Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home (ACEPATH): Codesigning an intervention to improve patient and family caregiver experiences.

BACKGROUND: Returning home from the hospital for palliative-focused care is a common transition, but the process can be emotionally distressing and logistically challenging for patients and caregivers. While interventions exist to aid in the transition, none have been developed in partnership with patients and caregivers. OBJECTIVE: To undergo the initial stages of codesign to create an intervention (Advancing the Care Experience for patients receiving Palliative care as they Transition from hospital to Home [ACEPATH]) to improve the experience of hospital-to-home transitions for adult patients receiving palliative care and their caregiver(s). METHODS: The codesign process consisted of (1) the development of codesign workshop (CDW) materials to communicate key findings from prior research to CDW participants; (2) CDWs with patients, caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs); and (3) low-fidelity prototype testing to review CDW outputs and develop low-fidelity prototypes of interventions. HCPs provided feedback on the viability of low-fidelity prototypes. RESULTS: Three patients, seven caregivers and five HCPs participated in eight CDWs from July 2022 to March 2023. CDWs resulted in four intervention prototypes: a checklist, quick reference sheets, a patient/caregiver workbook and a transition navigator role. Outputs from CDWs included descriptions of interventions and measures of success. In April 2023, the four prototypes were presented in four low-fidelity prototype sessions to 20 HCPs. Participants in the low-fidelity prototype sessions provided feedback on what the interventions could look like, what problems the interventions were trying to solve and concerns about the interventions. CONCLUSION: Insights gained from this codesign work will inform high-fidelity prototype testing and the eventual implementation and evaluation of an ACEPATH intervention that aims to improve hospital-to-home transitions for patients receiving a palliative approach to care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers with lived experience attended CDWs aimed at designing an intervention to improve the transition from hospital to home. Their direct involvement aligns the intervention with patients' and caregivers' needs when transitioning from hospital to home. Furthermore, four patient/caregiver advisors were engaged throughout the project (from grant writing through to manuscript writing) to ensure all stages were patient- and caregiver-centred.

Red blood cell transfusion and associated outcomes in patients referred for palliative care: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We aim to describe the occurrence of red blood cell transfusion and associated predictive factors and outcomes among patients referred for palliative care. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used linked health administrative data of adults referred for palliative care at an academic hospital from 2014 to 2018. Multivariable regression models were employed to evaluate patient characteristics associated with transfusion and the relationship between transfusion status and location of death. Survival analyses were performed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Of 6980 evaluated patients, 885 (12.7%) were transfused following palliative care consultation. Covariate factors associated with transfusion included younger age, higher performance status, lower baseline hemoglobin, and a diagnosis of hematologic malignancy (OR = 2.97, 95% CI 2.20-4.01) or solid organ tumor (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.10-1.71) vs. noncancer diagnosis. Median survival from palliative care consultation was 19 (IQR 5-75) days; 83 (32-305) days in those transfused and 15 (4-57) days in the nontransfused group (p < .0001). Median survival following transfusion was 56 (19-200) days. Solid organ tumor diagnosis was independently associated with poor survival (HR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.39-2.09 vs. non-cancer diagnosis). Among individuals who survived ≥30 days, transfusion was associated with a higher likelihood of death in hospital (OR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.71-2.70 vs. home/subacute setting). DISCUSSION: Transfusions commonly occurred in patients receiving palliative care, associated with cancer diagnoses and favorable baseline prognostic factors. Poor survival following transfusion, particularly in solid organ tumor patients, and the twofold likelihood of death in hospital associated with this intervention have important implications in prescribing transfusion for this population.

Acute Care Utilization and Place of Death among Patients Discharged from an Inpatient Palliative Care Unit.

Background: Discharging patients from inpatient palliative care units to the community is aligned with patients' desires to be cared for and die at home. However, there is little research examining patient outcomes after discharge. Objective: To describe the outcomes of patients discharged from an inpatient palliative care unit. Design: A single-institution retrospective cohort study using medical record data linked to regional acute care hospital and home care data. Setting/Participants: Patients (n = 75) discharged to the community over a one-year period from a 31-bed inpatient palliative care unit in an academic continuing care facility. Measurements: Survival, postdischarge hospitalizations and emergency department visits, and place of death. Results: Patients discharged to the community had poor prognosis. Over one-third had a discharge Palliative Performance Score <50. The median survival after discharge was 96 days, and 36% of decedent patients died in an acute care hospital. Thirteen percent of patients were hospitalized, and 23% visited an emergency department within 30 days of discharge, often for reasons that could have been managed in the community. Certain groups of patients were at greater risk of acute care use and in-hospital deaths, including younger patients, patients with nonmalignant diseases, and patients discharged home or retirement home, compared to long-term care settings. Conclusions: Patients discharged from an inpatient palliative care setting are at risk of postdischarge hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and in-hospital deaths, despite having community supports in place. Variations in outcomes can point to groups of patients who may require greater intensity of supports postdischarge.

Advance care planning after hospital discharge: qualitative analysis of facilitators and barriers from patient interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patients who engage in Advance Care Planning (ACP) are more likely to get care consistent with their values. We sought to determine the barriers and facilitators to ACP engagement after discharge from hospital. METHODS: Prior to discharge from hospital eligible patients received a standardized conversation about prognosis and ACP. Each patient was given an ACP workbook and asked to complete it over the following four weeks. We included frail elderly patients with a high risk of death admitted to general internal medicine wards at a tertiary care academic teaching hospital. Four weeks after discharge we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed with thematic analysis. Themes were categorized according to the theoretical domains framework. RESULTS: We performed 17 interviews. All Theoretical Domain Framework components except for Social/Professional Identity and Behavioral Regulation were identified in our data. Poor knowledge about ACP and physician communication skills were barriers partially addressed by our intervention. Some patients found it difficult to discuss ACP during an acute illness. For others acute illness made ACP discussions more relevant. Uncertainty about future health motivated some participants to engage in ACP while others found that ACP discussions prevented them from living in the moment and stripped them of hope that better days were ahead. CONCLUSIONS: For some patients acute illness resulting in admission to hospital can be an opportunity to engage in ACP conversations but for others ACP discussions are antithetical to the goals of hospital care.

Fear of pain in patients with advanced cancer or in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

OBJECTIVES: pain is one of the most prevalent symptoms in patients with advanced cancer and, according to anecdotal reports, perhaps the most feared. Surprisingly, fear of pain has been the subject of little research within cancer care. The literature on chronic noncancer pain, however, suggests that fear of pain contributes to limitations in function in populations with diverse chronic illness. Little is known about the extent to which such findings might generalize from patients with chronic noncancer pain to those with chronic cancer pain. Therefore, this research examined the extent to which fear of pain is associated with limitations in function in patients with advanced cancer and also compared patients with chronic cancer and noncancer pain. METHODS: we recruited 117 patients with advanced cancer who received a referral for pain management and 118 patients with a primary complaint of chronic noncancer pain. Participants completed self-report questionnaires. RESULTS: findings revealed similarities between the groups for fear of pain and limitations in function, but they differed on level of depression and pain severity (patients with noncancer pain were more depressed and reported higher pain severity). Fear of pain independently predicted limitations in function in both groups controlling for demographic variables and pain severity. When depression and physical symptoms were controlled, fear of pain predicted limitations in function only in patients with advanced cancer. DISCUSSION: the findings emphasize the importance of psychological dimensions of pain in patients with advanced cancer, as well as the similarities and differences between the 2 groups of patients suffering from chronic pain.

Barriers to palliative radiotherapy referral: a Canadian perspective.

Radiotherapy is an effective but underutilized treatment modality for cancer patients. We decided to investigate the factors influencing radiotherapy referral among family physicians in our region. A 30-item survey was developed to determine palliative radiotherapy knowledge and factors influencing referral. It was sent to 400 physicians in eastern Ontario (Canada) and the completed surveys were evaluated. The overall response rate was 50% with almost all physicians seeing cancer patients recently (97%) and the majority (80%) providing palliative care. Approximately 56% had referred patients for radiotherapy previously and 59% were aware of the regional community oncology program. Factors influencing radiotherapy referral included the following: waiting times for radiotherapy consultation and treatment, uncertainty about the benefits of radiotherapy, patient age, and perceived patient inconvenience. Physicians who referred patients for radiotherapy were more than likely to provide palliative care, work outside of urban centres, have hospital privileges and had sought advice from a radiation oncologist in the past. A variety of factors influence the referral of cancer patients for radiotherapy by family physicians and addressing issues such as long waiting times, lack of palliative radiotherapy knowledge and awareness of Cancer Centre services could increase the rate of appropriate radiotherapy patient referral.

Family physicians' perspectives regarding palliative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess family physicians' views on common indications for palliative radiotherapy and to determine whether this influences patient referral. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 30-item questionnaire evaluating radiotherapy knowledge and training developed at the Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre (ORCC) was mailed to a random sample of 400 family physicians in eastern Ontario, Canada. The completed surveys were collected and analyzed, and form the basis of this study. RESULTS: A total of 172 completed surveys were received for a net response rate of 50% among practicing family physicians. Almost all of the physicians (97%) had recently seen cancer patients in their offices, with 85% regularly caring for patient with advanced cancer. Fifty-four percent had referred patients in the past for radiotherapy and 53% had contacted a radiation oncologist for advice. Physicians who were more knowledgeable about the common indications for palliative radiotherapy were significantly more likely to refer patients for radiotherapy (P < 0.01). Inability to contact a radiation oncologist was correlated with not having referred patients for radiotherapy (P < 0.01). Only 10% of the physicians had received radiotherapy education during their formal medical training. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the family physicians surveyed were unaware of the effectiveness of radiotherapy in a variety of common palliative situations, and radiotherapy referral was correlated with knowledge about the indications for palliative radiotherapy. This was not surprising given the limited education they received in this area and the limited contact they have had with radiation oncologists. Strategies need to be developed to improve continuing medical education opportunities for family physicians and to facilitate more interaction between these physicians and radiation oncologists.

Parenteral ketamine as an analgesic adjuvant for severe pain: development and retrospective audit of a protocol for a palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine is an effective analgesic agent for treating a variety of neuropathic and cancer pain syndromes. Recent studies indicate that ketamine may have a particular role in the management of patients with neuropathic and/or pain syndromes that are poorly responsive to opioids. OBJECTIVE: To develop, implement, and subsequently assess a protocol designed to maximize the analgesic effect of ketamine while minimizing its side effects. DESIGN: A retrospective chart audit of 16 patients who had used the ketamine protocol over a 12-month period. Criteria for assessing the effectiveness of ketamine were defined. RESULTS: Ketamine was an effective, well-tolerated analgesic adjuvant for 11 of 16 patients with previously uncontrolled pain. Pain scores were reduced by at least 4 of 10 in 15 of the 16 patients. Median opioid dose reduction on starting ketamine was 25%. CONCLUSION: The audit confirmed the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as an analgesic adjuvant for patients with severe pain. Baseline opioid dose reduction and prophylactic use of haloperidol or benzodiazepine were effective in minimizing psychotomimetic side effects.

Low dose ketamine as an analgesic adjuvant in difficult pain syndromes: a strategy for conversion from parenteral to oral ketamine.

Ketamine is a non-competitive N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist with analgesic and dissociative anesthetic properties. Low dose or sub-anesthetic doses of ketamine have been used effectively as either a primary analgesic or analgesic adjuvant in a variety of pain syndromes. In this paper, three patients with difficult to treat, predominantly neuropathic pain syndromes will be described. Their pain syndromes were initially managed successfully with the addition of low dose parenteral ketamine as an analgesic adjuvant. The strategy of concurrently starting ketamine at a low dose, i.e., 40-60 mg over 24 hours, with a benzodiazepine proved effective in preventing psychotomimetic side effects. An unavoidable shortage of ketamine prompted a literature search, which suggested that the equianalgesic dose of oral ketamine could be lower than the parenteral dose. Subsequently the patients were converted to oral ketamine at doses 30 to 40% of the previous parenteral dose. Their pain syndromes remained controlled on the lower dose of oral ketamine with remarkably few side effects. The implications of this warrant further discussion and study.