Good symptom management in oncology is associated with improved patient and family quality of life, greater treatment compliance, and may even offer survival advantages. With population growth and aging, the proportion of patients with multiple symptoms—both related and unrelated to their cancer—is anticipated to increase, supporting calls for a more routine and integrated approach to symptom management. This article presents a summary of the literature for the use of symptom assessment tools and reviews the management of four common and distressing symptoms commonly experienced by people with advanced cancer: pain, breathlessness, nausea and vomiting, and fatigue. We also discuss the role of palliative care in supporting a holistic approach to symptom management throughout the cancer trajectory.

We identified demographic (men; black race), clinical (lung cancer), and environmental (low SES; no palliative care) factors associated with an increased risk of ED attendance by patients with cancer in their last month of life. Our findings may be used to develop screening interventions and assist policy-makers to direct resources. Future studies should also investigate previously neglected areas of research, including psychosocial factors, and patients' and caregivers' emergency care preferences.

BackgroundAssessment of people with dementia is challenging; with undetected and under treated symptoms and concerns resulting in avoidable distress, and few evidence-based interventions to support this. We aimed to understand the mechanisms of action of a measure to support comprehensive assessment of people with dementia in care homes; and its acceptability, feasibility, and implementation requirements.MethodsA qualitative study with an embedded quantitative component in three residential care homes, underpinned by an initial theoretical model of mechanisms of action. The measure, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia (IPOS-Dem), was introduced into the care of residents with dementia for 12 weeks. Qualitative data comprised focus groups and semi-structured interviews with family, care home staff, general practitioners and district nurses; and non-participant observations. Quantitative data comprised IPOS-Dem data. Directed content analysis for qualitative data, and descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data.FindingsKey mechanisms of action were: improved observation and awareness of residents, collaborative assessment, comprehensive ‘picture of the person’, systematic record keeping, improved review and monitoring, care planning and changes to care provision, and facilitated multi-agency communication. Potential benefit included improved symptom management, improved comprehensive care, and increased family empowerment and engagement. IPOS-Dem was found to be acceptable and feasible. It was perceived as quick and easy to use, with proportion of overall missing data decreasing from 2.1% to 1.1% from baseline to final time points. ‘Trust’ in the measure was important; and leadership essential to ensure integration into care processes.ConclusionsIn a population with complex care needs, with challenges to assessment and barriers to multi-agency working, a measure introduced into routine care is feasible and acceptable, and supports assessment and management of symptoms and concerns. A refined theoretical model demonstrating the likely mechanisms of action was developed. Further evaluation is required to test its effectiveness.

BackgroundMany patients with cancer experience aggressive care towards the end of life (EOL) despite evidence of an association with poor outcomes such as prolonged pain and overall dissatisfaction with care.PurposeTo investigate socio-demographic, clinical and community health care service factors associated with aggressive EOL cancer care.MethodsAn analysis of pooled data from two mortality follow-back surveys was performed. Aggressive EOL care was defined as greater than or equal to one of the following indicators occurring during the last 3 months of life: greater than or equal to two emergency department visits, ≥30 days in hospital and death in hospital.ResultsOf the 681 included patients, 50.1 % were men and mean age at death was 75 years. The majority of patients (59.3 %, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 55.6–63.0 %) experienced at least one indicator of aggressive EOL care: 29.7 % experienced greater than or equal to two ED visits, 17.1 % spent ≥30 days in hospital and 37.9 % died in hospital. Patients with prostate or haematological cancer were more likely to experience aggressive EOL care (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 4.36, 95 % CI 1.39–13.70, and 4.16, 95 % CI 1.38–12.47, respectively, reference group lung cancer). Patients who received greater than five general practitioner (GP) home visits (AOR 0.37, 95 % CI 0.17–0.82, reference group no GP visits) or had contact with district nursing (AOR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.28–0.83, reference group no contact) or contact with community palliative care services (AOR 0.27, 95 % CI 0.15–0.49, reference group no contact) were less likely to experience aggressive EOL care. No association was found between aggressive EOL care and patients’ age, gender, marital, financial or health status.ConclusionsCommunity health care services, in particular contact with community palliative care, are associated with a significant reduction in the odds of cancer patients receiving aggressive EOL care. Expansion of such services may help address the current capacity crises faced by many acute health care systems.

Improving the quality of cancer care is an international priority. Population-based quality indicators (QIs) are key to this process yet remain almost exclusively used for evaluating care during the early, often curative, stages of disease.OBJECTIVES To identify all existing QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life and to evaluate each indicator's measurement properties and appropriateness for use.EVIDENCE REVIEW For this systematic review, 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library) were searched from inception through February 4, 2019, for studies describing the development, review, and/or testing of QIs for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life. For each QI identified, descriptive information was extracted and 6 measurement properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) were assessed using previously established criteria, with 4 possible ratings: positive, intermediate, negative, and unknown. Ratings were collated and each QI classified as appropriate for use, inappropriate for use, or of limited testing. Among the QIs determined as appropriate for use, a recommended shortlist was generated by excluding those that were specific to patient subgroups and/or care settings; related QIs were identified, and the indicator with the highest rating was retained.FINDINGS The search yielded 7231 references, 35 of which (from 28 individual studies) met the eligibility criteria. Of 288 QIs extracted (260 unique), 103 (35.8%) evaluated physical aspects of care and 109 (37.8%) evaluated processes of care. Quality indicators relevant to psychosocial (18 [6.3%]) or spiritual and cultural (3 [1.0%]) care domains were limited. Eighty QIs (27.8%) were determined to be appropriate for use, 116 (40.3%) inappropriate for use, and 92 (31.9%) of limited testing. The measurement properties with the fewest positive assessments were acceptability (38 [13.2%]) and validity (63 [21.9%]). Benchmarking data were reported for only 16 QIs (5.6%). The final 15 recommended QIs came from 6 studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe findings suggest that only a small proportion of QIs developed for the care of patients with cancer who have advanced disease and/or are at the end of life have received adequate testing and/or are appropriate for use. Further testing may be needed, as is research to establish benchmarking data and to expand QIs relevant to psychosocial, cultural, and spiritual care domains.

Patients with greater comorbidity, lung or head and neck cancer and a higher number of previous emergency department visits are more likely to visit the emergency department multiple times in the last month of life. Previously reported socio-demographic factors (men, younger age, Black, low socio-economic status) are also confirmed for the first time in a UK population.

LH is a PhD clinical training fellow and funded through project BuildCARE which is supported by Cicely Saunders International and The Atlantic Philanthropies, and led by King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, UK.

ObjectivesTo develop a model of care coordination for patients living with advanced progressive illness and their unpaid caregivers, and to understand their perspective regarding care coordination.DesignA prospective longitudinal, multi-perspective qualitative study involving a case-study approach.MethodsSerial in-depth interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and then analyzed through open and axial coding in order to construct categories for three cases (sites). This was followed by continued thematic analysis to identify underlying conceptual coherence across all cases in order to produce one coherent care coordination model.ParticipantsFifty-six purposively sampled patients and 27 case-linked unpaid caregivers.SettingsThree cases from contrasting primary, secondary and tertiary settings within Britain.ResultsCoordination is a deliberate cross-cutting action that involves high-quality, caring and well-informed staff, patients and unpaid caregivers who must work in partnership together across health and social care settings. For coordination to occur, it must be adequately resourced with efficient systems and services that communicate. Patients and unpaid caregivers contribute substantially to the coordination of their care, which is sometimes volunteered at a personal cost to them. Coordination is facilitated through flexible and patient-centered care, characterized by accurate and timely information communicated in a way that considers patients’ and caregivers’ needs, preferences, circumstances and abilities.ConclusionsWithin the midst of advanced progressive illness, coordination is a shared and complex intervention involving relational, structural and information components. Our study is one of the first to extensively examine patients’ and caregivers’ views about coordination, thus aiding conceptual fidelity. These findings can be used to help avoid oversimplifying a real-world problem, such as care coordination. Avoiding oversimplification can help with the development, evaluation and implementation of real-world coordination interventions for patients and their unpaid caregivers in the future.