Context The current state of palliative care in cancer centers is not known. Objective We conducted a survey to determine the availability and degree of integration of palliative care services, and to compare between National Cancer Institute (NCI) and non-NCI cancer centers in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants Between June and October 2009, we surveyed both executives and palliative care clinical program leaders, where applicable, of 71 NCI cancer centers and a random sample of 71 non-NCI centers regarding their palliative care services. Executives were also asked about their attitudes toward palliative care. Main Outcome Measure Availability of palliative care services in the cancer center, defined as the presence of at least one palliative care physician. Results We sent 142 and 120 surveys to executives and program leaders, with response rates of 71% and 82%, respectively. NCI cancer centers were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program (50/51 (98%) vs. 39/50 (78%), P=0.002), at least one palliative care physician (46/51 (90%) vs. 28/50 (56%), P=0.04), an inpatient palliative care consultation team (47/51 (92%) vs. 28/50 (56%), P<0.001), and an outpatient palliative care clinic (30/51 (59%) vs. 11/50 (22%), P<0.001). Few centers had dedicated palliative care beds (23/101 (23%)) or an institution-operated hospice (37/101 (36%)). The median reported durations from referral to death were 7 (Q1–Q3 4–16), 7 (Q1–Q3 5–10), and 90 (Q1–Q3 30–120) days for inpatient consultation teams, inpatient units, and outpatient clinics, respectively. Research programs, palliative care fellowships, and mandatory rotations for oncology fellows were uncommon. Executives were supportive of stronger integration and increasing palliative care resources. Conclusion Most cancer centers reported a palliative care program, although the scope of services and the degree of integration varied widely. Further efforts to consolidate existing infrastructure and to integrate palliative care in cancer centers are warranted.
IMPORTANCEThe use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial.OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016.INTERVENTIONS Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, −5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival.RESULTS Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (−4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (−2.3 points) (mean difference, −1.9 points [95% CI, −2.8 to −0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, −1.0 mg [95% CI, −2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects.
The PCIS has been accepted in our tertiary cancer center on the basis of its clinical utility and financial viability.
PCC, although late in the course, resulted in the detection of multiple symptom control and communication needs, and corresponding treatment recommendations.
This study's goal was to describe and begin to understand the experience of bereaved parents whose deceased child had received pediatric oncology services at a tertiary comprehensive cancer center. Focus groups were conducted with parents whose children were age 10 years and older at the time of death. Potential participants were contacted by mail and telephone. Sessions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The ATLAS.ti qualitative software program was used to identify and analyze dominant themes. Fourteen parents identified four major themes: standards of care, emotional care, communication, and social support. Bereaved parents discussed the challenges associated with institutional procedures and interpersonal aspects of care in anticipation of and following their child's death. The results of these personal narratives may be used to guide care plans and deliver pediatric palliative and end-of-life interventions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.