The (un)availability of prognostic information in the last days of life: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were (1) to document the clinical condition of patients considered to be in the last 2 weeks of life and (2) to compare patients who did or did not survive for 72 hours. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Two sites in London, UK (a hospice and a hospital palliative care team). PARTICIPANTS: Any inpatient, over 18 years old, English speaking, who was identified by the palliative care team as at risk of dying within the next 2 weeks was eligible. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prognostic signs and symptoms were documented at a one off assessment and patients were followed up 7 days later to determine whether or not they had died. RESULTS: Fifty participants were recruited and 24/50 (48%) died within 72 hours of assessment. The most prevalent prognostic features observed were a decrease in oral food intake (60%) and a rapid decline of the participant's global health status (56%). Participants who died within 72 hours had a lower level of consciousness and had more care needs than those who lived longer. A large portion of data was unavailable, particularly that relating to the psychological and spiritual well-being of the patient, due to the decreased consciousness of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of prognostic signs and symptoms in the final days of life has been documented between those predicted to die and those who did not. How doctors make decisions with missing information is an area for future research, in addition to understanding the best way to use the available information to make more accurate predictions.

How do palliative care doctors recognise imminently dying patients? A judgement analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify a group of palliative care doctors who perform well on a prognostic test and to understand how they make their survival predictions. DESIGN: Prospective observational study and two cross-sectional online studies. SETTING: Phase I: an online prognostic test, developed from a prospective observational study of patients referred to palliative care. Phase II: an online judgement task consisting of 50 hypothetical vignettes. PARTICIPANTS: All members of the Association of Palliative Medicine (APM) were eligible (n=~1100). 99 doctors completed the prognostic test and were included in the phase I analysis. The top 20% were invited to participate in phase II; 14/19 doctors completed the judgement task and were included in the phase II analysis. MEASURES: Phase I: participants were asked to give a probability of death within 72 hours (0%-100%) for all 20 cases. Accuracy on the prognostic test was measured with the Brier score which was used to identify the 'expert' group (scale range: 0 (expert)-1 (non-expert)). Phase II: participants gave a probability of death within 72 hours (0%-100%). A mixed model regression analysis was completed using the percentage estimate as the outcome and the patient information included in the vignettes as the predictors. RESULTS: The mean Brier score of all participants was 0.237 (95% CI 0.235 to 0.239). The mean Brier score of the 'experts' was 0.184 (95% CI 0.176 to 0.192). Six of the seven prognostic variables included in the hypothetical vignettes were significantly associated with clinician predictions of death. The Palliative Performance Score was identified as being the most influential in the doctors' prognostic decision making (ß=0.48, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified six clinical signs and symptoms which influenced the judgement policies of palliative care doctors. These results may be used to teach novice doctors how to improve their prognostic skills.

Preparing future doctors for palliative care: views of course organisers.

BACKGROUND: Effective training at medical school is essential to prepare new doctors to safely manage patients with palliative care (PC) and end of life care (EOLC) needs. The contribution of undergraduate PC course organisers is central but their collective views regarding role are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To survey attitudes of PC course organisers regarding their course, organisation, the adequacy of training provided and level of personal satisfaction. METHODS: An anonymised, multifactorial, web-based questionnaire was devised, tested, modified and then sent to lead PC course organisers at all UK medical schools. RESULTS: Data were obtained from all 30 UK medical schools. Organisers agreed/strongly agreed (=agreed) that their PC course was highly rated by students (26, 87%). 25 (83%) agreed their course 'enabled misconceptions and fears about PC, death, dying and bereavement to be addressed', 'delivered quality PC training' (23, 77%), 'fulfilled General Medical Council requirements' (19, 63%), 'prepared students well to care for patients with PC/EOLC needs' (18, 60%) and 'enabled students to visit a hospice and see the role of doctors in caring for the dying' (17, 57%). Concerns were limited capacity to accommodate students (agreed 20, 66%) and variability in teaching according to location (15, 50%). Most agreed their institution recognised PC training as important (22, 73%), they felt supported by colleagues (21, 70%) and experienced cooperation between stakeholders (20, 67%). All agreed that PC training was essential for undergraduates, while 29 (97%) supported inclusion of a hospice visit in the curriculum. 27 agreed that their role was satisfying (90%), 3 disagreed (10%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately two-thirds of organisers were generally positive about their PC course, institution and role. A minority expressed concerns; these may reflect suboptimal PC training at their medical school and poor preparation of new doctors.

Palliative care education for medical students: Differences in course evolution, organisation, evaluation and funding: A survey of all UK medical schools.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of newly qualified doctors report feeling unprepared to manage patients with palliative care and end-of-life needs. This may be related to barriers within their institution during undergraduate training. Information is limited regarding the current organisation of palliative care teaching across UK medical schools. AIMS: To investigate the evolution and structure of palliative care teaching at UK medical schools. DESIGN: Anonymised, web-based questionnaire. Settings/participants: Results were obtained from palliative care course organisers at all 30 UK medical schools. RESULTS: The palliative care course was established through active planning (13/30, 43%), ad hoc development (10, 33%) or combination of approaches (7, 23%). The place of palliative care teaching within the curriculum varied. A student-selected palliative care component was offered by 29/30 (97%). All medical schools sought student feedback. The course was reviewed in 26/30 (87%) but not in 4. Similarly, a course organiser was responsible for the palliative care programme in 26/30 but not in 4. A total of 22 respondents spent a mean of 3.9 h (median 2.5)/week in supporting/delivering palliative care education (<1-16 h). In all, 17/29 (59%) had attended a teaching course or shared duties with a colleague who had done so. Course organisers received titular recognition in 18/27 (67%; no title 9 (33%); unknown 3 (11%)). An academic department of Palliative Medicine existed in 12/30 (40%) medical schools. Funding was not universally transparent. Palliative care teaching was associated with some form of funding in 20/30 (66%). CONCLUSION: Development, organisation, course evaluation and funding for palliative care teaching at UK medical schools are variable. This may have implications for delivery of effective palliative care education for medical students.

Progress and divergence in palliative care education for medical students: A comparative survey of UK course structure, content, delivery, contact with patients and assessment of learning.

BACKGROUND: Effective undergraduate education is required to enable newly qualified doctors to safely care for patients with palliative care and end-of-life needs. The status of palliative care teaching for UK medical students is unknown. AIM: To investigate palliative care training at UK medical schools and compare with data collected in 2000. DESIGN: An anonymised, web-based multifactorial questionnaire. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Results were obtained from palliative care course organisers at all 30 medical schools in 2013 and compared with 23 medical schools (24 programmes) in 2000. RESULTS: All continue to deliver mandatory teaching on 'last days of life, death and bereavement'. Time devoted to palliative care teaching time varied (2000: 6-100 h, mean 20 h; 2013: 7-98 h, mean 36 h, median 25 h). Current palliative care teaching is more integrated. There was little change in core topics and teaching methods. New features include 'involvement in clinical areas', participation of patient and carers and attendance at multidisciplinary team meetings. Hospice visits are offered (22/24 (92%) vs 27/30 (90%)) although they do not always involve patient contact. There has been an increase in students' assessments (2000: 6/24, 25% vs 2013: 25/30, 83%) using a mixture of formative and summative methods. Some course organisers lack an overview of what is delivered locally. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate palliative care training continues to evolve with greater integration, increased teaching, new delivery methods and wider assessment. There is a trend towards increased patient contact and clinical involvement. A minority of medical schools offer limited teaching and patient contact which could impact on the delivery of safe palliative care by newly qualified doctors.