How palliative care professionals deal with predicting life expectancy at the end of life: predictors and accuracy.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of hospice staff in predicting survival of subjects admitted to hospice, exploring the factors considered most helpful by the hospice staff to accurately predict survival. METHODS: Five physicians and 11 nurses were asked to predict survival at admission of 827 patients. Actual and predicted survival times were divided into ≤ 1 week, 2-3 weeks, 4-8 weeks, and ≥ 2 months and the accuracy of the estimates was calculated. The staff members were each asked to score 17 clinical variables that guided them in predicting survival and we analyzed how these variables impacted the accuracy. RESULTS: Physicians' and nurses' accuracy of survival of the patients was 46% and 40% respectively. Survival was underestimated in 20% and 12% and overestimated in 34% and 48% of subjects. Both physicians and nurses considered metastases, comorbidities, dyspnea, disability, tumor site, neurological symptoms, and confusion very important in predicting patients' survival with nurses assigning more importance to intestinal symptoms and pain too. All these factors, with the addition of cough and/or bronchial secretions, were associated with physicians' greater accuracy. In the multivariable models, intestinal symptoms and confusion continued to be associated with greater predictive accuracy. No factors appreciably raised nurses' accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Some clinical symptoms rated as relevant by the hospice staff could be important for predicting survival. However, only intestinal symptoms and confusion significantly improved the accuracy of physicians' predictions, despite the high prevalence of overestimated survival.

Quality of Life, Pain Perception, and Distress Correlated to Ultrasound-Guided Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheters in Palliative Care Patients in a Home or Hospice Setting.

CONTEXT: Intravenous fluid administration with peripherally inserted central venous catheters (PICCs) and midline catheters in palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate distress and pain perceived by patients during the positioning of a PICC or midline catheter, both in the home and hospice settings. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study performed by the Palliative Care Network of Pordenone. In addition to evaluating distress and pain, we monitored patient quality of life and the devices used. Quality of life was measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core 15-Palliative scale. RESULTS: From May 2012 to July 2013, 48 patients were enrolled in the study. The level of distress during the procedure was null or very low in 95.8% of the patients and completely absent after one week. Pain during insertion was null or very little in 93.8% of the patients and zero after one week in 98% of the patients. Quality of life was significantly improved after one week for certain specific parameters and also globally. The number of catheter days monitored was 3097. The weekly monitoring of the devices revealed a series of minor complications. Only two catheters were removed for serious complications. CONCLUSION: Our results showed a low impact on pain and distress, a low level of local and systemic complications and a favorable impact on patients' quality of life. However, other studies are necessary to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the use of these devices and their role in palliative care.