BACKGROUNDResearch in palliative care is considered difficult due to the poor health of patients. However, patient‐provided data are essential for a thorough description of patient symptomatology and for the evaluation of care.METHODSThe authors examined the feasibility of a questionnaire‐based study using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality‐of‐life instrument EORTC QLQ‐C30, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in cancer patients who were receiving palliative care. This report describes the symptomatology of participating patients and examines differences in symptomatology between patients in three palliative care functions: inpatient, outpatient, and palliative home care.RESULTSOf 267 eligible patients who were referred to a department of palliative medicine, initial self‐assessment questionnaires were obtained from 176 patients (65.9%). The 91 nonparticipants were older and had lower Karnofsky Performance status (KPS) values than the participants. Almost all participating patients suffered from impaired role function and physical function and had high levels of pain, fatigue, and other symptoms. According to the HADS, 47% of patients suffered from depression. Outpatients had better scores than inpatients and patients in palliative home care for physical function, role function, cognitive function, depression, and inactivity.CONCLUSIONSIt is possible to carry out a questionnaire‐based study of symptomatology in consecutive cancer patients in palliative care, achieving rather complete data from the participants. The symptomatology in these patients was very pronounced. The questionnaires were able to detect clinically important differences between places of service. Cancer 2002;94:512–20. © 2002 American Cancer Society.

The study aim was to explore which symptoms/problems cancer patients in palliative care consider most distressing, and to investigate how prioritization at first contact was associated with patient-assessed symptom intensity and change in intensity over time. Initially, 175 patients named and prioritized their five most distressing symptoms. Weekly, they completed the following self-assessment questionnaires: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Initial symptom intensity scores and weekly changes were calculated and compared with prioritization of the same symptom. Pain, fatigue, physical function, appetite, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, and depression were the symptoms most often prioritized. Priority was associated with initial scoring of pain, appetite, nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, constipation, depression, and anxiety, but not with fatigue, physical function, role function, or inactivity. Priority was associated with change in symptom intensity for pain, reduced appetite, nausea/vomiting, and constipation. Symptom prioritization may be a useful guide to choice of treatment as well as to longitudinal symptom evaluation.

To examine pain in cancer patients referred for specialized palliative care, we described pain characteristics and medication on admission, examined changes in pain during the first week, and searched for predictors of initial pain intensity and treatment outcome. On arrival in the department (T0) and after one week (T1), pain was evaluated with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and EORTC QLQ-C30. Analgesics were recorded. We investigated the associations between initial pain scores as well as differences from T0 to T1, and clinical and sociodemographic parameters, initial medication, and medical interventions. Of 267 eligible patients, initial pain scores were obtained from 175. Initial pain scores were high, although 81% of patients received opioid treatment at T0. Bone metastases, neuropathic pain, mixed pain pathophysiology, and breakthrough pain were associated with higher initial pain scores. Pain scores decreased during the first week. No single parameter convincingly predicted a better or worse outcome of pain treatment.

Patients and carers found the home-care team essential to their sense of security being at home. Primary health care professionals must receive any necessary training outside patients' homes. Offering respite for carers and 24-h on-call service would be an improvement.

GPs and district nurses welcomed the palliative home-care team and most experienced benefits to patients. Strengthened communication, initiated by the home-care team would enhance cooperation.

BACKGROUND The current article evaluated the course of patient‐assessed symptomatology in specialized palliative care and tested for bias due to patient attrition in measures of initial symptomatology and treatment outcome. METHODS Over 2 years, 267 consecutive, eligible patients were referred to a department of palliative care. Upon arrival, 201 patients consented to participate in a questionnaire‐based evaluation of quality of life (QOL). Of these, 175 patients participated, and 142, 119, and 95 participated in the study at 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Weekly, participants completed the self‐assessment questionnaires European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ‐C30, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory. Physicians used the Mini Mental State Examination to evaluate cognitive function. Changes from the initial symptom scores for each week were calculated. Initial scoring and change after 1 week were tested for association with completion level, i.e., whether the patient completed questions at 1, 2, 3, or 4 time points. RESULTS High initial symptom intensity and significant improvements over time were observed for pain, lack of appetite, nausea/vomiting, sleeplessness, constipation, and overall QOL/well‐being. For some symptoms, initial scores were significantly higher in patients who dropped out, but the changes over the first week were not significantly different between completion levels for any symptom. CONCLUSIONS Improvement in symptom intensity was identified. Dropout was associated with higher initial symptomatology but not with poorer outcome of palliative treatment. Cancer 2005. © 2005 American Cancer Society.

Summary The incidence of recreational water–associated outbreaks in the United States has significantly increased, driven, at least in part, by outbreaks both caused by Cryptosporidium and associated with treated recreational water venues. Because of the parasite's extreme chlorine tolerance, transmission can occur even in well-maintained treated recreational water venues, (e.g., pools) and a focal cryptosporidiosis outbreak can evolve into a community-wide outbreak associated with multiple recreational water venues and settings (e.g., child care facilities). In August 2004 in Auglaize County, Ohio, multiple cryptosporidiosis cases were identified and anecdotally linked to Pool A. Within 5 days of the first case being reported, Pool A was hyperchlorinated to achieve 99.9% Cryptosporidium inactivition. A case-control study was launched to epidemiologically ascertain the outbreak source 11 days later. A total of 150 confirmed and probable cases were identified; the temporal distribution of illness onset was peaked, indicating a point-source exposure. Cryptosporidiosis was significantly associated with swimming in Pool A (matched odds ratio 121.7, 95% confidence interval 27.4–∞) but not with another venue or setting. The findings of this investigation suggest that proactive implementation of control measures, when increased Cryptosporidium transmission is detected but before an outbreak source is epidemiologically ascertained, might prevent a focal cryptosporidiosis outbreak from evolving into a community-wide outbreak.