Moving beyond "Better Late than Never": High Symptom Burden and Diminished Functional Status at First Palliative Care Visit for Patients with Gynecological Cancers

Background: Despite physical and emotional distress in patients with gynecologic malignancies, palliative care (PC) is underutilized. Objectives: We characterize referral practices, symptom burden and functional status at the time of initial PC encounter for patients with gynecologic cancer. Design: Data were extracted from the standardized Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care (QDACT-PC). We describe symptom burden and performance status. Results: At initial specialty PC encounter, patients with gynecologic cancers reported a mean of 3.3 moderate/severe symptoms. Outpatients experienced the most moderate/severe symptoms (mean 3.9) versus inpatient (mean 2.1) or home (mean 1.5). A total of 72.7% of patients had significantly impaired functional status (palliative performance scale [PPS] <70) at initial encounter. Inpatients had a more impaired functional status (mean PPS 48.8) than outpatients (mean PPS 67.0). Conclusions: The symptom burden for gynecologic cancer patients at initial PC encounter is high. Despite better functional status, patients referred in the outpatient setting had the highest symptom burden.

Interventions for interpersonal communication about end of life care between health practitioners and affected people

BACKGROUND

Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life,  we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials.  Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication.  Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations.  Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions  (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life.  Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.

Triggers for Palliative Care Referral in Pediatric Oncology

Simple Summary

Palliative care (PC) can improve the quality of life for pediatric cancer patients, yet these services remain underutilized, with referrals occurring late in the disease course or not at all. We previously described the patient and family characteristics that diverse pediatric oncology providers agree should be high yield triggers for PC referral in pediatric cancer patients. The current study examined how often those triggers were associated with a completed PC consult for a cohort of 931 patients. We discovered that PC referrals occur very infrequently and patients with stated triggers often do not get referred. These findings help support the need for a screening tool to standardize PC integration and improve care.

Abstract

Palliative care (PC) integration into the care of pediatric oncology patients is growing in acceptance and has been shown to improve the quality of life of children with cancer. Yet timing for referrals and referral practices remain inconsistent, and PC remains underutilized. We conducted a retrospective chart review of pediatric oncology patients treated at an academic institution between January 2015 to November 2018. Data collected included demographics, disease and therapy characteristics, and consultation notes, specifically documenting existence of predetermined “high yield triggers” for PC consultation. Among 931 eligible patients the prevalence of PC consultation was 5.6% while approximately 94% of patients had at least 1 trigger for PC consultation. The triggers that more often resulted in PC consultation included: symptom management needs (98%; n = 51) high-risk disease (86%; n = 45), poor prognosis (83%; n = 43), multiple lines of therapy (79%; n = 41) and a documented ICU admission (67%; n = 35). Our findings suggest that the high yield triggers for palliative care consultation that pediatric oncologists identify as important are not translating into practice; incorporating these triggers into a screening tool may be the next step to improve early PC integration.

Integrating Palliative Care for Patients on Clinical Trials: Opportunities for Oncology Nurses

The purpose of this article is to describe the lessons learned in the course of a 5-year research study on a palliative care intervention for persons on a Phase 1 clinical trial. Patients who are participating in Phase 1 trials and the families who care for them may be especially vulnerable and require special attention. The patients are generally experiencing the effects of advanced disease, and they also may soon experience unknown side effects, intense treatment regimens, and the emotional stress of an uncertain future as a result of clinical trial participation. Oncology nurses in all roles including clinical trials/research nurses, clinicians, educators, and advanced practice registered nurses play a critical role in addressing the quality-of-life concerns in this population. Palliative care can provide better symptom control and information on treatment options and facilitate a better understanding of patient/family goals. Attending to these factors can ultimately mean improved survival for the advanced cancer patient, and support for these patients can assist in advancing the field of oncology as these investigational therapies hold the promise for enhancing survival.

Utilization of palliative care consultations in pediatric oncology phase I clinical trials

Pediatric phase I clinical oncology trials represent a unique cohort of patients who have not responded to standard therapies and remain highly vulnerable to treatment toxicity and/or disease burden. Incorporating a palliative care consultation into the care plan for those with relapsed/refractory cancer where chance of cure is limited is generally recommended. A retrospective chart review of pediatric phase I trials revealed that palliative care was consulted in <20% of patients, most often for symptom management. Efforts to increase the use of palliative services in this population may enhance quality of life for children and families enrolled in phase I studies.