Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. A palliative-care intervention and death at home: a cluster randomised trial. A psycho-educational intervention for family caregivers of patients receiving palliative care: a randomized controlled trial. Reducing emotional distress in people caring for patients receiving specialist palliative care. 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. Does hospital at home for palliative care facilitate death at home? Randomised controlled trial. Evaluation of a palliative care service: problems and pitfalls. Randomised controlled trial of effects of coordinating care for terminally ill cancer patients. Evaluation of a hospital-based palliative support service with particular regard to financial outcome measures. Characteristics and quality of life of patients who choose home care at the end of life. A quality improvement intervention to increase palliative care in nursing homes. Caregiver bereavement outcome: relationship with hospice at home, satisfaction with care, and home death. Improving the use of hospice services in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial. Quality of life in palliative cancer care: results from a cluster randomized trial. Impact of an inpatient palliative care team: a randomized control trial. Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. A randomized clinical trial of home nursing care for lung cancer patients. Improving end-of-life care: development and pilot-test of a clinical pathway. An alternative in terminal care: results of the National Hospice Study. Using the COPE intervention for family caregivers to improve symptoms of hospice homecare patients: a clinical trial. The imPaCT study: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a hospital palliative care team. Evaluation of a short-term group intervention for informal carers of patients attending a home palliative care service.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. To evaluate the impact on place of death of a hospital at home service for palliative care.
                Pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Setting: Former Cambridge health district.
                229 patients referred to the hospital at home service; 43 randomised to control group (standard care), 186 randomised to hospital at home.
                Hospital at home versus standard care.
                Place of death.
                Twenty five (58%) control patients died at home compared with 124 (67%) patients allocated to hospital at home. This difference was not significant; intention to treat analysis did not show that hospital at home increased the number of deaths at home. Seventy three patients randomised to hospital at home were not admitted to the service. Patients admitted to hospital at home were significantly more likely to die at home (88/113; 78%) than control patients. It is not possible to determine whether this was due to hospital at home itself or other characteristics of the patients admitted to the service. The study attained less statistical power than initially planned.
                In a locality with good provision of standard community care we could not show that hospital at home allowed more patients to die at home, although neither does the study refute this. Problems relating to recruitment, attrition, and the vulnerability of the patient group make randomised controlled trials in palliative care difficult. While these difficulties have to be recognised they are not insurmountable with the appropriate resourcing and setting. 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. To measure effects on terminally ill cancer patients and their families of coordinating the services available within the NHS and from local authorities and the voluntary sector.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Inner London health district.
                Cancer patients were routinely notified from 1987 to 1990. 554 patients expected to survive less than one year entered the trial and were randomly allocated to a coordination or a control group.
                All patients received routinely available services. Coordination group patients received the assistance of two nurse coordinators, whose role was to ensure that patients received appropriate and well coordinated services, tailored to their individual needs and circumstances.
                Patients and carers were interviewed at home on entry to the trial and at intervals until death. Interviews after bereavement were also conducted. Outcome measures included the presence and severity of physical symptoms, psychiatric morbidity, use of and satisfaction with services, and carers' problems. Results from the baseline interview, the interview closest to death, and the interview after bereavement were analysed.
                Few differences between groups were significant. Coordination group patients were less likely to suffer from vomiting, were more likely to report effective treatment for it, and less likely to be concerned about having an itchy skin. Their carers were more likely to report that in the last week of life the patient had had a cough and had had effective treatment for constipation, and they were less likely to rate the patient's difficulty swallowing as severe or to report effective treatment for anxiety. Coordination group patients were more likely to have seen a chiropodist and their carers were more likely to contact a specialist nurse in a night time emergency. These carers were less likely to feel angry about the death of the patient.
                This coordinating service made little difference to patient or family outcomes, perhaps because the service did not have a budget with which it could obtain services or because the professional skills of the nurse-coordinators may have conflicted with the requirements of the coordinating role. The object of this study was a financial assessment of a hospital-based palliative support service, to be made by comparing the study group with a matched historical control group and a group of contemporary reference patients. The staff consisted of one full-time nurse supported by a surgeon one half-day per week. The patients in the study group utilized fewer institutional days than the control group, according to such parameters as duration of terminal hospitalization (P < 0.05), ratio of days at home to total inclusion days (P < 0.001), and days at home during last two months of life (P < 0.01). These three outcome measures all focus on the most care-intensive last months of life and appeared to be sensitive enough to identify economic advantages of palliative care intervention. The palliative support service defrayed its own costs and in excess of that saved another SK17000 per patient (US$2500). Cancer patients with advanced disease and short-survival expectancy were given hospital-based advanced home care (AHC) or conventional care (CC), according to their preference. The two groups were compared at baseline to investigate whether there were differences between the AHC and the CC patients that may help explain their choice of care. The patients were consecutively recruited over 2(1/2) years. Sociodemographic and medical data, and the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of the two groups were compared. HRQL was assessed using a self-reporting questionnaire, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Impact of Event Scale (IES), five questions about social support, and two items concerning general well-being. The AHC group showed significantly poorer functioning on all the EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and an overall higher symptom burden than the CC patients. Fewer of the AHC patients were receiving cancer treatment. The AHC patients had lived longer with their cancer diagnosis, had a significantly shorter survival after study enrollment, and a significantly poorer performance status. The major differences between the two groups seemed to be related to being at different stages in their disease. The results indicate that patients are reluctant to accept home care until absolutely necessary due to severity of functioning impairments and symptom burden. These findings should be taken into consideration in planning palliative care services. 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. This study used a randomized controlled trial design to investigate the impact of hospice at home (HAH) on caregiver bereavement outcome. Secondary analyses considered the association between bereavement, place of death, and carers' assessment of support. Ninety-six informal carers of patients referred to HAH were surveyed six weeks post-bereavement about the quality of terminal care. Carers next completed measures of their own bereavement response and general health six months post-bereavement. There was no evidence that HAH had an impact on bereavement outcome. In contrast, perceptions of inadequate terminal support and high symptom severity were associated with worse carer bereavement response. However, it remains unclear whether carers' retrospective ratings constitute an accurate account of symptoms and care. Home deaths were associated with both better bereavement response and better physical health post-bereavement than were inpatient deaths. Further research is needed to investigate the implications of death at home for the carer. Hospice care may improve the quality of end-of-life care for nursing home residents, but hospice is underutilized by this population, at least in part because physicians are not aware of their patients' preferences.
                To determine whether it is possible to increase hospice utilization and improve the quality of end-of-life care by identifying residents whose goals and preferences are consistent with hospice care.
                Randomized controlled trial (December 2003-December 2004) of nursing home residents and their surrogate decision makers (N=205) in 3 US nursing homes.
                A structured interview identified residents whose goals for care, treatment preferences, and palliative care needs made them appropriate for hospice care. These residents' physicians were notified and asked to authorize a hospice informational visit.
                The primary outcome measures were (1) hospice enrollment within 30 days of the intervention and (2) families' ratings of the quality of care for residents who died during the 6-month follow-up period.
                Of the 205 residents in the study sample, 107 were randomly assigned to receive the intervention, and 98 received usual care. Intervention residents were more likely than usual care residents to enroll in hospice within 30 days (21/107 [20%] vs 1/98 [1%]; P<.001 [Fisher exact test]) and to enroll in hospice during the follow-up period (27/207 [25%] vs 6/98 [6%]; P<.001). Intervention residents had fewer acute care admissions (mean: 0.28 vs 0.49; P = .04 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]) and spent fewer days in an acute care setting (mean: 1.2 vs 3.0; P = .03 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]). Families of intervention residents rated the resident's care more highly than did families of usual care residents (mean on a scale of 1-5: 4.1 vs 2.5; P = .04 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]).
                A simple communication intervention can increase rates of hospice referrals and families' ratings of end-of-life care and may also decrease utilization of acute care resources. To assess the impact of comprehensive palliative care on patients' quality of life. The intervention was based on cooperation between a palliative medicine unit and the community service and was compared with conventional care.
                A cluster randomized trial was carried out, with community health care districts defined as the clusters. Patients from these districts who had malignant disease and survival expectancy between 2 to 9 months were entered onto the trial. The main quality-of-life end points were physical and emotional functioning, pain, and psychologic distress assessed monthly by using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaire and Impact of Event scale (IES). In total, 235 intervention patients and 199 controls were included.
                During the initial 4 months of follow-up, the compliance was good (72%) and comparable among treatment groups. No significant differences on any of the quality-of-life scores were found. At later assessments and for scores that were made within 3 months before death, there was also no consistent tendency in favor of any treatment group on the main outcomes or other EORTC QLQ-C30 scales/items.
                A general program of palliative care may be important to ensure flexibility and to meet the needs of terminally ill patients. However, to achieve improvements on a group level of the various dimensions of quality of life, specific interventions directed toward specific symptoms or problems may have to be defined, evaluated, and included in the program. Palliative care improves care and reduces costs for hospitalized patients with life-limiting illnesses. There have been no multicenter randomized trials examining impact on patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and subsequent health care costs.
                Measure the impact of an interdisciplinary palliative care service (IPCS) on patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and cost of care for 6 months posthospital discharge.
                Multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. IPCS provided consultative, interdisciplinary, palliative care to intervention patients. Controls received usual hospital care (UC).
                Five hundred seventeen patients with life-limiting illnesses from a hospital in Denver, Portland, and San Francisco enrolled June 2002 to December 2003.
                Modified City of Hope Patient Questionnaire, total health care costs, hospice utilization, and survival.
                IPCS reported higher scores for the Care Experience scale (IPCS: 6.9 versus UC: 6.6, p = 0.04) and for the Doctors, Nurses/Other Care Providers Communication scale (IPCS: 8.3 versus UC: 7.5, p = 0.0004). IPCS patients had fewer intensive care admissions (ICU) on hospital readmission (12 versus 21, p = 0.04), and lower 6-month net cost savings of $4,855 per patient (p = 0.001). IPCS had longer median hospice stays (24 days versus 12 days, p = 0.04). There were no differences in survival or symptom control.
                IPCS patients reported greater satisfaction with their care experience and providers' communication, had fewer ICU admissions on readmission, and lower total health care costs following hospital discharge. 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. Little is known about the use of palliative care for outpatients who continue to pursue treatment of their underlying disease or whether outpatient palliative medicine consultation teams improve clinical outcomes.
                We conducted a year-long controlled trial involving 50 intervention patients and 40 control patients in a general medicine outpatient clinic. Primary care physicians referred patients with advanced congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or cancer who had a prognosis ranging from 1 to 5 years. In the intervention group, the primary care physicians received multiple palliative care team consultations, and patients received advance care planning, psychosocial support, and family caregiver training. Clinical and health care utilization outcomes were assessed at 6 and 12 months.
                Groups were similar at baseline. Similar numbers of patients died during the study year (P =.63). After the intervention, intervention group patients had less dyspnea (P =.01) and anxiety (P =.05) and improved sleep quality (P =.05) and spiritual well-being (P =.007), but no change in pain (P =.41), depression (P =.28), quality of life (P =.43), or satisfaction with care (P =.26). Few patients received recommended analgesic or antidepressant medications. Intervention patients had decreased primary care (P =.03) and urgent care visits (P =.04) without an increase in emergency department visits, specialty clinic visits, hospitalizations, or number of days in the hospital. There were no differences in charges (P =.80).
                Consultation by a palliative medicine team led to improved patient outcomes in dyspnea, anxiety, and spiritual well-being, but failed to improve pain or depression. Palliative care for seriously ill outpatients can be effective, but barriers to implementation must be explored. A randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess the effects of home nursing care for patients with progressive lung cancer. One hundred sixty-six patients were assigned to either an oncology home care group (OHC) that received care from oncology home care nurses, a standard home care group (SHC) that received care from regular home care nurses, or an office care group (OC) that received whatever care they needed except for home care. Patients were entered into the study 2 months after diagnosis and followed for 6 months. Patients were interviewed at 6-week intervals across five occasions. At the end of the study, there were no differences in pain, mood disturbance, and concerns among the three groups. There were significant differences in symptom distress, enforced social dependency, and health perceptions. The two home nursing care groups had less distress and greater independence 6 weeks longer than the office care group. In addition, the two home nursing care groups steadily reported worse health perceptions over time. Thus, it was remarkable that the office care group, which indicated more symptom distress and social dependency with time, also indicated perceptions of improved health with time. These results suggest that home nursing care assists patients with forestalling distress from symptoms and maintaining their independence longer in comparison to no home nursing care. Home care may also include assisting patients in acknowledging the reality of their situation. Prior studies have revealed deficiencies in the care provided to patients dying from advanced medical illnesses in acute care hospitals. These deficiencies are best addressed through system change, which may include the development of clinical pathways and quality improvement models. The Palliative Care for Advanced Disease (PCAD) pathway was developed by an interdisciplinary team and includes a carepath, a daily flowsheet, and a physician order sheet with standard orders for symptom control. To evaluate the utility of PCAD, the clinical pathway was introduced on three hospital units (Oncology, Geriatrics, and an inpatient palliative care/hospice unit) as part of a quality improvement initiative and outcomes were compared to two general medical units receiving usual care. A chart audit tool (CAT) was used to review medical records of 101 patients who died on one of these five units during the year prior to implementation (baseline) and 156 who died during the nine months of the PCAD intervention. Four indices from CAT evaluated change over time: the mean number of 1) symptoms assessed, 2) problematic symptoms, 3) interventions consistent with PCAD, and 4) consultations requested. Nine of 27 (33%) patients on the Oncology/Geriatrics units and all 50 patients who died on the palliative care/hospice unit were placed on PCAD. During the PCAD intervention, dying patients who resided on Geriatrics, Oncology and palliative care/hospice units were more likely to have DNR orders than the comparison units, whereas the comparison units were more likely to use "morphine infusions" and cardiopulmonary resuscitation than the units that received the PCAD intervention. The mean number of symptoms assessed increased significantly in all units (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). The number of problematic symptoms identified (P=0.014) and the number of interventions consistent with PCAD increased only on the palliative care/hospice unit (P=0.021). The number of medical consultations declined on all units and reached significance on the Geriatrics and Oncology units (P=0.037). Although these results reflect less than one year of the PCAD intervention and must be considered preliminary, they suggest that 1) a clinical pathway such as PCAD can serve as a managerial and educational tool to improve the care of the imminently dying inpatient; 2) a PCAD clinical pathway can be implemented on hospital units as a quality improvement initiative--a "PCAD intervention;" 3) a PCAD intervention can change outcomes in a positive direction, as measured using a chart audit tool; 4) a PCAD intervention can promote aggressive symptom assessment and treatment when goals of care are aimed at comfort; and 5) changes may occur in units that do not directly receive the intervention, a phenomenon that suggests the possibility of diffusion. Further study of this systems-oriented approach to change is warranted and should include direct assessment of patient and family outcomes, as well as measures of process. Hospice is a program of supportive services for terminally ill patients and their families, provided either at home or in designated inpatient settings, which is purported to improve patient and family quality of life at lower cost than conventional terminal care. The National Hospice Study was a multi-site, quasi-experimental study to compare the experiences of terminal cancer patients and their families in hospices with those of similar patients and families receiving conventional terminal care. The results indicate that, although care is different in hospices, e.g. lesser utilization of aggressive interventional therapy and diagnostic testing, patients' quality of life is similar in the hospice and conventional care systems with the exception of pain and symptom control, which may be better in the inpatient hospice setting. Hospice patients are more likely to die at home and their families are satisfied with that outcome. Otherwise, no consistent superiority of family outcome was associated with the hospice approach. The cost of hospice care is less than that of conventional terminal care for patients in hospices without inpatient facilities, but the cost of hospice appears to be equivalent to conventional care for patients in hospices having beds. To test an intervention for hospice caregivers designed to help them better manage symptoms experienced by patients with cancer.
                A three-group comparative design with repeated measures.
                A large nonprofit hospice that primarily provides home care.
                329 hospice homecare patients with cancer and their caregivers were randomized into three groups: a control group (n = 109) receiving standard care, a group (n = 109) receiving standard care plus friendly visits, and a group (n = 111) receiving standard care plus the COPE intervention.
                Caregivers received experimental training in the COPE intervention (creativity, optimism, planning, expert information) over nine days to assist with symptom management.
                Intensity of pain, dyspnea, and constipation, overall symptom distress, and quality of life (QOL). Data were collected on admission and days 16 and 30.
                Although symptom intensity for three target symptoms did not decrease, symptom distress was significantly improved (p = 0.009) in the COPE intervention group. QOL was not significantly different.
                Symptom distress, a measure that encompasses patient suffering along with intensity, was significantly decreased in the group in which caregivers were trained to better manage patient symptoms.
                The COPE intervention is effective and immediately translatable to the bedside for hospice homecare patients with advanced cancer. A randomised controlled trial was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of a hospital Palliative Care Team (PCT) on physical symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL); patient, family carer and primary care professional reported satisfaction with care; and health service resource use. The full package of advice and support provided by a multidisciplinary specialist PCT ('full-PCT') was compared with limited telephone advice ('telephone-PCT', the control group) in the setting of a teaching hospital trust in the SW of England. The trial recruited 261 out of 684 new inpatient referrals; 175 were allocated to 'full-PCT', 86 to 'telephone-PCT' (2 : 1 randomisation); with 191 (73%) being assessed at 1 week. There were highly significant improvements in symptoms, HRQoL, mood and 'emotional bother' in 'full-PCT' at 1 week, maintained over the 4-week follow-up. A smaller effect was seen in 'telephone-PCT'; there were no significant differences between the groups. Satisfaction with care in both groups was high and there was no significant difference between them. These data reflect a high standard of care of patients dying of cancer and other chronic diseases in an acute hospital environment, but do not demonstrate a difference between the two models of service delivery of specialist palliative 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.
The results provide clear and reliable evidence that home palliative care increases the chance of dying at home and reduces symptom burden in particular for patients with cancer, without impacting on caregiver grief. This justifies providing home palliative care for patients who wish to die at home. More work is needed to study cost-effectiveness especially for people with non-malignant conditions, assessing place of death and appropriate outcomes that are sensitive to change and valid in these populations, and to compare different models of home palliative care, in powered studies.