A retrospective study of emergency admission to a palliative care unit of cancer patients at home

Purpose：We evaluated that the current state from which a palliative care unit receives emergency admission of cancer patients at home. Methods：We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 393 cancer patients who hospitalized in our unit between January 2013 and December 2014. The patients were shared with a group of two, schedule admission (schedule group) and emergency admission (emergency group), and it was compared with a result on discharge and with a hospitalization period. We investigated admission process, the date and time of admission, and reason for admission in emergency group. Results：The number of patients was 224 of schedule group and 169 of emergency group. The mortality rates were 81% in schedule group and 78% in emergency group (not significant). An emergency group for an average of 24.3 days was shorter for 9 days than schedule groups in a hospitalization period of dead leaving patients (p<0.05). In emergency group, admission process included 128 completed-interviews with the hospitalization, 11 incompleted-interviews before admission and 30 first visits, and 129 patients (76％) admitted within the weekday daytime. Many patients had a complaint of severe pain, appetite loss and oral absorption difficulty, and so much. Conclusions：An emergency group admitted the various processes and the much symptom. There were a lot of cases of early hospital death, but also admitted return at home, and our unit played the role of emergency admission.

A retrospective study between use and not－use of the Japanese version of the Liverpool Care Pathway

<b>Purpose:</b> To investigate the indications for use of the Japanese version of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), we evaluated the conditions of patients using and those not using the LCP. <b>Methods:</b> We retrospectively investigated the medical records of 71 LCP patients and 60 non－LCP patients who died in our palliative care unit between March and December 2013. <b>Results:</b> There was no significant difference in patients’ background between the LCP and non－LCP groups. For patients in the non－LCP group, sudden changes in condition were significantly more frequent and deep continuous sedation was used significantly less than in the LCP group. In the LCP group, the average duration on the LCP was 4.0 days, and the beginning criterion was met by three－point or more of all the patients. The initial assessment was achieved except for one case. In the non－LCP group, reasons for not using the LCP were a sudden change in condition (35 patients), a rapid change in medical condition (14), and a risk of falling (4). <b>Conclusions:</b> The LCP met the beginning criterion and was started at suitable time in the LCP group. The LCP is not useful for all patients; it cannot be used for a patient with sudden or rapid changes in condition, or at a risk of falling.