Exploring nursing outcomes for patients with advanced cancer following intervention by Macmillan specialist palliative care nurses

2003 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 561-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Corner ◽  
Debbie Halliday ◽  
Jo Haviland ◽  
Hannah-Rose Douglas ◽  
Peter Bath ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (12) ◽  
pp. 4733-4744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Santos Salas ◽  
Sharon M. Watanabe ◽  
Yoko Tarumi ◽  
Tracy Wildeman ◽  
Ana M. Hermosa García ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002434
Author(s):  
Paul Perkins ◽  
Anne Parkinson ◽  
Rebecca Parker ◽  
Alison Blaken ◽  
Ralph K Akyea

IntroductionNausea and vomiting are common symptoms for patients with advanced cancer. While there is evidence for acupuncture point stimulation for treatment of these symptoms for patients having anticancer treatment, there is little for when they are not related to such treatment.ObjectiveTo determine whether acupressure at the pericardium 6 site can help in the treatment of nausea and vomiting suffered by palliative care patients with advanced cancer.Materials and methodsDouble blind randomised controlled trial—active versus placebo acupressure wristbands. In-patients with advanced cancer in two specialist palliative care units who fitted either or both of the following criteria were approached: Nausea that was at least moderate; Vomiting daily on average for the prior 3 days.Results57 patients were randomised to have either active or placebo acupressure wristbands. There was no difference in any of the outcome measures between the two groups: change from baseline number of vomits; Visual Analogue Scale for ‘did acupressure wristbands help you to feel better?’; total number of as needed doses of antiemetic medication; need for escalation of antiemetics.ConclusionsIn contrast to a previously published feasibility study, active acupressure wristbands were no better than placebo for specialist palliative care in-patients with advanced cancer and nausea and vomiting.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (9) ◽  
pp. 814-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mogens Groenvold ◽  
Morten Aagaard Petersen ◽  
Anette Damkier ◽  
Mette Asbjoern Neergaard ◽  
Jan Bjoern Nielsen ◽  
...  

Background: Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal. Aim: To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments. Setting/participants: The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient’s primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0–100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival. Results: Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (−4.9 points (95% confidence interval −11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect. Conclusion: We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. e1003422
Author(s):  
Ida J. Korfage ◽  
Giulia Carreras ◽  
Caroline M. Arnfeldt Christensen ◽  
Pascalle Billekens ◽  
Louise Bramley ◽  
...  

Background Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. Methods and findings To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015–2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0–3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients’ age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients’ quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score −1.8 versus −0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. Conclusions Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. Trial registration ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jayita Deodhar ◽  
Naveen Salins ◽  
Mary Ann Muckaden

Objectives: Spirituality is a significant dimension of quality palliative care service provision. The purpose of our audit was to assess current practice and improve documentation of spiritual concerns of adult advanced cancer patients in a specialist palliative care (SPC) service in a tertiary care cancer centre. Materials and Methods: In a standard-based audit, we measured the percentage of patient assessment forms with documentation of assessed spiritual concerns at a baseline and reaudit after practice change measures. We set the optimum standard that at least 60% of the case forms would have patients’ spiritual concerns recorded. We implemented the following measures – (1) engaging our palliative care staff in team discussions on existing practice and identifying problems and (2) conducting a structured 2 h training module for assessment and documentation of patients’ spiritual concerns. Results: About 70.8% and 93.4% of the patient assessment forms included had documentation of assessed spiritual concerns which is higher than the standard we set at 60% and 90% at baseline and after implementing practice change, respectively. In the reaudit, we found that documentation specific to spirituality and overall psychological assessment improved. We identified that a persisting problem was the lack of recording of spiritual assessment in the patients’ follow-up notes. Conclusion: We achieved the benchmark of a standard-based audit on documentation of assessed spiritual concerns of advanced cancer patients in our SPC service. Regular audits in clinical service delivery and documentation should be integrated into quality improvement measures in palliative care.


BMC Medicine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick D. Hoek ◽  
Henk J. Schers ◽  
Ewald M. Bronkhorst ◽  
Kris C. P. Vissers ◽  
Jeroen G. J. Hasselaar

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921632095433
Author(s):  
Lisa Graham-Wisener ◽  
Martin Dempster ◽  
Aaroon Sadler ◽  
Luke McCann ◽  
Noleen K McCorry

Background: Ongoing assessment of psychological reaction to illness in palliative and end of life care settings is recommended, yet validated tools are not routinely used in clinical practice. The Distress Thermometer is a short screening tool developed for use in oncology, to detect individuals who would benefit from further psychological assessment. However the optimal cut-off to detect indicative psychological morbidity in patients with advanced cancer receiving specialist palliative care is unclear. Aim: To provide the first validation of the Distress Thermometer in an advanced cancer population receiving specialist palliative care in a UK hospice setting. Design: Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis was used to compare the sensitivity and specificity of cut-offs indicative of psychological morbidity on the Distress Thermometer in comparison to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Setting/Participants: Data were derived from 202 patients with advanced cancer who were approached on admission to inpatient or day hospice care, with 139 patients providing complete data on both measures. Results: The area under the curve was optimal using a Distress Thermometer cut-off score of ⩾6 for total distress and for anxiety, and a cut-off score of ⩾4 optimal when screening for depression. Conclusions: The Distress Thermometer is a valid, accurate screening tool to be used in advanced cancer but with caution in relation to the lack of specificity. With little variation between the area under the curve scores, arguably a Distress Thermometer cut-off score of ⩾5 is most appropriate in screening for all types of psychological morbidity if sensitivity is to be prioritised.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document