Explore the vast range of titles available.

Communication with family of critically ill patients is often poor and associated with family distress. To determine if an intensive care unit (ICU) communication facilitator reduces family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. We conducted a randomized trial at two hospitals. Eligible patients had a predicted mortality greater than or equal to 30% and a surrogate decision maker. Facilitators supported communication between clinicians and families, adapted communication to family needs, and mediated conflict. Outcomes included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among family 3 and 6 months after ICU and resource use. We identified 488 eligible patients and randomized 168. Of 352 eligible family members, 268 participated (76%). Family follow-up at 3 and 6 months ranged from 42 to 47%. The intervention was associated with decreased depressive symptoms at 6 months (P = 0.017), but there were no significant differences in psychological symptoms at 3 months or anxiety or PTSD at 6 months. The intervention was not associated with ICU mortality (25% control vs. 21% intervention; P = 0.615) but decreased ICU costs among all patients (per patient: $75,850 control, $51,060 intervention; P = 0.042) and particularly among decedents ($98,220 control, $22,690 intervention; P = 0.028). Among decedents, the intervention reduced ICU and hospital length of stay (28.5 vs. 7.7 d and 31.8 vs. 8.0 d, respectively; P < 0.001). Communication facilitators may be associated with decreased family depressive symptoms at 6 months, but we found no significant difference at 3 months or in anxiety or PTSD. The intervention reduced costs and length of stay, especially among decedents. This is the first study to find a reduction in intensity of end-of-life care with similar or improved family distress. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00720200).

Patients with advanced cancer have reduced quality of life, which tends to worsen towards the end of life. We assessed the effect of early palliative care in patients with advanced cancer on several aspects of quality of life. The study took place at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (Toronto, ON, Canada), between Dec 1, 2006, and Feb 28, 2011. 24 medical oncology clinics were cluster randomised (in a 1:1 ratio, using a computer-generated sequence, stratified by clinic size and tumour site [four lung, eight gastrointestinal, four genitourinary, six breast, two gynaecological]), to consultation and follow-up (at least monthly) by a palliative care team or to standard cancer care. Complete masking of interventions was not possible; however, patients provided written informed consent to participate in their own study group, without being informed of the existence of another group. Eligible patients had advanced cancer, European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and a clinical prognosis of 6–24 months. Quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-Being [FACIT-Sp] scale and Quality of Life at the End of Life [QUAL-E] scale), symptom severity (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS]), satisfaction with care (FAMCARE-P16), and problems with medical interactions (Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System Medical Interaction Subscale [CARES-MIS]) were measured at baseline and monthly for 4 months. The primary outcome was change score for FACIT-Sp at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included change score for FACIT-Sp at 4 months and change scores for other scales at 3 and 4 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248624. 461 patients completed baseline measures (228 intervention, 233 control); 393 completed at least one follow-up assessment. At 3-months, there was a non-significant difference in change score for FACIT-Sp between intervention and control groups (3·56 points [95% CI −0·27 to 7·40], p=0·07), a significant difference in QUAL-E (2·25 [0·01 to 4·49], p=0·05) and FAMCARE-P16 (3·79 [1·74 to 5·85], p=0·0003), and no difference in ESAS (−1·70 [−5·26 to 1·87], p=0·33) or CARES-MIS (−0·66 [−2·25 to 0·94], p=0·40). At 4 months, there were significant differences in change scores for all outcomes except CARES-MIS. All differences favoured the intervention group. Although the difference in quality of life was non-significant at the primary endpoint, this trial shows promising findings that support early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer. Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Background Advance care planning (ACP) is a well-recognized quality indicator for palliative care. Despite two decades of effort, previous studies showed that ACP-related documentation and end-of-life discussion rates remain low for palliative care patients. Although ACP is about self-determination and autonomy, studies consistently show the importance of family involvement in adult patient’s medical decision-making. Yet, research on ACP interventions with structured components targeting family member remained limited. The current study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured, family-supported, patient-centred ACP programme for adult palliative care patients and their families. Methods This is a 2-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial with follow-ups at 6 and 12 months. One hundred and seventy eligible palliative care patients and their families are planned to be recruited from three hospitals, and randomized to either a structured, family-supported, patient-centred ACP programme (ACP-Family) or usual ACP care (ACP-UC) arm. The ACP-Family intervention consists of 2 sessions. The primary outcome is family’s prediction accuracy of patient’s treatment preferences at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include proportions of new ACP documentations and family-reported perception of whether the patient’s end-of-life (EOL) care preference was respected; patient’s decisional conflict; quality of communication; family’s decision-making confidence; family’s anxiety and depression; and patients’ and family members’ satisfaction of the intervention. Outcomes of the two groups will be compared using regressions and linear mixed-effects models. Discussion This study will provide rigorous scientific evidence on the effectiveness of a structured and well-design family-supported, patient-centred ACP programme for adult palliative care patients and their family members in the hospital setting. If the ACP-Family proves to be effective, it will provide a structured and systematic approach to facilitate ACP discussions involving family members. This will respond to local needs and inform international ACP practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05935540.

\"This book is an innovative, practical approach to equipping health social workers with theoretical and clinical tools to integrate palliative care principles into practice with individuals, families, teams and institutions. The editors and authors seek to honor the coherence of palliative care and social work, re- awakening the potential of thousands of health social workers to lead and inform the IOM mandate for high quality, humane patient- centered family focused care\"-- Provided by publisher.

PurposeEarly palliative care (EPC) has shown a positive impact on quality of life (QoL), quality of care, and healthcare costs. We evaluated such effects in patients with advanced gastric cancer.MethodsIn this prospective, multicenter study, 186 advanced gastric cancer patients were randomized 1:1 to receive standard cancer care (SCC) plus on-demand EPC (standard arm) or SCC plus systematic EPC (interventional arm). Primary outcome was a change in QoL between randomization (T0) and T1 (12 weeks after T0) in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) scores evaluated through the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gastric questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were patient mood, overall survival, and family satisfaction with healthcare and care aggressiveness.ResultsThe mean change in TOI scores from T0 to T1 was − 1.30 (standard deviation (SD) 20.01) for standard arm patients and 1.65 (SD 22.38) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.95 (95% CI − 4.43 to 10.32) (p = 0.430). The change in mean Gastric Cancer Subscale values for the standard arm was 0.91 (SD 14.14) and 3.19 (SD 15.25) for the interventional group, with a difference of 2.29 (95% CI − 2.80 to 7.38) (p = 0.375). Forty-three percent of patients in the standard arm received EPC.ConclusionsOur results indicated a slight, albeit not significant, benefit from EPC. Findings on EPC studies may be underestimated in the event of suboptimally managed issues: type of intervention, shared decision-making process between oncologists and PC physicians, risk of standard arm contamination, study duration, timeliness of assessment of primary outcomes, timeliness of cohort inception, and recruitment of patients with a significant symptom burden.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01996540).