Emergency department-initiated palliative care for advanced cancer patients: protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial

Barriers to recruitment into emergency department-initiated palliative care: a sub-study of a multi-site, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) visits among older adults are common near the end of life. Palliative care has been shown to reduce ED visits and to increase quality of life among patients, but recruitment into these programs is often challenging. This descriptive analysis explores the barriers to enrolling seriously ill patients scheduled for discharge from the ED into palliative care research.

METHODS

This descriptive sub-study aims to assess the reasons why patients with advanced illness scheduled for discharge home from 11 EDs across the United States decline to participate in Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA), a Phase IV randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two modes of palliative care delivery. Our aim was to understand why patients decline to enroll to improve future recruitment rates and expand care for patients discharged home from the ED. Research coordinators documented reasons that patients declined to enroll in the larger EMPallA trial; reasons for refusing participation were independently analyzed by two researchers to identify overarching themes.

RESULTS

Enrollment rate across all sites was 45%; of the 504 eligible patients who declined participation, 47% (n = 237) declined for reasons related to illness severity. 28% of refusals (n = 143) were related to the mode of palliative care delivery, while 24% (n = 123) were due to misconceptions or stigma related to palliative care. Less commonly, patients refused due to general research barriers (16.5%), family/caregiver barriers (11.7%), and physician-related barriers (< 1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with advanced illnesses presenting to the ED often refuse to participate in palliative care research due to the severity of their illness, the mode of care delivery, and misconceptions about palliative care. In contrast with other studies, our study found minimal physician gatekeeping, which may be the result of both changing attitudes toward palliative care and the nature of the ED setting. Robust training programs are crucial to overcome these misconceptions and to educate patients and providers about the role of palliative care. Future palliative care programs and study designs should recognize the burden this vulnerable population endures and consider alternative modes of care delivery in an effort to increase participation and enrollment.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT03325985 , October 30, 2017.

Hospital-based specialist palliative care compared with usual care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers: a systematic review

Background

Most deaths still take place in hospital; cost-effective commissioning of end-of-life resources is a priority. This review provides clarity on the effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Objectives

The objectives were to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Population

Adult patients with advanced illnesses and their unpaid caregivers.

Intervention

Hospital-based specialist palliative care.

Comparators

Inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry to the study, or community care or hospice care provided outside the hospital setting (usual care).

Primary outcomes

Patient health-related quality of life and symptom burden.

Data sources

Six databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and CareSearch), clinical trial registers, reference lists and systematic reviews were searched to August 2019.

Review methods

Two independent reviewers screened, data extracted and assessed methodological quality. Meta-analysis was carried out using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark), with separate synthesis of qualitative data.

Results

Forty-two randomised controlled trials involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 unpaid caregivers) were included. Diagnoses of participants were as follows: cancer, 21 studies; non-cancer, 14 studies; and mixed cancer and non-cancer, seven studies. Hospital-based specialist palliative care was offered in the following models: ward based (one study), inpatient consult (10 studies), outpatient (six studies), hospital at home or hospital outreach (five studies) and multiple settings that included hospital (20 studies). Meta-analyses demonstrated significant improvement favouring hospital-based specialist palliative care over usual care in patient health-related quality of life (10 studies, standardised mean difference 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.37; I 2 = 3%) and patient satisfaction with care (two studies, standardised mean difference 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57; I 2 = 0%), a significant reduction in patient symptom burden (six studies, standardised mean difference –0.26, 95% confidence interval –0.41 to –0.12; I 2 = 0%) and patient depression (eight studies, standardised mean difference –0.22, 95% confidence interval –0.34 to –0.10; I 2 = 0%), and a significant increase in the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by number of patients with home death) (seven studies, odds ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 2.16; I 2 = 0%). There were non-significant improvements in pain (four studies, standardised mean difference –0.16, 95% confidence interval –0.33 to 0.01; I 2 = 0%) and patient anxiety (five studies, mean difference –0.63, 95% confidence interval –2.22 to 0.96; I 2 = 76%). Hospital-based specialist palliative care showed no evidence of causing serious harm. The evidence on mortality/survival and cost-effectiveness was inconclusive. Qualitative studies (10 studies, 322 participants) suggested that hospital-based specialist palliative care was beneficial as it ensured personalised and holistic care for patients and their families, while also fostering open communication, shared decision-making and respectful and compassionate care.

Limitation

In almost half of the included randomised controlled trials, there was palliative care involvement in the control group.

Conclusions

Hospital-based specialist palliative care may offer benefits for person-centred outcomes including health-related quality of life, symptom burden, patient depression and satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death) with little evidence of harm.

Future work

More studies are needed of populations with non-malignant diseases, different models of hospital-based specialist palliative care, and cost-effectiveness.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017083205.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers

BACKGROUND

Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I² = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I² = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I² = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I² = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Analysis of Diagnoses, Symptoms, Medications, and Admissions Among Patients With Cancer Presenting to Emergency Departments

IMPORTANCE

Better understanding of the emergency care needs of patients with cancer will inform outpatient and emergency department (ED) management.

OBJECTIVE

To provide a benchmark description of patients who present to the ED with active cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This multicenter prospective cohort study included 18 EDs affiliated with the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergencies Research Network (CONCERN). Of 1564 eligible patients, 1075 adults with active cancer were included from February 1, 2016, through January 30, 2017. Data were analyzed from February 1 through August 1, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The proportion of patients reporting symptoms (eg, pain, nausea) before and during the ED visit, ED and outpatient medications, most common diagnoses, and suspected infection as indicated by ED antibiotic administration. The proportions observed, admitted, and with a hospital length of stay (LOS) of no more than 2 days were identified.

RESULTS

Of 1075 participants, mean (SD) age was 62 (14) years, and 51.8% were female. Seven hundred ninety-four participants (73.9%; 95% CI, 71.1%-76.5%) had undergone cancer treatment in the preceding 30 days; 674 (62.7%; 95% CI, 59.7%-65.6%) had advanced or metastatic cancer; and 505 (47.0%; 95% CI, 43.9%-50.0%) were 65 years or older. The 5 most common ED diagnoses were symptom related. Of all participants, 82 (7.6%; 95% CI, 6.1%-9.4%) were placed in observation and 615 (57.2%; 95% CI, 54.2%-60.2%) were admitted; 154 of 615 admissions (25.0%; 95% CI, 21.7%-28.7%) had an LOS of 2 days or less (median, 3 days; interquartile range, 2-6 days). Pain during the ED visit was present in 668 patients (62.1%; 95% CI, 59.2%-65.0%; mean [SD] pain score, 6.4 [2.6] of 10.0) and in 776 (72.2%) during the prior week. Opioids were administered in the ED to 228 of 386 patients (59.1%; 95% CI, 18.8%-23.8%) with moderate to severe ED pain. Outpatient opioids were prescribed to 368 patients (47.4%; 95% CI, 3.14%-37.2%) of those with pre-ED pain, including 244 of 428 (57.0%; 95% CI, 52.2%-61.8%) who reported quite a bit or very much pain. Nausea in the ED was present in 336 (31.3%; 95% CI, 28.5%-34.1%); of these, 160 (47.6%; 95% CI, 12.8%-17.1%) received antiemetics in the ED. Antibiotics were administered in the ED to 285 patients (26.5%; 95% CI, 23.9%-29.2%). Of these, 209 patients (73.3%; 95% CI, 17.1%-21.9%) were admitted compared with 427 of 790 (54.1%; 95% CI, 50.5%-57.6%) not receiving antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This initial prospective, multicenter study profiling patients with cancer who were treated in the ED identifies common characteristics in this patient population and suggests opportunities to optimize care before, during, and after the ED visit. Improvement requires collaboration between specialists and emergency physicians optimizing ED use, improving symptom control, avoiding unnecessary hospitalizations, and appropriately stratifying risk to ensure safe ED treatment and disposition of patients with cancer.

Early palliative care for adults with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Incurable cancer, which often constitutes an enormous challenge for patients, their families, and medical professionals, profoundly affects the patient's physical and psychosocial well-being. In standard cancer care, palliative measures generally are initiated when it is evident that disease-modifying treatments have been unsuccessful, no treatments can be offered, or death is anticipated. In contrast, early palliative care is initiated much earlier in the disease trajectory and closer to the diagnosis of incurable cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of early palliative care interventions versus treatment as usual/standard cancer care on health-related quality of life, depression, symptom intensity, and survival among adults with a diagnosis of advanced cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, OpenGrey (a database for grey literature), and three clinical trial registers to October 2016. We checked reference lists, searched citations, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs) on professional palliative care services that provided or co-ordinated comprehensive care for adults at early advanced stages of cancer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias, extracted data, and collected information on adverse events. For quantitative synthesis, we combined respective results on our primary outcomes of health-related quality of life, survival (death hazard ratio), depression, and symptom intensity across studies in meta-analyses using an inverse variance random-effects model. We expressed pooled effects as standardised mean differences (SMDs, or Hedges' adjusted g). We assessed certainty of evidence at the outcome level using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) and created a 'Summary of findings' table.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials that together recruited 1614 participants. Four studies evaluated interventions delivered by specialised palliative care teams, and the remaining studies assessed models of co-ordinated care. Overall, risk of bias at the study level was mostly low, apart from possible selection bias in three studies and attrition bias in one study, along with insufficient information on blinding of participants and outcome assessment in six studies.Compared with usual/standard cancer care alone, early palliative care significantly improved health-related quality of life at a small effect size (SMD 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.38; participants analysed at post treatment = 1028; evidence of low certainty). As re-expressed in natural units (absolute change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) score), health-related quality of life scores increased on average by 4.59 (95% CI 2.55 to 6.46) points more among participants given early palliative care than among control participants. Data on survival, available from four studies enrolling a total of 800 participants, did not indicate differences in efficacy (death hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28; evidence of very low certainty). Levels of depressive symptoms among those receiving early palliative care did not differ significantly from levels among those receiving usual/standard cancer care (five studies; SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.03; participants analysed at post treatment = 762; evidence of very low certainty). Results from seven studies that analysed 1054 participants post treatment suggest a small effect for significantly lower symptom intensity in early palliative care compared with the control condition (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.10; evidence of low certainty). The type of model used to provide early palliative care did not affect study results. One RCT reported potential adverse events of early palliative care, such as a higher percentage of participants with severe scores for pain and poor appetite; the remaining six studies did not report adverse events in study publications. For these six studies, principal investigators stated upon request that they had not observed any adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of a small number of trials indicates that early palliative care interventions may have more beneficial effects on quality of life and symptom intensity among patients with advanced cancer than among those given usual/standard cancer care alone. Although we found only small effect sizes, these may be clinically relevant at an advanced disease stage with limited prognosis, at which time further decline in quality of life is very common. At this point, effects on mortality and depression are uncertain. We have to interpret current results with caution owing to very low to low certainty of current evidence and between-study differences regarding participant populations, interventions, and methods. Additional research now under way will present a clearer picture of the effect and specific indication of early palliative care. Upcoming results from several ongoing studies (N = 20) and studies awaiting assessment (N = 10) may increase the certainty of study results and may lead to improved decision making. In perspective, early palliative care is a newly emerging field, and well-conducted studies are needed to explicitly describe the components of early palliative care and control treatments, after blinding of participants and outcome assessors, and to report on possible adverse events.

Experiences of emergency department nurses in providing palliative care to adults with advanced cancer: a systematic review protocol

REVIEW QUESTIONS/OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to explore the experiences and perceptions of emergency department nurses in providing palliative care to adults with advanced cancer so as to contribute to the developing knowledge base on this phenomenon and, in turn, inform future practice and policy changes. Specifically, the review question for this qualitative review is as follows: what are the experiences and perceptions of emergency department nurses in providing palliative care to adults with advanced cancer?

Emergency Department-Initiated Palliative Care in Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The delivery of palliative care is not standard of care within most emergency departments (EDs).

OBJECTIVE

To compare quality of life, depression, health care utilization, and survival in ED patients with advanced cancer randomized to ED-initiated palliative care consultation vs care as usual.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-blind, randomized clinical trial of ED-initiated palliative care consultation for patients with advanced cancer vs usual care took place from June 2011 to April 2014 at an urban, academic ED at a quaternary care referral center. Adult patients with advanced cancer who were able to pass a cognitive screen, had never been seen by palliative care, spoke English or Spanish, and presented to the ED met eligibility criteria; 136 of 298 eligible patients were approached and enrolled in the ED and randomized via balanced block randomization.

INTERVENTIONS

Intervention participants received a comprehensive palliative care consultation by the inpatient team, including an assessment of symptoms, spiritual and/or social needs, and goals of care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was quality of life as measured by the change in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Measure (FACT-G) score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included major depressive disorder as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, health care utilization at 180 days, and survival at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 136 participants were enrolled, and 69 allocated to palliative care (mean [SD], 55.1 [13.1] years) and 67 were randomized to usual care (mean [SD], 57.8 [14.7] years). Quality of life, as measured by a change in FACT-G score from enrollment to 12 weeks, was significantly higher in patients randomized to the intervention group, who demonstrated a mean (SD) increase of 5.91 (16.65) points compared with 1.08 (16.00) in controls (P = .03 using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test). Median estimates of survival were longer in the intervention group than the control group: 289 (95% CI, 128-453) days vs 132 (95% CI, 80-302) days, although this did not reach statistical significance (P = .20). There were no statistically significant differences in depression, admission to the intensive care unit, and discharge to hospice.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Emergency department-initiated palliative care consultation in advanced cancer improves quality of life in patients with advanced cancer and does not seem to shorten survival; the impact on health care utilization and depression is less clear and warrants further study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01358110.

The Integration of Palliative Care into the Emergency Department

Palliative care (PC) is a new and developing area. It aims to provide the best possible quality of life for patients with life-limiting diseases. It does not primarily include life-extending therapies, but rather tries to help patients spend the rest of their lives in the best way. PC patients often are admitted to emergency departments during the course of a disease. The approach and management of PC include differences with emergency medicine. Thus, there are some problems while providing PC in the ED. With this article, the definition, main features, benefits, and problems of providing PC are presented, with the primary aim of emphasizing the importance of PC integration into the ED.

Palliative Care Screening and Assessment in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Emergency department (ED) providers and policy makers are increasingly interested in developing palliative care (PC) interventions for ED patients. Many patients in the ED may benefit from PC screening and referral. Multiple ED-based PC screening projects have been undertaken, but there has been no study of these projects or their effects.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review and critical analysis to evaluate the methods, tools, and outcomes of PC screening and referral projects in the ED.

METHODS

Three reviewers independently selected eligible studies from the PubMed database. Eligible studies evaluated a PC screening tool, assessment, or referral modality aimed at identifying patients appropriate for PC. Four reviewers independently evaluated the final articles. Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Each was reviewed for methodological quality and strength. The studies were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study developed an independent screening or evaluation tool for PC needs. Each required additional ED personnel to perform screening and referral, and success was limited by availability of specialized personnel. All the studies were successful in increasing rates of PC referral.

CONCLUSION

We have identified multiple studies demonstrating that screening and referral for PC consultation are feasible in the ED setting. The strengths and limitations of these studies were explored. Further evidence for the development of an effective, evidence-based PC screening, and referral process is needed. We recommend a screening framework based on a synthesis of available evidence.

What's in a name? A qualitative exploration of what is understood by "palliative care" in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

The understanding of what palliative care is, and which patients may benefit from palliative care, has important implications for optimal patient care in all areas of health provision.

AIM

To explore the understanding of palliative care by healthcare professionals caring for patients with advanced cancer attending emergency departments.

DESIGN

Qualitative study, with two phases: the first, a series of focus groups with healthcare professionals from various disciplines and settings caring for patients with advanced cancer presenting to emergency departments; the second, semi-structured telephone interviews with emergency healthcare professionals across Australian States and Territories, including outside metropolitan centers. The data were audio-recorded and transcribed, with analysis undertaken using a qualitative thematic analysis.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Saturation of themes was reached after 8 focus groups (22 emergency nurses, 21 emergency physicians, 6 oncologists, 6 hospital palliative care clinicians, and 28 community palliative care clinicians) and 11 telephone interviews (8 emergency physicians and 3 emergency nurses), a total of 94 participants.

RESULTS

The overarching theme was that healthcare professionals held contradictory understandings of palliative care and its application in the emergency department; subthemes highlighted these inconsistencies when the term "palliative" is used, in understandings of and engagement with palliative care services and in perceptions about the practical utility of palliative care.

CONCLUSION

There are entrenched contradictions and tensions surrounding the term "palliative care"; confronting these is likely to require more than re-branding, and will promote better care for this vulnerable patient group in the emergency department.

Emergency department-triggered palliative care in advanced cancer: proof of concept

BACKGROUND

The American College of Emergency Physicians and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend early palliative care consultation for patients with advanced, life-limiting illnesses, such as metastatic cancer.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to assess the process of early referral from the emergency department (ED) to palliative care for patients with advanced, incurable cancer as part of a randomized controlled trial and to compare the proportion and timing of consultation to a care as usual group.

METHODS

A single-blind randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01358110) compared early, ED-based referrals to palliative care for patients admitted with advanced, incurable cancer to physician-driven consultation (i.e., care as usual). Participants had to speak English or Spanish and have no history of palliative care consultation. They were randomized via balanced block randomization to the intervention or control group. Each intervention subject was referred by a research staff member to the palliative care team for consultation. The usual care group received palliative care only if requested by the admitting physician. Analysis was based on intention to treat. A chart review was performed to assess proportion and timing of palliative care consults during the index admission, defined as: (1) completed palliative care consult documented in the chart and (2) days from admission to palliative care consult.

RESULTS

A total of 134 participants were enrolled and randomized. For patients in the intervention group, 88% (60 of 68) had documented palliative care consultations during their index admissions (95% confidence interval [CI] = 80.5 to 95.5), compared to 18% (12 of 66) in the control group (95% CI = 8.8 to 27.5; p < 0.01). The 60 intervention patients received palliative care consultations on average 1.48 days from admission (95% CI = 1.19 to 1.76), compared to 2.9 days from admission in the 12 control patients (95% CI = 1.03 to 4.79; p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documented a low baseline rate of palliative care involvement as part of usual care in patients with advanced cancer being admitted from the ED. Early referral to palliative care in the context of a research study significantly increased the likelihood that patients received a consult, thus meriting further investigation of how to generalize this approach.