A retrospective, observational, chart audit study of adults (N=159) who died in hospital.

Component hospitals of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center: Mary Hitchcock Memorial Hospital (MHMH), Lebanon, New Hampshire, and the affiliated Veteran's Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), White River Junction, Vermont.

159 hospitalised adult decedents comprising a random sample of 100 MHMH decedents and a total sample of 59 VAMC decedents.

The authors compared end-of-life (EOL) care in decedents who had a palliative care consultation (PCC) with those who did not. An exploratory analysis compared the EOL care between the 2008 decedent sample and an historical decedent sample (N=104).

63 of 159 inpatients received a PCC. Decedents receiving a PCC were less likely to die in an intensive care unit, had fewer invasive interventions (eg, intubation, assisted ventilation, dialysis, chemotherapy) and were more likely to have advance directives, do-not-resuscitate orders and comfort measures orders than those who did not receive a PCC. Higher rates of emotional and pastoral care were also noted. Compared with the historical sample, 2008 decedents had a higher rate of invasive interventions, but fewer invasive interventions were noted in the 2008 PCC subsample.

Less invasive EOL care was observed in decedents who received a PCC. Ongoing monitoring of EOL care is critically important for hospital quality improvement programmes.

In-depth qualitative interviews with 50 people ranging in age from 30 to 93 years, diagnosed with cancer (31), heart failure (13), stroke (three) or neurological conditions (three) and thought by the responsible health professional to be in the last year of life. Participants from two areas of Northern England were recruited through specialist nurses or hospital consultants and interviewed in their current place of residence. Transcribed data were analysed using Framework.

Patients were most likely to recall the pace and clarity with which bad news was conveyed. A direct approach was most common, without much prior warning for the patients. Direct information was usually received well when the patient knew the health professional and when it had been suggested that the patient should be accompanied to the appointment. Some professionals did work to set the scene for the eventual news, with a gradual build-up of information, and narrowing down of options. This approach was perceived as appropriate and sensitive. People with heart failure had engaged in much less discussion about their condition, and most did not recall a specific conversation with their doctor about their prognosis.

Bad news is not always broken in a sensitive way, despite considerable efforts to address this issue. Relatively minor changes to practice could improve the patient experience: greater preparation, provision of sufficient time in consultations and cautious disclosure for new patients.

Semistructured interviews were held with a purposive sample of 10 men with symptoms of CHF. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach until thematic saturation.

Four key areas emerged: medication use; symptoms; prior morphine experience; and attitudes, concerns and anxieties regarding morphine use. Despite polypharmacy, participants said that morphine would be acceptable if it was monitored by a trusted healthcare professional. Many patients had experienced morphine before, often in life-threatening situations such as myocardial infarction, when it had helped greatly. Opioids were not strongly associated exclusively with death and dying (in contrast to patient reports in the cancer literature).

Although some concerns about morphine were expressed, these did not appear to override a willingness to consider its use if recommended by a trusted clinician. However, some participants perceived that their doctor was concerned about its use, holding it as a last reserve. Morphine appears to be an acceptable breathlessness treatment option to these people with CHF. Prescribers may need education and reassurance if these medicines are to be used to their full potential and views may be different in other communities.

Online survey of professionals working in clinical care, clinical audit and research in palliative care across Europe and Africa identified through national and international associations and databases. Questions focused on measures used, reasons and which questions were important in two commonly used multidimensional measures, the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS).

The overall completion rate was 59% (392/663). Three outcome measures were commonly used by over one in four respondents for clinical practice and over one in 10 for research: the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), followed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the POS. Measures were used twice as often in clinical practice as in research. The main uses were similar: assessing patients' symptoms/needs (88% and 85% of POS and STAS users, respectively), monitoring changes (62%, 58%), evaluating care (61%, 48%) and assessing family needs (59%, 60%). Respondents rated the most important questions as pain, symptoms, emotional and family aspects. There were no differences in the choice of the most important questions between doctors and nurses or between researchers and clinicians.

In palliative care, outcome measures often used in clinical practice are also often used in research. Questions relating to pain, symptoms, emotional needs and family concerns are consistently considered the most useful and important in palliative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

All deaths of patients (n=788) known to the specialist palliative care service from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010 were examined in a service evaluation to compare the actual place of death with the preferred place of death previously identified by the patient. Triggers for admission were established when patients did not achieve this preference.

69% of patients (n=263) who expressed a preference to die at home and 82% of patients (n=93) who expressed a preference to die as inpatients in the hospice fulfilled these preferences. 71% of patients (n=298) who wanted to die in their current place of residence achieved this preference.

54% of patients (n=121) who declined to express a preference for end-of-life care subsequently died in hospital, reflecting the importance of advance care planning.

The perceived lack of social support for patients dying at home is a significant trigger for admission to a hospice. The provision of sitters to support patients dying at home may ensure people achieve their preference. Commissioners consider preferred place of care to be a marker of quality, but clinical events that precipitate admission are often outside the influence of the palliative care team.

In 2006, the interhospital working team implemented a certification project based on the JCI Disease or Condition-Specific Care (DSCS) programme. Thirty standards subdivided into five functional areas with 150 measurable elements were the starting-point for periodic improvement plans within and across participating hospitals. Programme compliance was analysed in terms of annual performance improvement and consistency across the seven PCUs involved in achieving set goals. The JCI standards were applied on 3316 terminally ill patients with cancer treated at home from 2005 to 2009.

As a result of the work carried out, the JCI survey conducted 3 years after project implementation demonstrated full compliance with the established standards, leading to the JCI certification award (for the first time in this clinical setting internationally).

The work carried out with a view to certification has confirmed the possibility that facilities spread across different hospitals can actually share common processes and standardise the activities for the care of end-of-life patients with cancer at home as if they were one single service provider.

Prospective multicentre observational cohort study.

18 palliative care services in the UK (including hospices, hospital support teams, and community teams).

1018 patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer, no longer being treated for cancer, and recently referred to palliative care services.

Performance 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.

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.

In patients with advanced cancer no longer being treated, a combination of clinical and laboratory variables can reliably predict two week and two month survival.

To review all smartphone apps targeted at health professionals within palliative medicine and available for the five most popular operating systems (iPhone, Blackberry, Android, Palm and Windows) .

Each smartphone app store was systematically searched with a combination of the following keywords: palliative, pain, cancer, symptoms, medicine. Identified apps were purchased and tested to determine if their title and/or description was relevant to palliative care.

Six apps specific to palliative medicine were identified across all five operating systems. These consisted of blog orientated apps (Pallimed and Geripal), an app containing guidelines from eight cancer networks (PalliApp), an educational app (Palliative Care) and opioid dose converter apps (eOpioid and PalliCalc).

There is a lack of palliative medicine specific resources for smartphones and no studies have been published which examine the potential benefits of mobile technology for learning, clinical practice and professional development. This provides an opportunity for further research and development. Academic institutions could work with technological developers to improve access to, and dissemination of, key information for practice. Considered development of mobile technology has the potential to improve patient care, data sharing and education within the palliative medicine specialty.