Multidisciplinary decision-making with oncologists and the PCT is the most critical parameter for improving EOL care.

BackgroundHospital-based Palliative Care Consultation Teams (PCCTs) have a consulting role to specialist services at their request. Referral of patients is often late. Early palliative care in oncology has shown its effectiveness in improving quality of life, thereby questioning the “on request” model of PCCTs. Whether this evidence changed practice is unknown. This multicentre prospective cohort study aims to describe the activity and integration of PCCTs at the patient level.MethodsFor consecutive patients newly referred to participating PCCTs, the team collected the following data: circumstances of first referral, problems identified, number of interventions, patient’s survival after first evaluation and place of death.ResultsSeventeen PCCTs based in university hospitals in Paris area, recruited 744 newly referred adult patients, aged 72 ± 15 years, 52% males, and 504(68%) with cancer as primary diagnosis. After 6 months, 548(74%) had died. At first evaluation, 12% patients were outpatients, 88% were inpatients. Symptoms represented the main reasons for referral and problems identified; 79% of patients had altered performance status; 24% encountered the PCCT only once. Median survival (1st-3rd quartile) after first evaluation by the PCCT was 22 (5–82) days for overall patients, and respectively 31 (8–107) days and 9 (3–34) days for cancer versus noncancer patients (p < 0.0001). Place of death was acute care hospital for 51.7% patients, and home or Palliative Care Unit for 35%. Patients referred earlier died more often in PCU.ConclusionThe study provides original data showing a still late referral to the PCCTs in France. Cancer patients represent their predominant activity. The integrated palliative care model seems to emerge besides the “on request” model which originally characterised their missions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-017-0209-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Accessible indicators of aggressiveness of care at the end-of-life are useful to monitor implementation of early integrated palliative care practice. To determine the intensity of end-of-life care from exhaustive data combining administrative databases and hospital clinical records, to evaluate its variability across hospital facilities and associations with timely introduction of palliative care (PC). Methods For this study designed as a decedent series nested in multicentre cohort of advanced cancer patients, we selected 997 decedents from a cohort of patients hospitalised in 2009–2010, with a diagnosis of metastatic cancer in 3 academic medical centres and 2 comprehensive cancer centres in the Paris area. Hospital data was combined with nationwide mortality databases. Complete data were collected and checked from clinical records, including first referral to PC, chemotherapy within 14 days of death, ≥1 intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ≥2 emergency department visits (ED), and ≥ 2 hospitalizations, all within 30 days of death. Results Overall (min-max) indicator values as reported by facility providing care rather than the place of death, were: 16% (8–25%) patients received chemotherapy within 14 days of death, 16% (6–32%) had ≥2 admissions to acute care, 6% (0–15%) had ≥2 emergency visits and 18% (4–35%) had ≥1 intensive care unit admission(s). Only 53% of these patients met the PC team, and the median (min-max) time between the first intervention of the PC team and death was 41 (17–112) days. The introduction of PC > 30 days before death was independently associated with lower intensity of care. Conclusions Aggressiveness of end-of-life cancer care is highly variable across centres. This validates the use of indicators to monitor integrated PC in oncology. Disseminating a quality audit-feedback cycle should contribute to a shared view of appropriate end-of-life care objectives, and foster action for improvement among care providers.

This prospective interventional study aims to show the feasibility and impact of information procedure on surrogate and advance directives (AD), for patients with incurable lung or gastrointestinal cancer. The intervention consisted of two semi-structured interviews. The first included: collection of preferences for prognostic information and involvement in decision-making, initial assessment of knowledge, information and surrogate and DA. The second assessed the impact of the first interview on knowledge, surrogate designation and DA writing, the assessment procedure by the patient and assessment of anxiety generated. Among 77 eligible patients, 23 (30 %) were included, 6/29 (21 %) refused to participate, 20/23 (87 %) completed both interviews. Patients not included had a higher 4-month death rate than included ones (39 % vs. 4 %, P=0.002). Patients included had high expectations of information and appreciated it be delivered early, by someone not involved in their care. The study shows the feasibility of the procedure and its impact on the use of surrogate and DA by patients, however, revealing the complexity of approaching end-of-life wills and the importance of a process of anticipated discussion.