Objective To develop a novel prognostic indicator for use in patients with advanced cancer that is significantly better than clinicians' estimates of survival.Design Prospective multicentre observational cohort study.Setting 18 palliative care services in the UK (including hospices, hospital support teams, and community teams).Participants 1018 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer, no longer being treated for cancer, and recently referred to palliative care services. Main outcome measuresPerformance of a composite model to predict whether patients were likely to survive for "days" (0-13 days), "weeks" (14-55 days), or "months+" (>55 days), compared with actual survival and clinicians' predictions.Results On multivariate analysis, 11 core variables (pulse rate, general health status, mental test score, performance status, presence of anorexia, presence of any site of metastatic disease, presence of liver metastases, C reactive protein, white blood count, platelet count, and urea) independently predicted both two week and two month survival. Four variables had prognostic significance only for two week survival (dyspnoea, dysphagia, bone metastases, and alanine transaminase), and eight variables had prognostic significance only for two month survival (primary breast cancer, male genital cancer, tiredness, loss of weight, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin). Separate prognostic models were created for patients without (PiPS-A) or with (PiPS-B) blood results. The area under the curve for all models varied between 0.79 and 0.86. Absolute agreement between actual survival and PiPS predictions was 57.3% (after correction for over-optimism). The median survival across the PiPS-A categories was 5, 33, and 92 days and survival across PiPS-B categories was 7, 32, and 100.5 days. All models performed as well as, or better than, clinicians' estimates of survival. ConclusionsIn patients with advanced cancer no longer being treated, a combination of clinical and laboratory variables can reliably predict two week and two month survival. IntroductionPatients with advanced cancer and their carers often wish to know how long they have left to live. 1 2 Accurate prognostic information can allow patients adequate time to prepare for their impending death. 3 Qualitative studies show that patients in palliative care want to be given honest and accurate prognostic information but that this information needs to be shared sensitively and in a way that respects patients' desire to maintain hope. 4 5 Prognostic information is also important for clinicians. Realistic survival estimates can inform decisions about the appropriateness of medical interventions and the timing of referral to specialist palliative care services or admission to a hospice. Clinicians' predictions are routinely used to prioritise patients who are suitable for inclusion in programmes such as the Gold Standards Framework, 6 to determine which patients RESEARCHare suitable for "fast-tracking" arrangements for ...

Objective To develop a novel prognostic indicator for use in patients with advanced cancer that is significantly better than clinicians' estimates of survival.Design Prospective multicentre observational cohort study.Setting 18 palliative care services in the UK (including hospices, hospital support teams, and community teams).Participants 1018 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer, no longer being treated for cancer, and recently referred to palliative care services. Main outcome measuresPerformance of a composite model to predict whether patients were likely to survive for "days" (0-13 days), "weeks" (14-55 days), or "months+" (>55 days), compared with actual survival and clinicians' predictions.Results On multivariate analysis, 11 core variables (pulse rate, general health status, mental test score, performance status, presence of anorexia, presence of any site of metastatic disease, presence of liver metastases, C reactive protein, white blood count, platelet count, and urea) independently predicted both two week and two month survival. Four variables had prognostic significance only for two week survival (dyspnoea, dysphagia, bone metastases, and alanine transaminase), and eight variables had prognostic significance only for two month survival (primary breast cancer, male genital cancer, tiredness, loss of weight, lymphocyte count, neutrophil count, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin). Separate prognostic models were created for patients without (PiPS-A) or with (PiPS-B) blood results. The area under the curve for all models varied between 0.79 and 0.86. Absolute agreement between actual survival and PiPS predictions was 57.3% (after correction for over-optimism). The median survival across the PiPS-A categories was 5, 33, and 92 days and survival across PiPS-B categories was 7, 32, and 100.5 days. All models performed as well as, or better than, clinicians' estimates of survival. ConclusionsIn patients with advanced cancer no longer being treated, a combination of clinical and laboratory variables can reliably predict two week and two month survival. IntroductionPatients with advanced cancer and their carers often wish to know how long they have left to live. 1 2 Accurate prognostic information can allow patients adequate time to prepare for their impending death. 3 Qualitative studies show that patients in palliative care want to be given honest and accurate prognostic information but that this information needs to be shared sensitively and in a way that respects patients' desire to maintain hope. 4 5 Prognostic information is also important for clinicians. Realistic survival estimates can inform decisions about the appropriateness of medical interventions and the timing of referral to specialist palliative care services or admission to a hospice. Clinicians' predictions are routinely used to prioritise patients who are suitable for inclusion in programmes such as the Gold Standards Framework, 6 to determine which patients RESEARCHare suitable for "fast-tracking" arrangements for ...

MDTs were better at predicting survival than doctors' or nurses' alone. Patients were substantially worse. Among nurses, recency of review was related to improved prognostic accuracy.

Patients with bowel obstruction due to advanced cancer often have a poor prognosis and suffer distressing symptoms that can be difficult to manage. Research to date has focused on medical interventions and the measurement and control of symptoms. Little attention has been given to patients' perceptions of their quality of life or the impact of their illness. This study aimed to explore patients' lived experience of bowel obstruction. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten patients with bowel obstruction due to gynaecological or gastric cancer. Data analysis was based on an adaptation of Giorgi (1975) and Parse et al's (1985a,b) phenomenological method. Findings suggest that the 'meaning' of being unable to eat is more significant for patients than the nutritional or biological loss of food. For some patients, bowel obstruction marks a process of transition from life to death which is characterized by a sense of social disengagement and disrupted identity. Interviews highlighted aspects of the nurse-patient relationship that were therapeutic in their own right.

ObjectivesTo identify those factors which adversely affected recruitment to a large multicentre palliative care study.MethodsPatient accrual to a multicentre, observational, palliative care study was monitored at three critical junctures in the research process. (1) Eligibility—did the patient fulfil the study entry criteria? (2) Accessibility—was it possible to access the patient to be able to inform them about the study? (3) Consent—did the patient agree to participate in the study? The reasons why patients were ineligible, inaccessible or refused consent were recorded.Results12 412 consecutive referrals to participating clinical services were screened for study inclusion of whom 5394 (43%) were deemed to be ineligible. Of the remaining patients 4617/7018 (66%) were inaccessible to the research team. The most common reasons being precipitous death, ‘gatekeeping’ by clinical staff or rapid discharge. Of the 2410 patients who were visited by the research team and asked to participate in the study 1378 (57%) declined. Overall 8.2% (1018/12 412) of patients screened participated in the study. There were significant differences in recruitment patterns between hospice inpatient units, hospital support and community palliative care teams.ConclusionsSystematic monitoring and analysis of patient flows through the clinical trial accrual process provided valuable insights about the reasons for failure to recruit patients to a clinical trial and may help to improve recruitment in future studies.