Palliative care: An update for internists.

All clinicians should maintain basic skills in general palliative care to help address the needs of patients and families. Because keeping up with the information provided by the growing palliative care literature can be challenging, we conducted a detailed search via Medline for palliative care articles published in 2020 in top peer-reviewed medical journals. Using a consensus-driven process of selection, we reviewed and summarized 11 articles to enhance knowledge of the practice-changing palliative care literature for general internists.

Promoting Primary Palliative Care in Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Symptom Management and Preparedness Planning.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) poses challenges not only in symptom management but also in prognostication. Managing COPD requires clinicians to be proficient in the primary palliative care skills of symptom management and communication focused on eliciting goals and preferences. Dyspnea should initially be managed with the combination of long-acting muscarinic antagonists and long-acting ß-agonist inhalers, adding inhaled corticosteroids if symptoms persist. Opioids for the relief of dyspnea are safe when used at appropriate doses. Oxygen is only effective for relieving dyspnea in patients with severe hypoxemia. The relapsing-remitting nature of COPD makes prognostication challenging; however, there are tools to guide clinicians and patients in making plans both with respect to prognosis and symptom burden. Preparedness planning techniques promote detailed culturally appropriate conversations which allow patients and clinicians to consider disease-specific complications and develop goal-concordant treatment plans.

Update in Hospital Palliative Care: Symptom Management, Communication, Caregiver Outcomes, and Moral Distress.

BACKGROUND: Updated knowledge of the palliative care (PC) literature is needed to maintain competency and best address the PC needs of hospitalized patients. We critiqued the recent PC literature with the highest potential to impact hospital practice. METHODS: We reviewed articles published between January 2016 and December 2016, which were identified through a handsearch of leading journals and a MEDLINE search. The final 9 articles selected were determined by consensus based on scientific rigor, relevance to hospital medicine, and impact on practice. RESULTS: Key findings include the following: scheduled antipsychotics were inferior to a placebo for nonterminal delirium; a low-dose morphine was superior to a weak opioid for moderate cancer pain; methadone as a coanalgesic improved high-intensity cancer pain; many hospitalized patients on comfort care still receive antimicrobials; video decision aids improved the rates of advance care planning (ACP) and hospice use and decreased costs; standardized, PC-led intervention did not improve psychological outcomes in families of patients with a chronic critical illness; caregivers of patients surviving a prolonged critical illness experienced high and persistent rates of depression; people with non-normative sexuality or gender faced additional stressors with partner loss; and physician trainees experienced significant moral distress with futile treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Recent research provides important guidance for clinicians caring for hospitalized patients with serious illnesses, including symptom management, ACP, moral distress, and outcomes of critical illness.

To stent or not to stent: an evidence-based approach to palliative procedures at the end of life.

Patients near the end of life often undergo invasive procedures, such as biliary stenting for obstructive jaundice, with the intent of relieving symptoms. We describe a case in which the medical team and a patient and family are considering a second palliative biliary stent despite the patient's limited life expectancy. We review available evidence to inform the decision, focusing on the specific question of whether the benefits of palliative biliary stents in patients with advanced cancer outweigh the risks. We then apply the evidence to the issue of how the primary and/or palliative care team and the interventionist communicate with patients and their families about the risks and benefits of palliative procedures. Review of the evidence found several prospective case series without control groups that measured patient-centered outcomes. Studies had high attrition rates, results for improvements in symptoms and quality of life were mixed, and rates of complications and short-term mortality were high. In conclusion, the limited evidence does not support that the benefits of palliative biliary stents in this population outweigh the risks. We propose that primary care teams consider and discuss the larger picture of the goals of care with patients and families when considering offering these procedures, as well as benefits and potential harms, and consider involving palliative care services early, before consultation with an interventionist.

Update in palliative care--2011.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this update is to summarize scientifically rigorous articles published in 2010 that serve to advance the field of palliative medicine and have an impact on clinical practice. METHOD: We conducted two separate literature searches for articles published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. We reviewed title pages from the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, JAMA, Journal of Clinical Oncology, JGIM, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, PC-FACS (Fast Article Critical Summaries for Clinicians in Palliative Care). We also conducted a Medline search with the key words "palliative," "hospice," and "terminal" care. Each author presented approximately 20 abstracts to the group. All authors reviewed these abstracts, and when needed, full text publications. We focused on articles relevant to general internists. We rated the articles individually, eliminating by consensus those that were not deemed of highest priority, and discussed the final choices as a group. RESULTS: We first identified 126 articles with potential relevance. We presented 20 at the annual SGIM update session, and discuss 11 in this paper.

Qualitative analysis of Medicare claims in the last 3 years of life: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To study end-of-life care of a representative sample of older people using qualitative interpretation of administrative claims by clinicians and to explore whether this method yields insights into patient care, including continuity, errors, and cause of death. DESIGN: Random, stratified sampling of decedents and all their Medicare-covered healthcare claims in the 3 years before death from a 5% sample of elderly fee-for-service beneficiaries, condensation of all claims into a chronological clinical summary, and abstraction by two independent clinicians using a standardized form. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred Medicare fee-for-service older people without disability or end-stage renal disease entitlement who died in 1996 to 1999 and had at least 36 months of continuous Part A and Part B enrollment before death. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative narrative of the patient's medical course; clinician assessment of care continuity and apparent medical errors; cause, trajectory, and place of death. RESULTS: The qualitative narratives developed by the independent abstracters were highly concordant. Clinicians felt that 75% of cases lacked continuity of care that could have improved the quality of life and the way the person died, and 13% of cases had a medical error identified by both abstracters. Abstracters disagreed about assignment of a single cause of death in 28% of cases, and abstracters and the computer algorithm disagreed in 43% of cases. CONCLUSION: Qualitative claims analysis illuminated many problems in the care of chronically ill older people at the end of life and suggested that traditional vital statistics assignation of a single cause of death may distort policy priorities. This novel approach to claims review is feasible and deserves further study.