Impact of admission to hospice on pain intensity and type of pain therapies administered

Pain management in German hospices: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pain management is a necessary component of palliative care as most patients suffer from pain during the final phase of life. Due to the complex causation of pain in the last phase of life, it is important to utilize methods other than pharmacotherapeutic options in order to achieve adequate pain control. As little is known about treatment of pain in German hospices, a nationwide survey was conducted.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All German hospices (259) were contacted by post in June 2020 and asked to participate in an anonymous cross-sectional survey.

RESULTS

A total of 148 (57%) German hospices took part in the survey. A broad variety of medication is used in the hospice setting. Metamizole is the most commonly used non-opiod analgesic , hydromorphone the most commonly used opioid, and pregabalin is the most commonly prescribed co-analgesic drug. The pain medication is usually prescribed as an oral slow-release substance. Standardized treatment schemes are rare among the responding hospices. Most of the respondents also use complementary treatment options, such as aroma (oil) therapy or music therapy, in the treatment of pain. Palliative sedation is used by nearly all responding hospices if all other treatment options fail.

CONCLUSION

This survey provides an overview of the treatment options for pain management in German hospices. A broad variety of pain medication is used. Compared to international literature, it is debatable whether such a large variety of different types of pain medication is necessary, or whether a reduction in the type of medication available and the use of standardized treatment schemes could benefit everyone involved.

Cancer Pain Management in Patients Receiving Inpatient Specialized Palliative Care Services

CONTEXT

Cancer pain is a common complication that is frequently undertreated in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES

This study is aimed at assessing the time needed to achieve cancer pain management goals through specialized palliative care (SPC).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study of inpatients with cancer pain who received SPC. Patients were continuously followed up until they considered cancer pain management successful, and we estimated this duration using the Kaplan-Meier method. We investigated the effectiveness of pain management using multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and quantitative measures, including pain intensity change in the Brief Pain Inventory. A paired-sample t-test was used to compare the pain intensity at the beginning and end of the observation period.

RESULTS

Cancer pain management based on the PROs was achieved in 87.9% (385/438) of all cases. In 94.5% (364/385) of these cases, cancer pain management was achieved within 1 week, and the median time to pain management was 3 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 2-3). The mean worst pain intensity in the last 24 h at the start and end of observation were 6.9 ± 2.2 and 4.0 ± 2.3, respectively, with a difference of -2.9 (95% CI, -3.2 to -2.6; p < 0.01). Overall, 81.6% of the patients reported satisfaction with cancer pain management, and 62 adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

SPC achieved cancer pain management over a short period with a high level of patient satisfaction resulting in significant pain reduction and few documented adverse events.

[Pain management in German specialized outpatient palliative care : A cross-sectional study to present the current pain management of palliative patients in the home environment]

BACKGROUND

With the help of specialized outpatient palliative care teams (German abbreviation: SAPV), seriously ill and dying patients in Germany can be adequately cared for in their home environment until the end of their lives; however, there are no uniform standards or guidelines for well-executed pain management right now.

OBJECTIVE

This approach serves as basic research in the field of public health research. This is intended to present which methods (use of different professional groups, use of pain medications, alternative medical treatment etc.) the individual SAPV teams use for pain management. From this it can be deduced which procedures can be considered particularly effective.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in May 2021. All German SAPV teams (n = 307) listed on the homepage of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) were contacted by post and invited to participate. A total of 175 teams (57%) responded to the request and were included in the evaluation. A descriptive data analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Pain management in the German outpatient care of palliative patients is based on several components. All common pain medications are used, but primarily metamizole (99.4%) as a non-opioid analgesic, morphine (98.3%) from the opiate series and pregabalin (96.6%) as a co-analgesic are mainly prescribed. If pain therapy fails, 22.5% of the SAPV teams perform palliative sedation for symptom control on a regular basis.

CONCLUSION

This cross-sectional study is the first of its kind to provide a general overview of the treatment options for pain management in German outpatient palliative care. In comparison with international studies, the question arises as to whether uniform therapy schemes and a reduction in the medication available in the individual SAPV teams could lead to an improvement in patient care.

Pattern and characteristics of patients admitted to a hospice connected with an acute palliative care unit in a comprehensive cancer center

Purpose

Information about inpatient hospice activity is limited. No data exist about the pattern and the characteristics of advanced cancer patients admitted to a hospice connected to an acute supportive/palliative care unit (ASPCU).

Methods

Data of hospice admissions were retrieved from the database where all data were prospectively collected. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the use of analgesics and adjuvant were recorded at admission (T0), 1 week (T7), 2 weeks (T14), and the day before death (T-end). The use of palliative sedation and its indication, duration, and drugs end doses used were recorded. The number of hospice deaths, discharges, and hospice staying were recorded.

Results

One hundred seventy-seven patients were admitted in 13 months. There were significant differences in total ESAS at T0 (P = 0.033), total ESAS being significantly lower in patients admitted from the ASPCU than those referred from other settings. The day before death (T-end), only 48 patients could be evaluated. Patients referred by a palliative care setting were more likely to be prescribed opioids at T0 (P = 0.0007). At T-end, there was a significant increase in the use of morphine and haloperidol (P < 0.05). Seventeen percent of patients died within 48 h. Only a minority of patients could be properly assessed at T-end (25%). Palliative sedation was performed in 10.1% of patients. The mean hospice staying was 16.3 (SD 21.4) days. There were no differences in mean hospice staying between patients who died in hospice or those discharged (P = 0.873).

Conclusion

The presence of a hospice in a comprehensive cancer center could offer a further opportunity for continuing care. Specialized palliative care may be offered to patients referred from other hospitals, home palliative care, but above all, transfer to hospice may allow a continuity of care for those patients who were initially admitted to an ASPCU for symptom control, to which anticancer therapies were withdrawn or withhold after multidisciplinary consultation. Similarly, after a proper palliative care consultation in other hospital units, patients may be referred to hospice. This process may avoid transfers to external hospices, which can prevent the continuity of care.

Association between advanced cancer patient-caregiver agreement regarding prognosis and hospice enrollment

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced, incurable cancer who understand their illness is incurable are more likely to prefer hospice care at the end of life compared with patients who believe their illness is curable. To the authors' knowledge, it is unclear whether patient-caregiver agreement regarding perceived prognosis is associated with hospice enrollment.

METHODS

The current study examined the prospective relationship between patient-caregiver agreement concerning perceived prognosis and hospice enrollment in the last 30 days of life. Data were collected during a cluster randomized controlled trial examining a communication intervention for oncologists and patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers. At the time of study entry, patients and caregivers (141 dyads) were categorized as endorsing a "good" prognosis if they: 1) reported a >50% chance of surviving ≥2 years; or if they 2) predicted that the patient's quality of life 3 months into the future would be ≥7 on an 11-point scale.

RESULTS

Approximately one-fifth of dyads agreed on a poor prognosis whereas approximately one-half disagreed regarding prognosis. In approximately one-third of dyads, patients and caregivers both believed the patient's future quality of life would be good (34%) and that the patient would live for ≥2 years (30%). Patients in these dyads were less likely to enroll in hospice compared with patients in dyads who disagreed and those who agreed on a shorter life expectancy and poor future quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Dyadic understanding of patients' projected life expectancy and future quality of life appears to be predictive of care received at the end of life. Improving rates of hospice enrollment may be best achieved with dyadic interventions.

Physician-Assisted Suicide: Why Neutrality by Organized Medicine Is Neither Neutral Nor Appropriate

It has been proposed that medical organizations adopt neutrality with respect to physician-assisted suicide (PAS), given that the practice is legal in some jurisdictions and that membership is divided. We review developments in end-of-life care and the role of medical organizations with respect to the legalization of PAS since the 1990s. We argue that moving from opposition to neutrality is not ethically neutral, but a substantive shift from prohibited to optional. We argue that medical organizations already oppose many practices that are legal in many jurisdictions, and that unanimity among membership has not been required for any other clinical or ethical policy positions. Moreover, on an issue so central to the meaning of medical professionalism, it seems important for organized medicine to take a stand. We subsequently review the arguments in favor of PAS (arguments from autonomy and mercy, and against the distinction between killing and allowing to die (K/ATD)) and the arguments against legalization (the limits of autonomy, effects on the patient-physician relationship, the meaning of healing, the validity of the K/ATD distinction, the social nature of suicide, the availability of alternatives, the propensity for incremental extension, and the meaning of control). We conclude that organized medicine should continue its opposition to PAS.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2016

This paper is the thirty-ninth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2016 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.