scholarly journals Pressure Injury Progression and Factors Associated With Different End-Points in a Home Palliative Care Setting: A Retrospective Chart Review Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Artico ◽  
Daniela D'Angelo ◽  
Michela Piredda ◽  
Tommasangelo Petitti ◽  
Luciano Lamarca ◽  
...  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Doherty ◽  
Liam Power ◽  
Monica Attala ◽  
Christina Vadeboncoeur

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amit Arya ◽  
John Roderick Davey ◽  
Achal Sharma ◽  
Naheed Dosani ◽  
Dilnoor Grewal ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The use of Point-Of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has increased rapidly across various medical disciplines due to technological advancements providing high quality POCUS units. POCUS can help clinicians at the bed side with information regarding patient management in real time. However, literature reveals scant evidence of POCUS use in Palliative Care. This study’s objective was to examine the use of POCUS in a specialist palliative care setting. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted from January 2018 to June 2019 to evaluate characteristics of patients for whom POCUS was utilized. These patients were identified through pre-existing logs and descriptive information was collected from the electronic health records. This included demographic information, life-limiting diagnosis, patient assessment location, diagnosis made with POCUS and, if applicable, volume of fluid drained.Results: We identified 126 uses of POCUS in 89 unique patients. 62 patients (69.7%) had a cancer diagnosis, with patients most commonly suffering from GI, Lung and Breast pathologies. 61 POCUS cases (48.4%) were in the outpatient setting. 81 POCUS cases (64.3%) revealed a diagnosis of ascites and 21 POCUS cases (16.7%) revealed a diagnosis of pleural effusion. Other diagnoses made with POCUS included bowel obstruction, pneumonia and congestive heart failure. During the study period, 52 paracentesis and 7 thoracentesis procedures were performed using POCUS guidance.Conclusion: We identified multiple indications in our specialist palliative care setting where POCUS aided in diagnosis/management of patients in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Further studies can be conducted to identify the potential benefits in symptom burden, patient & caregiver satisfaction and health care utilization in palliative care patients receiving POCUS.


2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandria Bear ◽  
Elizabeth Thiel

Background: Medical decision-making has evolved to the modern model of shared decision-making among patients, surrogate decision-makers, and medical providers. As such, informed consent discussions with critically ill patients often should include larger discussions relating to values and goals of care. Documentation of care options and prognosis serves as an important component of electronic communication relating to patient preferences among care providers. Objective: This retrospective chart review study sought to evaluate the prevalence of documentation of critical data, care options, prognosis, and medical plan, within primary team and palliative care consult team documentation. Results: Three hundred two electronic medical records were reviewed. There was a significant difference in documentation between palliative care and primary teams for prognosis (83% vs 32%, P < .001), care options (82% vs 50%, P < .001), and care plan (82% vs 46%, P < .001). Conclusions: Our retrospective chart review study demonstrated a significant difference in documentation between primary and palliative care teams. We acknowledge that review of documentation cannot be extrapolated to the presence or absence of conversations between providers and patients and/or surrogates. Additional studies to evaluate this connection would be advantageous.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 1104-1111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan E. Thrane ◽  
Scott H. Maurer ◽  
Susan M. Cohen ◽  
Carol May ◽  
Susan M. Sereika

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Barnes ◽  
Suzanne Kite ◽  
Manoj Kumar

AbstractObjective:Delirium is a clinical syndrome that is known to be under recognized by palliative care teams. A wide variation in reported prevalence may reflect differences in definitions and assessment methods, patient characteristics, and study design. The aim of this study was to test an intervention to improve recognition of delirium in the inpatient palliative care setting.Method:We conducted a retrospective palliative care notes review of documented prevalence of delirium among 61 patients referred to the Specialist Palliative Care Advisory Team (SPCT). Subsequently, training in the use of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) was provided to the SPCT and a prospective survey of the prevalence of delirium measured by the CAM was undertaken with the next 59 patients referred.Results:In the retrospective chart review, the term “delirium” was not used, and synonyms were identified and used to establish a delirium prevalence of 11.5%. In the intervention utilizing the CAM in a prospective sample of 59 referred patients, a prevalence rate of 8.5–15.2% for delirium was found. Use of the CAM was received favorably by the SPCT.Significance of Results:The institution of the use of the CAM as a screening and assessment tool in the inpatient palliative care setting did not significantly increase the recognition of delirium. Reasons for the low prevalence of delirium are discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19202-e19202
Author(s):  
Han You ◽  
Don S. Dizon ◽  
Nathan Wong ◽  
Edward W. Martin ◽  
Mary Anne Fenton

e19202 Background: Admission to the ICU in the last 30 days of life and use of systemic anticancer therapy in the last 2 weeks of life are indicators of overly aggressive end-of-life care and have been incorporated into the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as benchmarks to assess care across cancer centers. We sought to better define the proportion of patients at our institution who met either of these endpoints and to delineate factors that might be associated with them. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients with solid tumors, who underwent anticancer therapy at the LCI, and died in timepoints ending in January, July and November of 2017. After IRB approval, patients were identified through our tumor registry. Patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed for past history, cancer stage, type of care received, palliative care contact, site of death, ICU admission in last 30 days of life, receipt of immunotherapy and biologic (precision) therapy in last 6 months of life, and systemic anticancer therapy (excluding antihormonal therapy) in last 2 weeks of life. Results: A total of 134 patients died in this time period; 18 were excluded (leukemia/myeloma) leading to 116 patients for this analysis. Our review showed that 16.4% of LCI patients were admitted to the ICU in the last 30 days of life and 9.5% received systemic anticancer therapy in the last 2 weeks of life. Significant factors associated with an ICU admission in the last 30 days of life were receipt of biologic (precision) therapy in the last 6 months of life (41.7% vs. 13.9%; P<0.05) and never having been married (30.4% vs. 13.3%; P=0.05). Significant factors that were associated with death in the hospital were lack of palliative care team contact (34.3% vs. 13%; P<0.05) and male gender (24.1% vs. 9.1%; P<0.05). Conclusions: Understanding the factors associated with intensive care at the end of life is critical to the provision of value-based cancer care. In this study, the receipt of precision therapy in the last 6 months of life and never having been married were associated with ICU stays in the last 30 days of life, while lack of palliative care involvement and male gender were associated with greater chances of death in the hospital. Further understanding of the complex interplay that governs care and decision making in the end of life is required.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document