Background: Information is limited about the experiences of delirium among patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, which makes designing interventions to relieve delirium-related distress difficult. To better understand the experience and thus permit the design of effective interventions, we collected and analyzed data from patients with advanced cancer who had recovered from delirium and their family caregivers. Method: Phenomenolog-ical interviews were conducted separately with 37 caregivers and 34 patients. One investigator reviewed verbatim transcripts of the audio-taped interviews to identify themes, which the research team confirmed. Results: Most patients and all caregivers had vivid memories of the experience; their descriptions were consistent. Most also attributed the confusion to pain medication. Caregivers had concerns about how best to help patients, patients’ imminent deaths, and their own well-being. Conclusions: The main finding that delirium leads to distress for both patients and care-givers indicates the importance of recognizing, treating, and, if possible, preventing delirium in this population. Concerns about pain medications also indicate the need to educate patients and caregivers about symptom management. Caregivers also need emotional support.

Our data suggest that the ideal cutoff point of ESAS for the screening of depression and anxiety in palliative care is 2 out of 10 or more. More research is needed to define the ideal cutoff point for screening of severe depression and anxiety.

Vigilance needs to be maintained about the ESAS scores done by the patients particularly for symptoms of sleep, appetite, and pain. There is a likelihood of error if doctors or nurses do not routinely check the way patients have completed the assessment form. More research is needed to determine the best way to teach patients how to minimize errors in self-reporting of symptoms.

Medical training teaches physicians to sit when breaking bad news, though there have been no controlled studies to support this advice. We aimed to establish cancer patients' preference for physician posture when physicians break bad news using a randomized controlled crossover trial in a department of palliative care at a large US cancer center. Referred patients were blind to the hypothesis and watched video sequences of a sitting or standing physician breaking bad news to a cancer patient and 168 of 173 participants (88 female) completed the study. Sitting physicians were preferred and viewed as significantly more compassionate than standing physicians (P < 0.0001) but other physician attributes and behaviours were generally rated as of equal or more importance than posture. In summary, cancer patients, especially females, prefer physicians to sit when breaking bad news and rate physicians who adopt this posture as more compassionate. However, sitting posture alone is unlikely to compensate for poor communication skills and lack of other respectful gestures during a consultation.

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common symptom experienced by patients with cancer. Clinically important improvement in the intensity of fatigue in palliative care patients has not been well established. We reviewed the data from 3 clinical trials of fatigue in 194 patients receiving palliative care treatment. Patients completed the Functional Assessment for Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at baseline and day 8 and their global perception of fatigue improvement (Global benefit score [GBS]: 1 = not beneficial, 7 = greatly important] during day 8. A GBS of 4 or more (moderate improvement, consistently beneficial) was considered a clinically significant improvement. Change scores in the ESAS and FACIT-F from baseline to day 8 were compared to the GBS greater than 4. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were also derived for ESAS and FACIT-F change scores for a GBS greater than 4, greater than 5, and greater than 6. Results showed the mean patient age was 56 (+/-12) years, and 37% were men. A reduction of approximately 10 points in FACIT-F (sensitivity = 73%, specificity = 78%, area under the curve = 0.82) and 4 points in ESAS fatigue (sensitivity = 66%, specificity = 72%, area under the curve = 0.78) score was best able to predict a clinically important improvement (GBS >/= 4). We were able to characterize the relationship between FACIT-F and ESAS scores and patients' global perception of improvement but further studies are needed to validate our findings.