ABSTRACT
The potentially detrimental effects of cancer and related treatments on cognitive functioning are emerging as a key focus of cancer survivorship research. Many patients with central nervous system (CNS) or non-CNS tumours develop cognitive problems during the course of their disease that can result in diminished functional independence. We review the state of knowledge on the cognitive functioning of patients with primary and secondary brain tumours at diagnosis, during and after therapy, and discuss current initiatives to diminish cognitive decline in these patients. Similarly, attention is paid to the cognitive sequelae of cancer and cancer therapies in patients without CNS disease. Disease and treatment effects on cognition are discussed, as well as current insights into the neural substrates and the mechanisms underlying cognitive dysfunction in these patients. In addition, rehabilitation strategies for patients with non-CNS disease confronted with cognitive dysfunction are described. Special attention is given to knowledge gaps in the area of cancer and cognition, in CNS and non-CNS diseases. Finally, we point to the important role for cooperative groups to include cognitive endpoints in clinical trials in order to accelerate our understanding and treatment of cognitive dysfunction related to cancer and cancer therapies.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite the advent of palliative care, the quality of dying in the hospital remains poor. Differences in quality of end-of-life practice between hospital wards are well known in clinical practice but rarely have been investigated. METHODS: A prospective observation of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions was conducted in patients dying in a Belgian university hospital before (115 patients) and after (113 patients) a hospital-wide intervention consisting in informing hospital staff on the law on Patient's Rights and the introduction of a new DNR form.The new DNR form puts more emphasis on the motivation of the DNR decision and on the description of the participants in the decision-making process. RESULTS: The completion of DNR forms improved after the intervention: physicians better documented who participated in DNR decisions (for participation of family: 63% after the intervention vs. 44% before the intervention, p = 0.022, for nurses: 27% vs. 14%, p = 0.047) and the motivation for these decisions (59% vs. 32%, p = 0.001). However, there was no difference in referral to the intensive care unit (ICU) at the end of life (in 40% of patients after and 37% before the intervention). Furthermore, the number of patients dying without DNR form on the wards was similar (13% and 8%). Surgical patients and patients with non-malignant diseases were more often referred to ICU at the end of life (71% in surgical vs. 35% in medical patients, p < 0.001 and 49% in patients with non-malignant diseases vs. 23% in patients with malignancy, p < 0.001). Moreover, surgical patients less frequently received a DNR order (56% in surgical vs. 92% in medical patients, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a new DNR form and informing hospital staff on patients' right to information did not improve physicians' end-of-life practice.Transition from life-prolonging treatment to a more palliative approach was less anticipated in surgical patients and patients with non-malignant diseases.
Subject(s)
Critical Illness , Life Support Care , Policy Making , Resuscitation Orders , Right to Die , Attitude of Health Personnel , Critical Illness/psychology , Critical Illness/therapy , Decision Making , Humans , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Life Support Care/ethics , Life Support Care/legislation & jurisprudence , Life Support Care/psychology , Palliative Care/ethics , Palliative Care/psychology , Personnel, Hospital/ethics , Personnel, Hospital/psychology , Resuscitation/ethics , Resuscitation/psychology , Resuscitation Orders/ethics , Resuscitation Orders/legislation & jurisprudence , Resuscitation Orders/psychology , Right to Die/ethics , Right to Die/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Referral to the intensive care unit (ICU) and frequency of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) decisions at the end of life (EOL) in adult hospitalized patients≥75 years and those<75 years were examined and influencing factors in the elderly were determined. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in all adult patients who deceased during a 12-week period in 2007 and a 16-week period in 2008 at a university hospital in Belgium. RESULTS: Overall, 330 adult patients died of whom 33% were ≥75 years old. Patients≥75 years old were less often referred to ICU at the EOL (42% vs. 58%, p=0.008) and less frequently died in the ICU (31% vs. 46%, p=0.012) as compared to patients<75 years old. However, there was no difference in frequency of DNR decisions (87% vs. 88%, p=0.937) for patients dying on non-ICU wards. After adjusting for age, gender, and the Charlson comorbidity index, being admitted on a geriatric ward (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10-0.85, p=0.024) and having an active malignant disease (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.78, p=0.008) were the only factors associated with a lower risk of dying in the ICU. CONCLUSION: Patients≥75 years are less often referred to the ICU at the EOL as compared to patients<75 years old. However, the risk of dying in the ICU was only lower for elderly with cancer and for those admitted to the geriatric ward.
