7 research outputs found
Seeking excellence in end-of-life care (SEECare UK): A UK multi-centred service evaluation
Context People dying in hospitals without specialist palliative care (SPC) input may suffer with significant unmet needs, unrecognised until case-note audit after death.
Objectives To evaluate the care of dying hospital inpatients unknown to SPC services across the United Kingdom to better understand their needs and identify factors impacting care of this cohort.
Methods Prospective one day UK-wide service evaluation including all dying adult inpatients, excluding those in Emergency Departments/Intensive Care Units. Holistic needs and use of recognised end-of-life care plans (EOLCP) were assessed for those unknown to SPC.
Results 88 hospitals, 284 patients. Nearly all patients had unmet holistic needs (93%) which included physical symptoms (75%) and psychological, social and spiritual needs (86%). A dying patient was more likely to have unmet needs and require SPC intervention at a District General Hospital (DGH) compared to a Teaching Hospital/Cancer Centre (Unmet need 98.1% v 91.2% p0.02; Intervention 70.9% v 50.8% p0.001) and when an EOLCP was not utilised (Unmet need 98.3% v 90.3% p0.006; Intervention 67.2% v 53.3% p0.02). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that teaching/cancer hospitals (aOR 0.44 CI 0.26–0.73) and increased SPC medical staffing (aOR 1.69 CI 1.04–2.79) independently influenced need for intervention. However, integration of the use of an EOLCP within the model reduced the impact of SPC medical staffing.
Conclusion People dying in hospitals unknown to SPC have significant unmet needs. Further evaluation is required to understand the relationships between patient, staff and service factors in best meeting dying peoples’ needs. The effective content and implementation of EOLCP warrants further investigation
Recommended from our members
Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.
Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707
Seeking Excellence in End of Life Care UK (SEECare UK):a UK multi-centred service evaluation
Objective To evaluate the care of patients dying in hospital without support from specialists in palliative care (SPC), better understand their needs and factors influencing their care. Methods Prospective UK-wide service evaluation including all dying adult inpatients unknown to SPC, excluding those in emergency departments/intensive care units. Holistic needs were assessed through a standardised proforma. Results 88 hospitals, 284 patients. 93% had unmet holistic needs, including physical symptoms (75%) and psycho-socio-spiritual needs (86%). People were more likely to have unmet needs and require SPC intervention at a district general hospital (DGH) than a teaching hospital/cancer centre (unmet need 98.1% vs 91.2% p0.02; intervention 70.9% vs 50.8% p0.001) and when end-of-life care plans (EOLCP) were not used (unmet need 98.3% vs 90.3% p0.006; intervention 67.2% vs 53.3% p0.02). Multivariable analyses demonstrated the independent influence of teaching/cancer hospitals (adjusted OR (aOR)0.44 CI 0.26 to 0.73) and increased SPC medical staffing (aOR1.69 CI 1.04 to 2.79) on need for intervention, however, integrating the use of EOLCP reduced the impact of SPC medical staffing. Conclusion People dying in hospitals have significant and poorly identified unmet needs. Further evaluation is required to understand the relationships between patient, staff and service factors influencing this. The development, effective implementation and evaluation of structured individualised EOLCP should be a research funding priority.PostprintPeer reviewe