IMPORTANCEThe use of benzodiazepines to control agitation in delirium in the last days of life is controversial.OBJECTIVE To compare the effect of lorazepam vs placebo as an adjuvant to haloperidol for persistent agitation in patients with delirium in the setting of advanced cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Single-center, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted at an acute palliative care unit at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas, enrolling 93 patients with advanced cancer and agitated delirium despite scheduled haloperidol from February 11, 2014, to June 30, 2016, with data collection completed in October 2016.INTERVENTIONS Lorazepam (3 mg) intravenously (n = 47) or placebo (n = 43) in addition to haloperidol (2 mg) intravenously upon the onset of an agitation episode. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was change in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score (range, −5 [unarousable] to 4 [very agitated or combative]) from baseline to 8 hours after treatment administration. Secondary end points were rescue neuroleptic use, delirium recall, comfort (perceived by caregivers and nurses), communication capacity, delirium severity, adverse effects, discharge outcomes, and overall survival.RESULTS Among 90 randomized patients (mean age, 62 years; women, 42 [47%]), 58 (64%) received the study medication and 52 (90%) completed the trial. Lorazepam + haloperidol resulted in a significantly greater reduction of RASS score at 8 hours (−4.1 points) than placebo + haloperidol (−2.3 points) (mean difference, −1.9 points [95% CI, −2.8 to −0.9]; P < .001). The lorazepam + haloperidol group required less median rescue neuroleptics (2.0 mg) than the placebo + haloperidol group (4.0 mg) (median difference, −1.0 mg [95% CI, −2.0 to 0]; P = .009) and was perceived to be more comfortable by both blinded caregivers and nurses (caregivers: 84% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 37% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 14% to 73%], P = .007; nurses: 77% for the lorazepam + haloperidol group vs 30% for the placebo + haloperidol group; mean difference, 47% [95% CI, 17% to 71%], P = .005). No significant between-group differences were found in delirium-related distress and survival. The most common adverse effect was hypokinesia (3 patients in the lorazepam + haloperidol group [19%] and 4 patients in the placebo + haloperidol group [27%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this preliminary trial of hospitalized patients with agitated delirium in the setting of advanced cancer, the addition of lorazepam to haloperidol compared with haloperidol alone resulted in a significantly greater reduction in agitation at 8 hours. Further research is needed to assess generalizability and adverse effects.

A vast majority of advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care considered themselves spiritual and religious. Spiritual pain was common and was associated with lower self-perceived religiosity and spiritual quality of life.

Context The terms “actively dying,” “end of life,” “terminally ill,” “terminal care,” and “transition of care” are commonly used but rarely and inconsistently defined. Objectives We conducted a systematic review to examine the concepts and definitions for these terms. Methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL for published peer-reviewed articles from 1948 to 2012 that conceptualized, defined, or examined these terms. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the concepts/definitions when available. We also searched 10 dictionaries, four palliative care textbooks, and 13 organization Web sites, including the U.S. Federal Code. Results One of 16, three of 134, three of 44, two of 93, and four of 17 articles defined or conceptualized actively dying, end of life, terminally ill, terminal care, and transition of care, respectively. Actively dying was defined as “hours or days of survival.” We identified two key defining features for end of life, terminally ill, and terminal care: life-limiting disease with irreversible decline and expected survival in terms of months or less. Transition of care was discussed in relation to changes in 1) place of care (e.g., hospital to home), 2) level of professions providing the care (e.g., acute care to hospice), and 3) goals of care (e.g., curative to palliative). Definitions for these five terms were rarely found in dictionaries, textbooks, and organizational Web sites. However, when available, the definitions were generally consistent with the concepts discussed previously. Conclusion We identified unifying concepts for five commonly used terms in palliative care and developed a preliminary conceptual framework toward building standardized definitions.

Purpose Commonly used terms such as “supportive care,” “best supportive care,” “palliative care,” and “hospice care” were rarely and inconsistently defined in the palliative oncology literature. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to further identify concepts and definitions for these terms. Methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL for published peer-reviewed articles from 1948 to 2011 that conceptualized, defined, or examined these terms. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and then extracted the concepts/definitions when available. Dictionaries/textbooks were also searched. Results Nine of 32 “SC/BSC,” 25 of 182 “PC,” and 12 of 42 “HC” articles focused on providing a conceptual framework/definition. Common concepts for all three terms were symptom control and quality-of-life for patients with life-limiting illness. “SC” focused more on patients on active treatment compared to other categories (9/9 vs. 8/37) and less often involved interdisciplinary care (4/9 vs. 31/37). In contrast, “HC” focused more on volunteers (6/12 vs. 6/34), bereavement care (9/12 vs. 7/34), and community care (9/12 vs. 6/34). Both “PC” and “SC/BSC” were applicable earlier in the disease trajectory (16/34 vs. 0/9). We found 13, 24, and 17 different definitions for “SC/BSC,” “PC,” and “HC,” respectively. “SC/BSC” was the most variably defined, ranging from symptom management during cancer therapy to survivorship care. Dictionaries/textbooks showed similar findings. Conclusion We identified defining concepts for “SC/BSC,” “PC,” and “HC” and developed a preliminary conceptual framework unifying these terms along the continuum of care to help build consensus toward standardized definitions.

Limited research is available on the frequency of spiritual distress and its relationship with physical and emotional distress. We reviewed patients admitted to our acute palliative care unit (APCU) and determined the association between patient characteristics, symptom severity using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment scale (ESAS), and spiritual distress as reported by a chaplain on initial visit. In all, 50 (44%) of 113 patients had spiritual distress. In univariate analysis, patients with spiritual distress were more likely to be younger (odds ratio [OR] = 0.96, P = .004), to have pain (OR = 1.2, P = .010) and depression (OR = 1.24, P = .018) compared to those without spiritual distress. Spiritual distress was associated with age (OR = 0.96, P = .012) and depression (OR = 1.27, P = .020) in multivariate analysis. Our findings support regular spiritual assessment as part of the interdisciplinary approach to optimize symptom control.

Purpose. Improper storage, use, and disposal of prescribed opioids can lead to diversion or accidental poisoning. Our objective was to determine the patterns of storage, utilization, and disposal of opioids among cancer outpatients. Patients and Methods. We surveyed 300 adult cancer outpatients receiving opioids in our supportive care center and collected information regarding opioid use, storage, and disposal, along with scores on the CAGE (cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye-opener) alcoholism screening questionnaire. Unsafe use was defined as sharing or losing opioids; unsafe storage was defined as storing opioids in plain sight. Results. The median age was 57 years. CAGE was positive in 58 of 300 patients (19%), and 26 (9%) had a history of illicit drug use. Fifty-six (19%) stored opioids in plain sight, 208 (69%) kept opioids hidden but unlocked, and only 28 (9%) locked their opioids. CAGE-positive patients (p 5 .007) and those with a history of illicit drug use (p 5 .0002) or smoking (p 5 .03) were more likely to lock their opioids. Seventy-eight (26%) reported unsafe use by sharing (9%) or losing (17%) their opioids. Patients who were never married or single (odds ratio: 2.92; 95% confidence interval: 1.48-5.77; p 5 .006), were CAGE positive (40% vs. 21%; p 5 .003), or had a history of illicit drug use (42% vs. 23%; p 5 .031) were more likely to use opioids unsafely. Overall, 223 of 300 patients (74%) were unaware of proper opioid disposal methods, and 138 (46%) had unused opioids at home. Conclusion. A large proportion of cancer patients improperly and unsafely use, store, and dispose of opioids, highlighting the need for establishment of easily accessed patient education and drug take-back programs. The Oncologist 2014;19:780-785 Implications for Practice: In our study, a large proportion of cancer outpatients did not store, use, and dispose of opioids safely. Our findings reveal the need for universal education of all patients receiving opioids regarding safety around opioid use to minimize the risks of diversion or accidental poisoning. Strict implementation of patient education resources at the time all opioids are prescribed (by physicians) and dispensed (by pharmacists) could significantly decrease the amount of unused opioids available for diversion or accidental poisoning.

Our APCU serves patients with advanced cancer with diverse clinical characteristics and survival, and discharged home a significant proportion with survival greater than 6 months. RESULTS from this simultaneous care program suggest a pattern of care different from that of traditional hospice and palliative care services.

Background. Delirium is a common neuropsychiatric condition seen in patients with severe illness, such as advanced cancer. Few published studies are available of the frequency, course, and outcomes of standardized management of delirium in advanced cancer patients admitted to acute palliative care unit (APCU). In this study, we examined the frequency, characteristics, and outcomes of delirium in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an APCU. Methods. Medical records of 609 consecutive patients admitted to the APCU from January 2011 through December 2011 were reviewed. Data on patients’ demographics; Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) score; palliative care specialist (PCS) diagnosis of delirium; delirium etiology, subtype, and reversibility; late development of delirium; and discharge outcome were collected. Delirium was diagnosed with MDAS score ≥7 and by a PCS using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria. All patients admitted to the APCU received standardized assessments and management of delirium per best practice guidelines in delirium management. Results. Of 556 patients in the APCU, 323 (58%) had a diagnosis of delirium. Of these, 229 (71%) had a delirium diagnosis on admission and 94 (29%) developed delirium after admission to the APCU. Delirium reversed in 85 of 323 episodes (26%). Half of patients with delirium (n = 162) died. Patients with the diagnosis of delirium had a lower median overall survival than those without delirium. Patients who developed delirium after admission to the APCU had poorer survival (p ≤ .0001) and a lower rate of delirium reversal (p = .03) compared with those admitted with delirium. Conclusion. More than half of the patients admitted to the APCU had delirium. Reversibility occurred in almost one‐third of cases. Diagnosis of delirium was associated with poorer survival. Implications for Practice: Delirium is the most common neuropsychiatric condition in patients with severe medical illness and those at the end of life. It can be a source of distress for patients, their families, and the medical team. When missed, or if symptoms are misinterpreted, delirium may also lead to unnecessary interventions. This underlines the importance of diagnosis and detection of delirium in populations that are at increased risk. This study has important implications in practice, as it can assist clinicians in making decisions regarding other medical interventions, advance care planning, and communicating with families relating to end‐of‐life issues.