Exploring the integration of dentistry within a multidisciplinary palliative care team: does bedside dental care improve quality of life and symptom burden in inpatient palliative care patients?

BACKGROUND: Despite the significant impact of oral problems on the quality of life of palliative care patients, comprehensive studies are lacking. This study is the first of its kind to address this gap by including both a dental examination and an intervention and assessing quality of life using the EORTC QLQ OH 15 questionnaire. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to explore the impact of incorporating dentists into inpatient palliative care, with a focus on enhancing quality of life and alleviating symptom burden. METHODS: In this monocentric study, data were gathered from a palliative care unit over an 8-month period. At the beginning of the multidisciplinary treatment, T0, patients underwent both a dental examination and interviews utilizing established questionnaires, the EORTC QLQ-C30 (core, general) and OH 15 (oral health). A week later, at T1, patients underwent a follow-up examination and interview. The QLQ-C30 and OH15 are widely recognized instruments developed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) for evaluating health related quality of life in cancer patients. RESULTS: A total of n = 103 patients (48.5% women) were enrolled in the study. The median duration since their last dental visit was 1 year, and the dental condition at T0 was desolate. At T1, statistically and clinically significant changes in oral quality of life and symptom burden were observed. Noteworthy changes were noted in the OH-QoL score (median 63 vs. 92, p < 0.001), sticky saliva (median 33 vs. 0, p < 0.001), sensitivity to food and drink (median 33 vs. 0, p < 0.001), sore mouth (median 33 vs. 0, p > 0.001), and poorly fitting dentures (median 33 vs. 0 p < 0.001). Additionally, improvements were observed in xerostomia candidiasis and mucositis. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the powerful contribution of integrating a dentist in inpatient palliative care. With very little dental effort and simple ward and bedside treatments, significant improvements in the oral symptom burden of critically ill palliative patients can be achieved. This contributes to improved care status, relief of distressing symptoms, and ultimately improved quality of life. The results strongly support the consideration of dental support as an integral part of palliative care units.

Medication Risks and Their Association with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inpatients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess medication risks and determine factors influencing the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer inpatients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) based on medication reviews, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to identify sociodemographic, disease-related, and drug therapy-related factors influencing changes from hospital admission to discharge in the scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 162 inpatients with various hematological and solid cancer diseases was analyzed. Patients received a mean of 11.6 drugs and 92.6% of patients exhibited polymedication resulting in a mean of 4.0 DRPs per patient. Based on PRO data, 21.5% of DRPs were identified. Multiple linear regression models described the variance of the changes in global HRQOL and physical function in a weak-to-moderate way. While drug therapy-related factors had no influence, relapse status and duration of hospital stay were identified as significant covariates for global HRQOL and physical function, respectively. CONCLUSION: This analysis describes underlying DRPs in a German cancer inpatient population. PROs provided valuable information for performing medication reviews. The multiple linear regression models for global HRQOL and physical function provided explanations for changes during hospital stay.

How Do Quality of Life (QoL) and Symptom Burden Evolve in Inpatient Palliative Care (PC) Patients following One Week of Care in a Specialized Palliative Care Unit (PCU)? A Comparison of Two Groups, with One Receiving Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care Prior to Admission.

PURPOSE: This study sought to investigate changes in quality of life (QoL) and symptom burden among palliative care patients undergoing one week of inpatient care in a specialized palliative care unit (PCU). The patient population was stratified into two groups, with one group pretreated from pre-admission palliative care (PC) provided by an outpatient multidisciplinary PC team, while the other group did not receive such support prior to admission. Although the average duration of treatment at a PCU in Germany is 1-2 weeks, the question also arises as to whether a significant improvement in symptom burden and QoL can be expected after just one week of PC in a PCU. METHODS: PC patients with various cancer entities were prospectively included in a non-randomized study. Patients in group 1 received outpatient specialized PC prior to admission, while patients in group 2 did not. Over an 8-month period, we gathered data from one academic cancer center, utilizing the EORTC QLQ-C30, one of the most widely used patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to assess health-related QoL in cancer patients. Patients completed the QLQ-C30 at T0 (admission or one day later) and T1 (one week later), enabling the assessment of potential changes in their QoL and symptom burden over time. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (51.5% male) were enrolled (group 1: 42%, group 2: 58%). At T0, there were no significant differences regarding QLQ-C30 scores between groups 1 and 2, except from global health/QoL (group 1 mean 20.7, group 2 mean 25.6, p = 0.026). Over the course of one week several significant and clinically relevant changes were found: Emotional functioning demonstrated an uplift in both groups (group 1: mean 41.5 IQR 33 vs. 53.1 IQR 50, p = 0.014, group 2: mean 48.2 IQR 46 vs. 56.8 IQR 58, p = 0.029), as did the global health status (group 1: M 20.7 IQR 17 vs. 36.2 IQR 33, p < 0.001, group 2: M 25.6 IQR 25 vs. 35.3 IQR 33, p < 0.001). Nausea and vomiting showed a reduction (group 1: M 29.9 IQR 17 vs. 6.8 IQR 0, p < 0.001, group 2: M 22.6 IQR 17 vs. 8.2 IQR 0, p < 0.001), along with a notable decline in pain (group 1: M 67.4 IQR 67 vs. 25.3 IQR 17, p < 0.001, group 2: M 73.1 IQR 83 vs. 29.7 IQR 17, p < 0.001). A decrease was observed in insomnia (group 1: M 63.6 IQR 67 vs. 27.6 IQR 33, p < 0.001, group 2: M 60.1 IQR 67 vs. 27.6 IQR 33, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 in the extent of improvement in the various symptom scales from T0 to T1. CONCLUSION: The findings of our study demonstrate that QoL and several symptoms prevalent in cancer patients cared for in the PCU experienced significant enhancement over the span of just one week. Both groups, patients receiving specialized outpatient PC prior to admission and those without, equally benefited from inpatient PC. All mentioned changes from T0 to T1 are considered not only significant but clinically relevant.

Evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcome assessment in inpatient cancer care: a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly important in evaluating medical care. The increased integration of technology within the healthcare systems allows for collection of PROs electronically. The objectives of this study were to Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013) implement an electronic assessment of PROs in inpatient cancer care and test its feasibility for patients and Dawson et al. BMJ (2010) determine the equivalence of the paper and electronic assessment. METHODS: We analyzed two arms from a study that was originally designed to be an interventional, three-arm, and multicenter inpatient trial. A self-administered questionnaire based on validated PRO-measures was applied and completed at admission, 1 week after, and at discharge. For this analysis - focusing on feasibility of the electronic assessment - the following groups will be considered: Group A (intervention arm) received a tablet version, while group B (control arm) completed the questionnaire on paper. A feasibility questionnaire, that was adapted from Ashley et al. J Med Internet Res (2013), was administered to group A. RESULTS: We analyzed 103 patients that were recruited in oncology wards. ePRO was feasible to most patients, with 84% preferring the electronic over paper-based assessment. The feasibility questionnaire contained questions that were answered on a scale ranging from "1" (illustrating non achievement) to "5" (illustrating achieving goal). The majority (mean 4.24, SD .99) reported no difficulties handling the electronic tool and found it relatively easy finding time for filling out the questionnaire (mean 4.15, SD 1.05). There were no significant differences between the paper and the electronic assessment regarding the PROs. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that electronic PRO assessment in inpatient cancer care is feasible.