Quality Measures For Symptoms and Advance Care Planning in Cancer: A Systematic Review

Purpose Measuring quality of care for symptom management and ascertaining patient goals offers an important step toward improving palliative cancer management. This study was designed to identify systematically the quality measures and the evidence to support their use in pain, dyspnea, depression, and advance care planning (ACP), and to identify research gaps. Methods English-language documents were selected from MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, PsycINFO (1995 to 2005); Internet-based searches; and contact with measure developers. We used terms for each domain to select studies throughout the cancer care continuum. We included measures that expressed a normative relationship to quality, specified the target population, and specified the indicated care. Dual data review and abstraction was performed by palliative care researchers describing populations, testing, and attributes for each measure. Results A total of 4,599 of 5,182 titles were excluded at abstract review. Of 537 remaining articles, 19 contained measures for ACP, six contained measures for depression, five contained measures for dyspnea, and 20 contained measures for pain. We identified 10 relevant measure sets that included 36 fully specified or fielded measures and 14 additional measures (16 for pain, five for dyspnea, four for depression, and 25 for ACP). Most measures were unpublished, and few had been tested in a cancer population. We were unable to describe the specifications of all measures fully and did not search for measures for pain and depression that were not cancer specific. Conclusion Measures are available for assessing quality and guiding improvement in palliative cancer care. Existing measures are weighted toward ACP, and more nonpain symptom measures are needed. Additional testing is needed before the measures are used for accountability, and basic research is required to address measurement when self-report is impaired

Palliative Care Early in the Care Continuum among Patients with Serious Respiratory Illness An Official ATS/AAHPM/HPNA/SWHPN Policy Statement

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes.Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this.Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology.Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1) delivery models, 2) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4) caregiver support, 5) health disparities, 6) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers.Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration

A randomised trial of lung sealant versus medical therapy for advanced emphysema

Uncontrolled pilot studies demonstrated promising results of endoscopic lung volume reduction using emphysematous lung sealant (ELS) in patients with advanced, upper lobe predominant emphysema. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ELS in a randomised controlled setting. Patients were randomised to ELS plus medical treatment or medical treatment alone. Despite early termination for business reasons and inability to assess the primary 12-month end-point, 95 out of 300 patients were successfully randomised, providing sufficient data for 3- and 6-month analysis. 57 patients (34 treatment and 23 control) had efficacy results at 3 months; 34 (21 treatment and 13 control) at 6 months. In the treatment group, 3-month lung function, dyspnoea, and quality of life improved significantly from baseline when compared to control. Improvements persisted at 6 months with >50% of treated patients experiencing clinically important improvements, including some whose lung function improved by >100%. 44% of treated patients experienced adverse events requiring hospitalisation (2.5-fold more than control, p=0.01), with two deaths in the treated cohort. Treatment responders tended to be those experiencing respiratory adverse events. Despite early termination, results show that minimally invasive ELS may be efficacious, yet significant risks (probably inflammatory) limit its current utility. Copyright © ERS 2015