A quality improvement intervention to increase palliative care in nursing homes. A palliative-care intervention and death at home: a cluster randomised trial. Effectiveness of palliative care services in symptom control of patients with advanced terminal cancer: a spanish, multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental, pre-post study. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Randomised trial. A psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients receiving palliative care: a randomized controlled trial. Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. Evaluation of a short-term group intervention for informal carers of patients attending a home palliative care service.
Death is common in nursing homes, but access to palliative care is limited.
                To test whether a quality improvement (QI) intervention in nursing homes increases hospice, pain management, and advance care planning.
                The QI intervention was tested in seven nursing homes using a prepoststudy design. Two additional nursing homes served as control sites.
                Nine nursing homes serving 1169 residents.
                The intervention included recruitment and training of Palliative Care Leadership Teams in each facility, followed by six technical assistance meetings for team members. Hospice providers delivered six educational sessions for all nursing home staff using a structured curriculum. Teams received feedback of performance data on hospice enrollment, pain management, and advance care planning at 0, 3, and 6 months.
                Percentage of residents receiving hospice or palliative services, pain assessment, pain treatment among residents in pain, and documented advance care planning discussions.
                Intervention facilities increased hospice enrollment from 4.0% of residents at baseline to 6.8% postintervention (p = .01) and increased pain assessments from 18% to 60% (p < .001). Among resident in pain, orders for nonpharmacologic pain treatments increased from 15% to 35% (p < .001), but pain medication use did not change. Residents with in-depth discussions about end-of-life care increased from 4% to 17% (p < .001). There were no significant changes in control sites.
                A quality improvement intervention was effective in increasing hospice enrollment, pain assessment, nonpharmacologic pain treatment, and advance care planning discussions. The Palliative Medicine Unit at University Hospital of Trondheim, Norway, started an intervention programme that aims to enable patients to spend more time at home and die there if they prefer. Close cooperation was needed with the community health-care professionals, who acted as the principal formal caregivers, and a multidisciplinary consultant team coordinated the care. We did a cluster randomised trial to assess the intervention's effectiveness compared with conventional care
                Community health-care districts in and around Trondheim, Norway, were defined as the clusters to be randomised. We enrolled 434 patients (235 assigned intervention and 199 conventional care [controls]) in these districts who had incurable malignant disease and an expected survival of 2-9 months. Main outcomes were place of death and time spent in institutions in the last month of life.
                395 patients died. Of these, more intervention patients than controls died at home (54 [25%] vs 26 [15%], p<0.05). The time spent at home was not significantly increased, although intervention patients spent a smaller proportion of time in nursing homes in the last month of life than did controls (7.2 vs 14.6%, p<0.05). Hospital use was similar in the two groups.
                The palliative-care intervention enabled more patients to die at home. More resources for care in the home (palliative care training and staff) and an increased focus on use of nursing homes would be necessary, however, to increase time at home and reduce hospital admissions. In implementing the National Strategy of Palliative Care in Spain, there needs to be an evaluation of services, especially of their effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of patients and families.
                To assess the effectiveness of palliative care services (PCS) in improving symptom control in Spain.
                This multicenter, prospective, quasi-experimental, pre-post intervention study evaluated symptoms, such as pain, breakthrough pain, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, constipation, insomnia, dyspnea at rest and with movement, anxiety, and depression, using patient-reported numeric rating scales on Days 0, 7, and 14 after referral to a PCS.
                Of the 318 PCSs included in the National Directory for 2004, 105 services in the 17 autonomous regions of Spain were able to report 265 eligible (treatment-naïve) patients. Nonparticipation by some centers was because of excessive workload or because their patients were not treatment-naïve. Median survival was 42 days. Pain severity and number of crises of breakthrough pain significantly improved, as did other indicators of patient satisfaction. Symptom improvement was independent of type of service (in acute bed hospitals, medium-term stay facilities, hospital support teams, home care support teams, and outpatient clinics).
                Our national plan appears to be successful in reducing symptoms irrespective of the type of organization providing the PCS. An area for improvement could be to lessen the workload of individual teams.
                Copyright © 2010 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. There are few randomized controlled trials on the effectiveness of palliative care interventions to improve the care of patients with advanced cancer.
                To determine the effect of a nursing-led intervention on quality of life, symptom intensity, mood, and resource use in patients with advanced cancer.
                Randomized controlled trial conducted from November 2003 through May 2008 of 322 patients with advanced cancer in a rural, National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in New Hampshire and affiliated outreach clinics and a VA medical center in Vermont.
                A multicomponent, psychoeducational intervention (Project ENABLE [Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends]) conducted by advanced practice nurses consisting of 4 weekly educational sessions and monthly follow-up sessions until death or study completion (n = 161) vs usual care (n = 161).
                Quality of life was measured by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy for Palliative Care (score range, 0-184). Symptom intensity was measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (score range, 0-900). Mood was measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (range, 0-60). These measures were assessed at baseline, 1 month, and every 3 months until death or study completion. Intensity of service was measured as the number of days in the hospital and in the intensive care unit (ICU) and the number of emergency department visits recorded in the electronic medical record.
                A total of 322 participants with cancer of the gastrointestinal tract (41%; 67 in the usual care group vs 66 in the intervention group), lung (36%; 58 vs 59), genitourinary tract (12%; 20 vs 19), and breast (10%; 16 vs 17) were randomized. The estimated treatment effects (intervention minus usual care) for all participants were a mean (SE) of 4.6 (2) for quality of life (P = .02), -27.8 (15) for symptom intensity (P = .06), and -1.8 (0.81) for depressed mood (P = .02). The estimated treatment effects in participants who died during the study were a mean (SE) of 8.6 (3.6) for quality of life (P = .02), -24.2 (20.5) for symptom intensity (P = .24), and -2.7 (1.2) for depressed mood (P = .03). Intensity of service did not differ between the 2 groups.
                Compared with participants receiving usual oncology care, those receiving a nurse-led, palliative care-focused intervention addressing physical, psychosocial, and care coordination provided concurrently with oncology care had higher scores for quality of life and mood, but did not have improvements in symptom intensity scores or reduced days in the hospital or ICU or emergency department visits.
                clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00253383. To evaluate a palliative care home support team based on an inpatient unit.
                Randomised controlled trial with waiting list. Patients in the study group received the service immediately, those in the control group received it after one month. Main comparison point was at one month.
                A city of 300,000 people with a publicly funded home care service and about 200 general practitioners, most of whom provide home care.
                Pain and nausea levels were measured at entry to trial and at one month, as were quality of life for patients and care givers' health.
                Because of early deaths, problems with recruitment, and a low compliance rate for completion of questionnaires, the required sample size was not attained.
                In designing evaluations of palliative care services, investigators should be prepared to deal with the following issues: attrition due to early death, opposition to randomisation by patients and referral sources, ethical problems raised by randomisation of dying patients, the appropriate timing of comparison points, and difficulties of collecting data from sick or exhausted patients and care givers. Investigators may choose to evaluate a service from various perspectives using different methods: controlled trials, qualitative studies, surveys, and audits. Randomised trials may prove to be impracticable for evaluation of palliative care. Caring for relatives with advanced cancer may cause psychological and physical ill health.
                To evaluate the effectiveness of increased support for distressed, informal carers of patients receiving palliative care.
                The sample was composed of 271 informal carers who scored over 5 on the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28). The intervention comprised six weekly visits by a trained advisor. Primary outcome was carer distress (GHQ-28) at 4-week, 9-week and 12-week follow-up. Secondary outcomes were carer strain and quality of life, satisfaction with care, and bereavement outcome.
                Scores on the GHQ-28 fell below the threshold of 5/6 in a third of participants in each trial arm at any follow-up point. Mean scores in the intervention group were lower at all time points but these differences were not significant. No difference was observed in secondary outcomes. Carers receiving the intervention reported qualitative benefit.
                The intervention might have been too brief, and ongoing help might have had accruing benefits. Alternatively, informal carers of patients with cancer may already receive considerable input and the advisor's help gave little additional advantage; or caring for a dying relative is extremely stressful and no amount of support is going to make it much better. This study describes an evaluation of a psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients dying of cancer at home. In a randomized controlled trial, participants (n = 106) received standard home-based palliative care services (n = 52) or these services plus the new intervention (n = 54). Data were collected at three time points: upon commencement of home-based palliative care (Time 1), five weeks later (Time 2), and then eight weeks following patient death (Time 3). No intervention effects were identified with respect to preparedness to care, self-efficacy, competence, and anxiety. However, participants who received the intervention reported a significantly more positive caregiver experience than those who received standard care at both Times 2 and 3. The findings indicate that it is possible to increase caregiver rewards despite being immersed in challenging circumstances that often yield considerable negative psychosocial sequelae. Furthermore, it is feasible for health professionals to discuss emotive topics, such as impending death, with caregivers without adverse effects. To determine whether an in-home palliative care intervention for terminally ill patients can improve patient satisfaction, reduce medical care costs, and increase the proportion of patients dying at home.
                A randomized, controlled trial.
                Two health maintenance organizations in two states.
                Homebound, terminally ill patients (N=298) with a prognosis of approximately 1 year or less to live plus one or more hospital or emergency department visits in the previous 12 months.
                Usual versus in-home palliative care plus usual care delivered by an interdisciplinary team providing pain and symptom relief, patient and family education and training, and an array of medical and social support services.
                Measured outcomes were satisfaction with care, use of medical services, site of death, and costs of care.
                Patients randomized to in-home palliative care reported greater improvement in satisfaction with care at 30 and 90 days after enrollment (P<.05) and were more likely to die at home than those receiving usual care (P<.001). In addition, in-home palliative care subjects were less likely to visit the emergency department (P=.01) or be admitted to the hospital than those receiving usual care (P<.001), resulting in significantly lower costs of care for intervention patients (P=.03).
                In-home palliative care significantly increased patient satisfaction while reducing use of medical services and costs of medical care at the end of life. This study, although modest in scope, presents strong evidence for reforming end-of-life care. Despite evidence of high psychological distress and unmet needs, evaluated interventions for informal caregivers in palliative care are few. This study involved an observational outcome evaluation of attendees, and a comparison group, in specialist home palliative care. The measures included carer psychological status and patient physical status at baseline, 8 weeks, and 20 weeks. Qualitative data were collected regarding content, satisfaction with, and impact of intervention. Process data described the uptake, resources, and group activity. The intervention combined informal multiprofessional teaching with facilitated peer exchange and support, and was delivered over 6 sessions of 90 minutes per week. The uptake rate was 25%; carers were less likely to accept if they were in paid employment (OR=0.26, P=0.06), and more likely to accept if they utilized avoidance coping (OR=1.13, P=0.04) or their patient had worse physical status (OR=2.1, P=0.03). Attendees described significant support and knowledge gains from the multiprofessional input and peer group. Most relied on social comparison processes to appraise their situation. Potential detection of significant effects on global psychological scores (i.e. anxiety, depression, and burden) using multivariate analysis was disallowed due to attrition. This acceptable and accessible intervention provided information and support; further outcome studies are needed for a range of interventions. Short-term interventions are unlikely to affect global psychological scores, and future evaluations should include additional time points of data collection to demonstrate support during attendance.
We found few studies, and all were in the USA. Although the results are potentially promising, high quality trials of palliative care service delivery interventions which assess outcomes for residents are needed, particularly outside the USA. These should focus on measuring standard outcomes, assessing cost-effectiveness, and reducing bias.