Initial assessment of patients without cognitive failure admitted to palliative care: a validation study

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 248-252
Author(s):  
José António Ferraz Gonçalves ◽  
Clara Castro ◽  
Paula Silva ◽  
Rui Carneiro ◽  
Catarina Simões ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-944 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roisin O'Sullivan ◽  
David Meagher ◽  
Maeve Leonard ◽  
Leiv Otto Watne ◽  
Roanna J Hall ◽  
...  

AbstractObjective:Assessment of delirium is performed with a variety of instruments, making comparisons between studies difficult. A conversion rule between commonly used instruments would aid such comparisons. The present study aimed to compare the revised Delirium Rating Scale (DRS–R98) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) in a palliative care population and derive conversion rules between the two scales.Method:Both instruments were employed to assess 77 consecutive patients with DSM–IV delirium, and the measures were repeated at three-day intervals. Conversion rules were derived from the data at initial assessment and tested on subsequent data.Results:There was substantial overall agreement between the two scales [concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.70 (CI95 = 0.60–0.78)] and between most common items (weighted κ ranging from 0.63 to 0.86). Although the two scales overlap considerably, there were some subtle differences with only modest agreement between the attention (weighted κ = 0.42) and thought process (weighted κ = 0.61) items. The conversion rule from total MDAS score to DRS–R98 severity scores demonstrated an almost perfect level of agreement (r = 0.86, CCC = 0.86; CI95 = 0.79–0.91), similar to the conversion rule from DRS–R98 to MDAS.Significance of results:Overall, the derived conversion rules demonstrated promising accuracy in this palliative care population, but further testing in other populations is certainly needed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 157-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle M Noreika ◽  
Brian Cassel ◽  
Felicia Noland ◽  
Egidio Del Fabbro

157 Background: Stem cell/bone marrow transplantation (SC/BMT) is intensive therapy that creates the potential for a number of physical and emotional symptoms. Despite the symptom burden and support needs of these patients there are no publications describing palliative care involvement in the course of treatment. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on 37 patients followed over a 6-month period by a palliative care service embedded within the SC/BMT clinic. Results: 37 patients were referred by SC/BMT clinic physicians or nurses to a palliative care team embedded within the clinic (including a physician, physical therapist, and psychologist). Almost all patients were referred for symptom management rather than goals of care; only three (9%) died during the review period and for none of them was the reason for consultation goals of care/hospice referral. Patients were seen between once and eight times during the six month period by various members of the team. Most (77%) were allogenic transplant patients and most were seen within 6 months of their transplantation. The most common reasons for referral were fatigue (57%), anorexia (27%), pain (38%) and depression and/or anxiety (35%). At initial assessment the highest-rated symptoms were lack of appetite (mean 4.78, SD 3.08), fatigue (4.51 [2.59]), and diminished feeling of well-being (4.16, [2.51]). At initial assessment, 73% of patients had 3 or more different symptoms that they rated at 4+; this dropped to 39.1% at follow-up (n = 23). Of the 9 symptoms assessed at both initial and follow-up visits, 7 decreased significantly (all but fatigue and dyspnea) and none increased. For example appetite improved from 5.52 (2.98) to 3.13 (2.96); pain improved from 3.52 (2.92) to 1.78 (1.88) (n = 23, p < .01). SC/BMT providers requested an expansion of the service after three months of experience. Conclusions: Patients who have undergone SC/BMT experience many physical and emotional symptoms. Palliative care embedded within the bone marrow transplant clinic can provide benefit by lessening the symptomatic burden of patients.


Salud Mental ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Rodríguez-Mayoral ◽  
◽  
Francisco Reyes-Madrigal ◽  
Silvia Allende-Pérez ◽  
Emma Verástegui ◽  
...  

Introduction. Delirium is a neurocognitive disorder, frequently present in advanced cancer patients. It morbidity, mortality, health expenditure, and causes distress to patients, family members, and health care professionals. Despite its impact, the disorder is still underdiagnosed, and consequently, mistreated. Objective. To describe the prevalence, clinical features, impact on the survival and percentage of missed diagnosis of delirium, in palliative care inpatients treated in a tertiary center. Method. We conducted a prospective study, including all the inpatients referred to the Palliative Care Service of the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Mexico, from August, 2014 to March, 2015. As a first step, we collected clinical and sociodemographic data, and determined the presence/absence of delirium, using the Confusion Assessment Method. Then, we reviewed the clinical file to determine if a previous delirium diagnosis was stablished by the primary referring team. Finally, thirty days after the initial assessment, we contacted the patients in order to know their survival status (alive/death). We performed a survival analysis to compare mortality among patients with delirium/non-delirium, and reported the percentage of delirium missed diagnosis. Results. We included 174 patients, 40.2% were diagnosed with delirium. Mean survival time in patients with delirium was 11 days, while in non-delirium patient’s mean survival time was 21 days; Log Rank 23.50, p < .001. We found a 73% of missed delirium diagnosis by the primary referring team. Discussion and conclusion. Prevalence of delirium in this population is similar to that observed in other palliative care populations. Also, delirium is the principal determinant of short-term mortality, and it is frequently underdiagnosed. Preventive strategies and early identification could help to reduce its burden.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 217-217
Author(s):  
Kathleen Dunn ◽  
Morgan Hannaford ◽  
Scott Hartman ◽  
Diane Denny, DBA ◽  
Timothy Holder MD

217 Background: A national network of five hospitals piloted the use of a patient reported outcomes tool as a means for referring patients to the palliative care program. An externally validated assessment tool that captures patients’ perceived symptom burden from baseline and every 21 days was used as means of identifying patients who might benefit from referral if they met the following criteria: six or > symptoms from 27 increasing in severity by two points or > since their last assessment and determined as having any stage cancer with metastatic disease, stage 3 not in remission, or stage 4 and not already enrolled in palliative care. The data generated from the pre and post referral assessments to the palliative care program was then used to measure the impact of the program on symptom burden for this group versus those patients referred to palliative care but electing not to engage. Methods: The patient population, identified as patients who took the assessment during a selected three-month period, was reviewed to identify two groups: those who were referred through the SIT process and subsequently joined the palliative care program, and those who were referred to palliative care but chose not to attend the appointment. Results were then reviewed for both groups for a six-month period, comparing the scores from the patients’ initial assessment and their subsequent assessment. The data from both groups was compared to identify changes in scores by symptom and overall average symptom scores and the cohorts reviewed for similarities and differences (age, gender, cancer type). Results: Out of the 27 symptoms the cohort electing to utilize palliative care had higher pre-referral scores than the comparison group; and their symptoms improved at a rate greater than those not seeking palliative care. The symptoms in which the greatest impact was experienced included: activity, appetite, drowsiness, sense of family, hope, mood, and sexual interest. Conclusions: Interventions from the Palliative Care program had a positive impact on symptom burden in comparison to the group that was referred for services but did not enter the program.


1993 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin Fainsinger ◽  
Teresa Schoeller ◽  
Mark Boiskin ◽  
Eduardo Bruera

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249297
Author(s):  
P. C. Stone ◽  
A. Kalpakidou ◽  
C. Todd ◽  
J. Griffiths ◽  
V. Keeley ◽  
...  

Background Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) models predict survival probabilities in advanced cancer. PiPS-A (clinical observations only) and PiPS-B (additionally requiring blood results) consist of 14- and 56-day models (PiPS-A14; PiPS-A56; PiPS-B14; PiPS-B56) to create survival risk categories: days, weeks, months. The primary aim was to compare PIPS-B risk categories against agreed multi-professional estimates of survival (AMPES) and to validate PiPS-A and PiPS-B. Secondary aims were to assess acceptability of PiPS to patients, caregivers and health professionals (HPs). Methods and findings A national, multi-centre, prospective, observational, cohort study with nested qualitative sub-study using interviews with patients, caregivers and HPs. Validation study participants were adults with incurable cancer; with or without capacity; recently referred to community, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales. Sub-study participants were patients, caregivers and HPs. 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as AMPES [PiPS-B accuracy (910/1484; 61%); AMPES (914/1484; 61%); p = 0.851]. PiPS-B14 discrimination (C-statistic 0.837) and PiPS-B56 (0.810) were excellent. PiPS-B14 predictions were too high in the 57–74% risk group (Calibration-in-the-large [CiL] -0.202; Calibration slope [CS] 0.840). PiPS-B56 was well-calibrated (CiL 0.152; CS 0.914). PiPS-A risk categories were less accurate than AMPES (p<0.001). PiPS-A14 (C-statistic 0.825; CiL -0.037; CS 0.981) and PiPS-A56 (C-statistic 0.776; CiL 0.109; CS 0.946) had excellent or reasonably good discrimination and calibration. Interviewed patients (n = 29) and caregivers (n = 20) wanted prognostic information and considered that PiPS may aid communication. HPs (n = 32) found PiPS user-friendly and considered risk categories potentially helpful for decision-making. The need for a blood test for PiPS-B was considered a limitation. Conclusions PiPS-B risk categories are as accurate as AMPES made by experienced doctors and nurses. PiPS-A categories are less accurate. Patients, carers and HPs regard PiPS as potentially helpful in clinical practice. Study registration ISRCTN13688211.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document