovarian (10%), oesophageal (6%), lymphoma (6%), and head and neck (4%). Of the 99 subjects who underwent (18)F-FDG PET-CT, planned management changed after (18)F-FDG PET-CT in 52 subjects (53%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 42-63%); a major change in plan from no treatment to treatment was observed in 38 subjects (38%, 95% CI, 29-49%), and was typically associated with (18)F-FDG PET-CT findings that were positive for recurrent cancer (37 subjects). After 3 months, the stated post-(18)F-FDG PET-CT management plan was actually completed in 88 subjects (89%, 95% CI, 81-94%). CONCLUSION: In patients with suspected cancer recurrence and conventional imaging that is non-diagnostic, (18)F-FDG PET-CT often provides new information that leads to important changes in patient management.