Analyses of reliability and validity of the HOPE-SP-CL showed satisfactory to good psychometric properties; therefore, the HOPE-SP-CL can be recommended for standard implementation in German hospice and palliative care institutions.

BackgroundMost terminally ill patients request information about their remaining life span. Professionals are not generally willing to provide prognosis on survival, even though they are expected to be able to do so from their clinical experience. This study aims to find out whether the standardized instruments Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI) and the Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP-S) are appropriate, specific, and sensitive to estimate survival time in patients receiving inpatient palliative care in Germany.MethodPPI and PaP-S were assessed in addition to the core documentation data set of the Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation for patients admitted to the palliative care units in Aachen, Bonn, and Cologne. Time of survival was assessed with repeated phone calls to the family and was defined as the difference between the day of completion of the instruments (excluded) and the day of death (included).ResultsSurvival time was compared with physicians’ estimations and prognostic scores in 83 patients. Whereas the estimates of the PPI and the PaP-S correlate highly, even higher correlations are found for the physicians’ prognosis and the scores. Correlations between survival time and the prognostic scores or physicians’ prognosis were lower. Physicians’ estimations overestimated survival time on average fourfold. Estimations were more often correct for very good and very bad prognosis.DiscussionThe prognostic scores are not able to produce a precise reliable prognosis for the individual patient. Nevertheless, they can be used for ethical decision making and team discussions. Estimating survival time from clinical experience seems to be easier for very bad or very good prognosis for physicians.

The initiation of therapy seems to be easier than withdrawing and withholding, as involvement of other team members in the decision-making process was then sought more often. When antibiotics were given until death, the indication should be reconsidered because of a possibly undesirable prolongation of the dying process. Clinical practice may benefit from clear definitions of treatment goals and outcome criteria to better evaluate the necessity for and success of antimicrobial treatment.

The wide scope of existing instruments makes consensus on a universal set of instruments for outcome assessment in palliative care improbable. A framework with a set of appropriate instruments could help (1) to harmonize the variety of tools used in research and clinical practice, (2) to allow for more comparability, and (3) to define gaps were tools maybe missing and should be developed.

Background: The European Palliative Care Research Collaboration is developing clinical guidelines on cachexia in patients with advanced cancer. A systematic review on the use of fish oil/omega-3-fatty acids (n-3-FA)/eicosapentaenoic acids (EPA) in advanced cancer patients suffering from cancer cachexia was performed as part of the guideline development. Methods: The systematic literature search in Medline on the use of fish oil/n-3-FA/EPA identified 244 papers, with 38 publications included in the final evaluation. Some smaller trials, often unrandomized and without a control group, reported a good effect of n-3-FA in patients with advanced cancer and cachexia. However, the results of the larger randomized controlled trials could not support the positive results, as they mostly did not find a significant effect. Results: Adverse effects such as abdominal discomfort, fish belching, fish aftertaste, nausea and diarrhoea were reported with a low incidence. No serious adverse effects were documented, but adverse effects often had an impact on quality of life. This often limited dose escalations or even led to discontinuation of n-3-FA. Conclusion: There is not enough evidence to support a net benefit of n-3-FA in cachexia in advanced cancer. On the other hand, adverse effects were infrequent, with no severe adverse effects. The results from the review led to a weak negative GRADE recommendation.