Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with at-home death among patients with advanced cancer and create a decision-making model for discharging patients from an acute-care hospital. Patients and Methods We conducted an observational cohort study to identify the association between place of death and the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with advanced cancer who received care from a palliative home care team (PHCT) and of their primary caregivers. We used logistic regression analysis to identify the predictors of at-home death. Results We identified 380 patients who met the study inclusion criteria; of these, 245 patients (64%) died at home, 72 (19%) died in an acute-care hospital, 60 (16%) died in a palliative care unit, and three (1%) died in a nursing home. Median follow-up was 48 days. We included the 16 variables that were significant in univariate analysis in our decision-making model. Five variables predictive of at-home death were retained in the multivariate analysis: caregiver's preferred place of death, patients' preferred place of death, caregiver's perceived social support, number of hospital admission days, and number of PHCT visits. A subsequent reduced model including only those variables that were known at the time of discharge (caregivers' preferred place of death, patients' preferred place of death, and caregivers' perceived social support) had a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 81% in predicting place of death. Conclusion Asking a few simple patient- and family-centered questions may help to inform the decision regarding the best place for end-of-life care and death.

Using a decision-making and treatment checklist developed to facilitate the at-home palliative sedation process, we assessed the incidence and efficacy of palliative sedation for end-of-life cancer patients with intractable symptoms who died at home. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 370 patients who were followed by a palliative home care team. Twenty-nine of 245 patients (12%) who died at home had received palliative sedation. The mean age of the patients who received palliative sedation was 58 +/- 17 years, and the mean age of the patients who did not receive palliative sedation was 69 +/- 15 years (p = 0.002). No other differences were detected between patients who did or did not receive palliative sedation. The most common indications for palliative sedation were delirium (62%) and dyspnea (14%). Twenty-seven patients (93%) received midazolam for palliative sedation (final mean dose of 74 mg), and two (7%) received levomepromazine (final mean dose of 125 mg). The mean time between palliative sedation initiation and time of death was 2.6 days. In 13 of the cases (45%), the palliative sedation decision was made with the patient and his or her family members, and in another 13 patients (45%), the palliative sedation decision was made only with the patient's family members. We concluded that palliative sedation may be used safely and efficaciously to treat dying cancer patients with refractory symptoms at home.

We developed a highly accurate tool that uses basic clinical and analytical information to predict the probability of survival at 15, 30, and 60 days in terminally ill cancer patients. This tool can help physicians making decisions on clinical care at the end of life.

Our findings suggest that a PHCT is associated with reduced in-patient deaths and overall hospitalization over the last two months of life.

Background The clinical presentation of COVID-19 in patients admitted to hospital is heterogeneous. We aimed to determine whether clinical phenotypes of patients with COVID-19 can be derived from clinical data, to assess the reproducibility of these phenotypes and correlation with prognosis, and to derive and validate a simplified probabilistic model for phenotype assignment. Phenotype identification was not primarily intended as a predictive tool for mortality. MethodsIn this study, we used data from two cohorts: the COVID-19@Spain cohort, a retrospective cohort including 4035 consecutive adult patients admitted to 127 hospitals in Spain with COVID-19 between Feb 2 and March 17, 2020, and the COVID-19@HULP cohort, including 2226 consecutive adult patients admitted to a teaching hospital in Madrid between Feb 25 and April 19, 2020. The COVID-19@Spain cohort was divided into a derivation cohort, comprising 2667 randomly selected patients, and an internal validation cohort, comprising the remaining 1368 patients. The COVID-19@HULP cohort was used as an external validation cohort. A probabilistic model for phenotype assignment was derived in the derivation cohort using multinomial logistic regression and validated in the internal validation cohort. The model was also applied to the external validation cohort. 30-day mortality and other prognostic variables were assessed in the derived phenotypes and in the phenotypes assigned by the probabilistic model. Findings Three distinct phenotypes were derived in the derivation cohort (n=2667)-phenotype A (516 [19%] patients), phenotype B (1955 [73%]) and phenotype C (196 [7%])-and reproduced in the internal validation cohort (n=1368)phenotype A (233 [17%] patients), phenotype B (1019 [74%]), and phenotype C (116 [8%]). Patients with phenotype A were younger, were less frequently male, had mild viral symptoms, and had normal inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype B included more patients with obesity, lymphocytopenia, and moderately elevated inflammatory parameters. Patients with phenotype C included older patients with more comorbidities and even higher inflammatory parameters than phenotype B. We developed a simplified probabilistic model (validated in the internal validation cohort) for phenotype assignment, including 16 variables. In the derivation cohort, 30-day mortality rates were 2•5% (95% CI 1•4-4•3) for patients with phenotype A, 30•5% (28•5-32•6) for patients with phenotype B, and 60•7% (53•7-67•2) for patients with phenotype C (log-rank test p<0•0001). The predicted phenotypes in the internal validation cohort and external validation cohort showed similar mortality rates to the assigned phenotypes (internal validation cohort: 5•3% [95% CI 3•4-8•1] for phenotype A, 31•3% [28•5-34•2] for phenotype B, and 59•5% [48•8-69•3] for phenotype C; external validation cohort: 3•7% [2•0-6•4] for phenotype A, 23•7% [21•8-25•7] for phenotype B, and 51•4% [41•9-60•7] for phenotype C).Interpretation Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 can be classified into three...

BackgroundThe desire for hastened death or wish to hasten death (WTHD) that is experienced by some patients with advanced illness is a complex phenomenon for which no widely accepted definition exists. This lack of a common conceptualization hinders understanding and cooperation between clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to develop an internationally agreed definition of the WTHD.MethodsFollowing an exhaustive literature review, a modified nominal group process and an international, modified Delphi process were carried out. The nominal group served to produce a preliminary definition that was then subjected to a Delphi process in which 24 experts from 19 institutions from Europe, Canada and the USA participated. Delphi responses and comments were analysed using a pre-established strategy.FindingsAll 24 experts completed the three rounds of the Delphi process, and all the proposed statements achieved at least 79% agreement. Key concepts in the final definition include the WTHD as a reaction to suffering, the fact that such a wish is not always expressed spontaneously, and the need to distinguish the WTHD from the acceptance of impending death or from a wish to die naturally, although preferably soon. The proposed definition also makes reference to possible factors related to the WTHD.ConclusionsThis international consensus definition of the WTHD should make it easier for clinicians and researchers to share their knowledge. This would foster an improved understanding of the phenomenon and help in developing strategies for early therapeutic intervention.

Continuity of care is essential to address the multiple needs of the chronically and terminally ill. To achieve this aim, the organizational barriers of the different levels of care must be overcome by establishing appropriate coordination mechanisms. Interest in finding effective solutions to the problems that threaten continuity of care is increasing, favoring the continued development of professional and institutional strategies to improve coordination. The present article explores some of the proposals to improve the coordination of care in primary care settings, from the point of view of nursing, social work and palliative care. Due to the increase in patients with chronic and complex needs and multimorbidity, the number and quality of home visits should be increased. The effectiveness of home care depends on the regularity of follow-up and the stability of the healthcare programs, rather than on the service responsible for monitoring the patient or the professional responsible for home visits.

Background and Aim: Consensus has been reached on the need to integrate palliative care in the follow-up examinations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. We analyzed the survival from the initiation of follow-up by a palliative home care team (PHCT) and described the needs and end-of-life process. Setting and Design: This study was a prospective observational cohort study of advanced COPD patients referred to a PHCT. Sociodemographic variables, survival from the start date of follow-up using the Kaplan–Meier model, health resource consumption, perceived quality of life, main symptomatology, opioid use, and advanced care planning (ACP) were analyzed. Results: Sixty patients were included. The median survival was 8.3 months. Forty-two patients died at the end of the study (85% at home or in palliative care units). The most frequent cause of death was respiratory failure in 39 patients (93%), with 29 of these patients requiring sedation (69%). Dyspnea at rest, with an average of 5 (standard deviation [SD] 2) points, was the main symptom. Fifty-five patients (91%) required opioids for symptom control. The median score in the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire was 72 (SD 13). The mean number of visits by the home team was 7 (SD 6.5). The mean number of admissions during the monitoring period was 1.5 (SD 0.15). Conclusions: The characteristics of the cohort appear suitable for a PHCT. The follow-up care provided by our multidisciplinary unit decreased the number of hospitalizations, favored the development of ACP, and enabled death at home or in palliative care units.