Presenting Symptoms in the Emergency Department as Predictors of Intensive Care Unit Admissions and Hospital Mortality in a Comprehensive Cancer Center

A Digital Therapeutic Application (ePAL) to Manage Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer often experience immense cancer pain that negatively impacts their quality of life. Interventions to address cancer-related pain are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial of a digital therapeutic app (ePAL) for patients with advanced cancer receiving care in a specialty palliative care clinic at a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomized to ePAL or usual care. ePAL included 1) active pain monitoring; 2) artificial intelligence algorithm to triage patient symptoms; and 3) patient education to address barriers to pain management. Participants were instructed to use ePAL over eight weeks. Patient-reported pain symptoms were assessed at baseline, Week-4, and Week-8 (primary endpoint) using the Brief Pain Inventory. Secondary outcomes include pain-related hospitalizations by Week-8.

RESULTS

We enrolled 112 patients who were randomly assigned to ePAL (N = 56) or usual care (N = 56). Patients utilized ePAL on average 2.1 times per week to report pain symptoms, and 47.6% reported their pain at least once per week over eight weeks. Patients randomized to ePAL reported lower pain scores at Week-4 (mean: 3.16 vs. 4.28, P = 0.010) and week-8 (mean:2.99 vs. 4.05, P = 0.017), compared to those receiving usual care. Participants randomized to ePAL were less likely to experience a pain-related hospitalization compared to those in the usual care group (7.1% vs. 23.2% P = 0.018) CONCLUSIONS: ePAL was associated with lower patient-reported pain and fewer pain-related hospitalizations compared to usual care in patients with advanced cancer. This study demonstrates the promise of digital therapeutics for improving patients' symptoms while reducing burdensome hospitalizations.

Unplanned Hospital Admissions in Patients With Solid Tumors in Brazil: Causes and Progressive Disease's Impact on Outcomes

PURPOSE

Most patients with cancer will be hospitalized throughout the disease course. However, most evidence on the causes and outcomes of these hospitalizations comes from administrative data or small retrospective studies from high-income countries.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort of patients with solid tumors hospitalized from February 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, in a tertiary cancer center in São Paulo, Brazil. We collected data on cancer diagnosis, symptoms at admission, hospitalization diagnosis, and survival clinical outcomes during in-hospital stay (in-hospital mortality) and after discharge (readmission rates and overall survival [OS]). Progressive disease (PD) diagnosis during admission was retrieved from manual chart review if explicitly stated by the attending physician. We modeled in-hospital mortality and postdischarge OS with logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 3,726 unique unplanned admissions were identified. The most common symptoms at admission were pain (40.6%), nausea (16.8%), and dyspnea (16.1%). PD (34.0%), infection (31.1%), and cancer pain (13.4%) were the most frequent reasons for admission. The in-hospital mortality rate was 18.9%. Patients with PD had a high in-hospital mortality rate across all tumor groups and higher odds of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 3.5 [95% CI, 3.0 to 4.2]). The 7-, 30-, and 90-day readmission rates were 11.9%, 33.5%, and 54%, respectively. The postdischarge median OS (mOS) was 12.6 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 13.7). Poorer postdischarge survival was observed among patients with PD (mOS, 5 months v 18 months; P < .001; hazard ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 2.1 to 2.6]).

CONCLUSION

PD is a common diagnosis during unplanned hospitalizations and is associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates and poorer OS after discharge. Oncologists should be aware of the prognostic implications of PD during admission and align goals of care with their patients.

A qualitative analysis of cancer-related patient care in the emergency department

OBJECTIVES

Due to an increasing incidence of new cancer diagnoses in the United States and longer survivorship, a growing number of patients with cancer receive care in emergency departments (EDs). This trend places an increasing burden on already crowded EDs, and experts are concerned these patients do not receive optimal care. The purpose of this study was to describe the experiences of ED physicians and nurses who care for patients with cancer. This information can inform strategies to improve oncology care for patients in ED settings.

METHODS

We used a qualitative descriptive design to summarize to the experiences of ED physicians and nurses (n = 23) caring for patients with cancer. We conducted individual, semistructured interviews to query participants about their perspectives on care for oncology patients in the ED.

RESULTS

Physician and nurse participants identified 11 challenges and suggested three potential strategies to improve care. The challenges included the following: risk of infection, poor communication between ED staff and other providers, poor communication between oncology or primary care providers and patients, poor communication between ED providers and patients, difficult disposition decisions, new cancer diagnoses, complex pain management, allocation of limited resources, lack of cancer-specific skills among providers, poor care coordination, and evolving end-of-life decisions. The solutions included the following: patient education, education for ED providers, and improved care coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians and nurses experience challenges stemming from three overarching types of factors: illness factors, communication factors, and system-level factors. Solutions for the challenges of providing oncology care in the ED call for new strategies at the levels of the patient, provider, institution, and health care system.

Evaluation of the Impact of the Urgent Cancer Care Clinic on Emergency Department Visits, Primary Care Clinician Visits, and Hospitalizations in Winnipeg, Manitoba

The urgent cancer care (UCC) clinic at CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) opened in 2013 to provide care to individuals diagnosed with cancer and serious blood disorders experiencing complications from the underlying disorder or its treatment. This study examined the impact of the UCC clinic on other health care utilization in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. An interrupted time series study design was used to compare the rates of emergency department (ED) visits, primary care clinician (PCC) visits, and hospitalizations from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2015. Rates of ED visits were also stratified by ED location, severity, and cancer type. We found a 6% (95% CI 1.00-1.13, p-value = 0.0389) increase in PCC visits, a 7% (95% CI 0.99-1.15, p-value = 0.0737) increase in hospitalizations, a 4% (95% CI 0.86-1.08, p-value = 0.5053) decrease in the rate of ED visits, and a 3% (95% CI 0.92-1.17, p-value = 0.5778) increase in the rate of ED visits during the UCC clinic hours after the UCC clinic opened. The implementation of the UCC clinic had minimal impact on health care utilization. Future work should examine the impact of the UCC clinic on other aspects of healthcare utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered and time spent waiting in CCMB's main clinics) and patient quality of life and patient and health care provider experience.

Lung cancer in the emergency department

Background

Though decreasing in incidence and mortality in the USA, lung cancer remains the deadliest of all cancers. For a significant number of patients, the emergency department (ED) provides the first pivotal step in lung cancer prevention, diagnosis, and management. As screening recommendations and treatments advance, ED providers must stay up-to-date with the latest lung cancer recommendations. The purpose of this review is to identify the many ways that emergency providers may intersect with the disease spectrum of lung cancer and provide an updated array of knowledge regarding detection, management, complications, and interdisciplinary care.

Findings

Lung cancer, encompassing 10-12% of cancer-related emergency department visits and a 66% admission rate, is the most fatal malignancy in both men and women. Most patients presenting to the ED have not seen a primary care provider or undergone screening. Ultimately, half of those with a new lung cancer diagnosis in the ED die within 1 year. Incidental findings on computed tomography are mostly benign, but emergency staff must be aware of the factors that make them high risk. Radiologic presentations range from asymptomatic nodules to diffuse metastatic lesions with predominately pulmonary symptoms, and some may present with extra-thoracic manifestations including neurologic. The short-term prognosis for ED lung cancer patients is worse than that of other malignancies. Screening offers new hope through earlier diagnosis but is underutilized which may be due to racial and socioeconomic disparities. New treatments provide optimism but lead to new complications, some long-term. Multidisciplinary care is essential, and emergency medicine is responsible for the disposition of patients to the appropriate specialists at inpatient and outpatient centers.

Conclusion

ED providers are intimately involved in all aspects of lung cancer care. Risk factor modification and referral for lung cancer screening are opportunities to further enhance patient care. In addition, with the advent of newer cancer therapies, ED providers must stay vigilant and up-to-date with all aspects of lung cancer including disparities, staging, symptoms of disease, prognosis, treatment, and therapy-related complications.

Optimal care of people with brain cancer in the emergency department: A cross-sectional survey of outpatient perceptions

Objective

People diagnosed with brain cancer commonly present to the emergency department (ED). There is uncertainty about essential components and processes of optimal care from the perspective of consumers, and few guidelines exist to inform practice. This study examined the perceptions of outpatients and their support persons regarding what constitutes optimal care for people with brain cancer presenting to the ED.

Methods

A cross sectional descriptive survey study was undertaken. Participants included adults attending hospital outpatient clinics (n ​= ​181, 60% of eligible participants). Participants completed a survey assessing perceptions of optimal care for brain cancer patients presenting to emergency department and socio-demographic characteristics.

Results

The survey items endorsed as 'essential' by participants included that the emergency department team help patients: 'understand signs and symptoms to watch out for' (51%); 'understand the next steps in care and why' (48%); 'understand if their medical condition suggests it is likely they will die in hospital' (47%); 'ask patients if they have a substitute decision maker and want that person told they are in the emergency department' (44%); 'understand the purpose of tests and procedures' (41%).

Conclusions

Symptom management, effective communication and supported decision-making should be prioritised by ED teams. Further research to establish the views of those affected by brain cancer about essential care delivered in the ED setting, and to compare these views with the quality of care that is actually delivered, is warranted.

Cancer-related emergency and urgent care: expanding the research agenda

Purpose of review

Cancer-related emergency department (ED) visits often result in higher hospital admission rates than non-cancer visits. It has been estimated many of these costly hospital admissions can be prevented, yet urgent care clinics and EDs lack cancer-specific care resources to support the needs of this complex population. Implementing effective approaches across different care settings and populations to minimize ED and urgent care visits improves oncologic complication management, and coordinating follow-up care will be particularly important as the population of cancer patients and survivors continues to increase. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Office of Emergency Care (OECR) convened a workshop in December 2021, “Cancer-related Emergency and Urgent Care: Prevention, Management, and Care Coordination” to highlight progress, knowledge gaps, and research opportunities. This report describes the current landscape of cancer-related urgent and emergency care and includes research recommendations from workshop participants to decrease the risk of oncologic complications, improve their management, and enhance coordination of care.

Recent findings

Since 2014, NCI and OECR have collaborated to support research in cancer-related emergency care. Workshop participants recommended a number of promising research opportunities, as well as key considerations for designing and conducting research in this area. Opportunities included better characterizing unscheduled care services, identifying those at higher risk for such care, developing care delivery models to minimize unplanned events and enhance their care, recognizing cancer prevention and screening opportunities in the ED, improving management of specific cancer-related presentations, and conducting goals of care conversations.

Summary

Significant progress has been made over the past 7 years with the creation of the Comprehensive Oncologic Emergency Research Network, broad involvement of the emergency medicine and oncology communities, establishing a proof-of-concept observational study, and NCI and OECR’s efforts to support this area of research. However, critical gaps remain.

Recognizing the emergency department’s role in oncologic care: a review of the literature on unplanned acute care

Background

The global prevalence of cancer is rapidly increasing and will increase the acute care needs of patients with cancer, including emergency department (ED) care. Patients with cancer present to the ED across the cancer care continuum from diagnosis through treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life. This article describes the characteristics and determinants of ED visits, as well as challenges in the effort to define preventable ED visits in this population.

Findings

The most recent population-based estimates suggest 4% of all ED visits are cancer-related and roughly two thirds of these ED visits result in hospitalization—a 4-fold higher ED hospitalization rate than the general population. Approximately 44% of cancer patients visit the ED within 1 year of diagnosis, and more often have repeat ED visits within a short time frame, though there is substantial variability across cancer types. Similar patterns of cancer-related ED use are observed internationally across a range of different national payment and health system settings. ED use for patients with cancer likely reflects a complex interaction of individual and contextual factors—including provider behavior, health system characteristics, and health policies—that warrants greater attention in the literature.

Conclusions

Given the amount and complexity of cancer care delivered in the emergency setting, future research is recommended to examine specific symptoms associated with cancer-related ED visits, the contextual determinants of ED use, and definitions of preventable ED use specific to patients with cancer.

Psychological Evaluation of Patients With Cancer Presenting to the Emergency Department With Pain: Independent Predictors of Worse Pain Severity, Interference, and Higher Hourly Opioid Administration

PURPOSE

Pain is a common complaint in patients with cancer presenting to the emergency department (ED). This prospective study evaluated whether biopsychosocial factors could help predict cancer patients with risk of higher pain severity, pain interference, and opioid consumption.

METHODS

Patients with cancer presenting to the ED with a complaint of moderate-severe pain (≥ 4/10-numeric rating scale) completed validated self-report measures assessing sociodemographics, cancer-related treatments, pain severity and interference, medication use, and psychological symptoms (depression, anxiety, pain catastrophizing, and sleep disturbance). Opioids administered and subsequent hospitalization were abstracted. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed factors associated with pain-related outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 175) presented with a variety of cancer types, with 76% having metastatic disease and 42% reporting current outpatient opioid use. Higher pain catastrophizing, lower depressive symptoms, lower income, outpatient opioid use, and historical chronic pain were independently associated with worse pain (P ≤ .05). Higher pain catastrophizing, anxiety, sleep disturbance, outpatient opioid use, and education were independently associated with worse pain interference (P ≤ .05). The sole independent predictor of ED opioid administration was outpatient opioid use. Patients taking outpatient opioids were younger, had lower health literacy, worse pain catastrophizing, sleep disturbance, depression/anxiety, and greater rates of metastatic cancer and cancer-related surgery (P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSION

Biopsychosocial factors, particularly pain catastrophizing, remained significantly associated with worse pain outcomes for patients with cancer in the ED even after controlling for demographic and clinical variables. Patient outpatient opioid use was independently associated with worse pain, interference, and greater opioid administration, identifying this as a marker for who may benefit most from adjuvant pharmacologic and behavioral interventions.

Outcomes of Patients Placed in an Emergency Department Observation Unit of a Comprehensive Cancer Center

Emergency department observation units (EDOUs) have been shown to decrease length of stay and improve cost effectiveness. Yet, compared with noncancer patients, patients with cancer are placed in EDOUs less often. In this study, we aimed to describe patients who were placed in a cancer center's EDOU to discern their clinical characteristics and outcomes.

Outcomes of patients placed in an emergency department observation unit of a comprehensive cancer center

A prognostic model for 1-month mortality in the postoperative intensive care unit

PURPOSES

Recognizing which patients admitted postsurgically to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at greater risk of mortality assists medical staff to identify who will benefit most from the care. We developed a prediction model for the 1-month mortality of postsurgical ICU patients.

METHODS

From May, 2019 to May, 2020, we conducted a prospective cohort study in the postsurgical ICU of a teaching hospital affiliated with our University of Medical Sciences. The outcome was death within 1 month of admission and the predictors were a variety of anthropometric and clinical features. The subjects of this analysis were 805 consecutive adult postsurgical patients with a mean (SD) age of 54.8 (18.9) years.

RESULTS

Overall, the resulted logistic model was well-fitted [χ² (26) = 772.097, p < 0.001, Nagelkerke R² = 0.814] accurate (88%), and specific (92%). The adjusted odds ratio for body temperature was 0.51, p < 0.001. Patients with comorbidities and those undergoing multiple operations were at a greater risk of mortality, odds = 10.00 and 10.65 (both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Higher body temperature at the time of postoperative ICU admission is a protective factor against 1-month mortality. Our study found that patients with several comorbidities and those who have undergone multiple operations are at a greater risk of a poor outcome.

Stopping the revolving door: An exploratory analysis of health care super-utilization in gynecologic oncology

The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for health care super-utilization among gynecologic oncology patients at a single academic hospital. A retrospective cohort study of gynecologic oncology patients with an index unplanned encounter between January and December 2018 was performed. Super-utilizers were defined as patients with 3 or more unplanned hospital encounters during a 12-month period starting at the time of the index unplanned encounter. We identified 553 patients with gynecologic cancer. Of those, 37(7%) met inclusion criteria for super-utilizers accounting for 193/310(62%) of unplanned visits. The median number of unplanned visits was 4 (range 3-24). The most common cancers were uterine (N = 15 (41%)) and ovarian (N = 11 (30%)). Nineteen (51%) super-utilizers had advanced stage disease. Phases of oncologic care at index unplanned encounter included primary diagnosis (N = 24 (65%)), recurrence (N = 10 (27%)), and surveillance (N = 2 (5%)). Twelve super-utilizers (32%) had new diagnoses of cancer without prior therapy, 19(51%) had prior chemotherapy, 17(46%) had prior surgery, and 10(27%) had prior radiation therapy at the time of initial encounter. Fifteen super-utilizers (41%) were in the last year of life. The most common reasons for unplanned encounters were pain (66%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (61%). Multivariable analysis adjusting for key variables demonstrated that Medicaid insurance, ASA classification, and disease status are risk factors for health care super-utilization. The majority of health care utilization occurred during the first year of diagnosis. This exploratory analysis suggests an opportunity to decrease health care utilization, particularly during upfront treatment.

Clinical Outcomes of Patients with Metastatic Cancer Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in the Inpatient Setting

BACKGROUND

As indications for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy have increased in recent years, so has the proportion of patients eligible for this type of therapy. However, a lack of data exists about the risks and benefits of ICI therapy in hospitalized patients, who tend to be frailer and sicker than patients enrolled in clinical trials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study among hospitalized patients with metastatic solid tumors who received ICI therapy at a large academic cancer center over the course of 4 years. We analyzed the characteristics and outcomes of these patients and identified demographic and clinical factors that could be used to predict mortality.

RESULTS

During the 4-year study period, 106 patients were treated with ICI therapy while admitted to the hospital; 70 (66%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status ≥2, which would have prevented them from enrolling in most clinical trials of ICIs. Fifty-two patients (49%) died either during admission or within 30 days of discharge; median overall survival was 1.0 month from discharge, and 16 patients (15%) were alive 6 months after discharge. Independent predictors of death following receipt of inpatient ICI included a diagnosis of non-small cell lung cancer relative to melanoma and prior treatment with two or more lines of therapy.

CONCLUSION

The poor overall outcomes observed in this study may give clinicians pause when considering ICI therapy for hospitalized patients, particularly those with characteristics that are associated with a greater risk of mortality.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Immunotherapy strategies for patients with cancer are rapidly evolving and their use is expanding, but not all patients will develop a response, and secondary toxicity can be significant and challenging. This is especially evident in hospitalized patients, where the economic cost derived from inpatient immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) administration is important and the clinical benefit is sometimes unclear. The poor overall outcomes evidenced in the ICI inpatient population in this study highlight the need to better identify the patients that will respond to these therapies, which will also help to decrease the financial burden imposed by these highly priced therapies.

[Emergency room management of patients with lung cancer and organ failure]

BACKGROUND

When patients with lung cancer present to the emergency department with organ failure the question of admission to intensive care has to be considered. Our aim is to describe the process leading to the proposed management.

METHODS

Retrospectively, all patients admitted to the emergency room between December 2010 and January 2015 with a diagnosis of ICD-10 C34.9 (lung cancer) were reviewed. Those with at least one organ failure were included.

RESULTS

The records of 561 patients were reviewed, 79 (14%) had at least one organ failure. The majority of these patients received maximal medical care (59%), 25% exclusive palliative care, and 15% intensive care. Performance status, metastatic status and efficacy of anti-tumor treatment were recorded in the emergency medical record in 20%, 66% and 74% of cases, respectively. An opinion was obtained from the oncologist in 44% of cases and from the intensivist in 41% of cases. No external advice was provided in 27% of cases.

CONCLUSION

In the majority of cases, the decision on the intensity of care to be provided to patients with lung cancer and organ failure was made in a collective manner.

Twenty-eight-day mortality in lung cancer patients with metastasis who initiated mechanical ventilation in the emergency department

Few data are available regarding treatment outcomes in lung cancer patients with metastasis who initiated mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to evaluate 28-day mortality in lung cancer patients with metastasis who initiated mechanical ventilation in the ED. Patients with solid malignancy who initiated mechanical ventilation in the ED of a tertiary hospital were retrospectively identified and stratified into four groups according to the presence of lung cancer and metastasis. Among 212 included patients, the mortality rates by the 28^th hospital day were as follows: 44.2% (19/43) in non-lung cancer patients without metastasis, 63.2% (43/68) in non-lung cancer patients with metastasis, 52.4% (11/21) in lung cancer patients without metastasis, and 66.2% (53/80) in lung cancer patients with metastasis. In multivariable analysis, lung cancer patients with metastasis had significantly higher odds ratio for 28-day mortality than non-lung cancer patients without metastasis (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 7.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.14-24.01). Sepsis-related respiratory failure (adjusted OR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.16-5.84) and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (adjusted OR = 13.34, 95% CI = 4.45-39.95) over respiratory failure without sepsis and acute organ dysfunction process measured by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (adjusted OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05-12.6) were independently associated with an increase in mortality rate. In conclusion, the treatment outcomes in lung cancer patients with metastasis who initiated mechanical ventilation in the ED were poor. Aggressive resuscitation versus end-of-life care in advance of an unexpected medical crisis should be considered in lung cancer patients with metastasis via a multidisciplinary approach with a consideration of underlying comorbid illnesses in the acute organ dysfunction processes.

Trends in Health-Care Utilization at the End of Life Among Patients With Hematologic Malignancies in a Middle-Income Country: Challenges and Opportunities in Brazil

Patients with hematologic malignancies (HMs) often receive poor-quality end-of-life care. This study aimed to identify trends in end-of-life care among patients with HM in Brazil. We conducted a retrospective cohort study (2015-2018) of patients who died with HM, using electronic medical records linked to health insurance databank, to evaluate outcomes consistent with health-care resource utilization at the end of life. Among 111 patients with HM, in the last 30 days of life, we found high rates of emergency department visits (67%, n = 75), intensive care unit admissions (56%, n = 62), acute renal replacement therapy (10%, n = 11), blood transfusions (45%, n = 50), and medical imaging utilization (59%, n = 66). Patients received an average of 13 days of inpatient care and the majority of them died in the hospital (53%, n = 58). We also found that almost 40% of patients (38%, n = 42) used chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life. These patients were more likely to be male (64% vs 22%; P < .001), to receive blood transfusions (57% vs 38%; P = .05), and to die in the hospital (76% vs 39%; P = .009) than patients who did not use chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life. This study suggests that patients with HM have high rates of health-care utilization at the end of life in Brazil. Patients who used chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life were more likely to receive blood transfusions and to die in the hospital.

Advance Directives, Hospitalization, and Survival Among Advanced Cancer Patients with Delirium Presenting to the Emergency Department: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

To improve the management of advanced cancer patients with delirium in an emergency department (ED) setting, we compared outcomes between patients with delirium positively diagnosed by both the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), or group A (n = 22); by the MDAS only, or group B (n = 22); and by neither CAM nor MDAS, or group C (n = 199).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In an oncologic ED, we assessed 243 randomly selected advanced cancer patients for delirium using the CAM and the MDAS and for presence of advance directives. Outcomes extracted from patients' medical records included hospital and intensive care unit admission rate and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Hospitalization rates were 82%, 77%, and 49% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0013). Intensive care unit rates were 18%, 14%, and 2% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .0004). Percentages with advance directives were 52%, 27%, and 43% for groups A, B, and C, respectively (p = .2247). Median OS was 1.23 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-3.55) for group A, 4.70 months (95% CI 0.89-7.85) for group B, and 10.45 months (95% CI 7.46-14.82) for group C. Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups A and B (p = .6392), but OS in group C exceeded those of the other groups (p < .0001 each).

CONCLUSION

Delirium assessed by either CAM or MDAS was associated with worse survival and more hospitalization in patients with advanced cancer in an oncologic ED. Many advanced cancer patients with delirium in ED lack advance directives. Delirium should be assessed regularly and should trigger discussion of goals of care and advance directives.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Delirium is a devastating condition among advanced cancer patients. Early diagnosis in the emergency department (ED) should improve management of this life-threatening condition. However, delirium is frequently missed by ED clinicians, and the outcome of patients with delirium is unknown. This study finds that delirium assessed by the Confusion Assessment Method or the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale is associated with poor survival and more hospitalization among advanced cancer patients visiting the ED of a major cancer center, many of whom lack advance directives. Therefore, delirium in ED patients with cancer should trigger discussion about advance directives.