4.6 Article

The earlier the better: the role of palliative care consultation on aggressive end of life care, hospice utilization, and advance care planning documentation among gynecologic oncology patients

Journal

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1927-1934

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-018-4457-x

Keywords

Gynecologic cancer; Palliative care; Quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo evaluate the role of specialty palliative care consultation (PCC) on end of life care outcomes among terminally ill gynecologic oncology patients.MethodsRetrospective chart review of currently deceased gynecologic oncology patients seen at a single, academic institution between October 2006 and October 2016. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were examined using descriptive statistics and logistic regression.ResultsTwo hundred and four patients were eligible. Forty-one percent underwent at least one marker of aggressive care at the end of life. Most (53%) had a PCC prior to death, and of these most were inpatient (89%). Patients with a PCC had higher odds of hospice enrollment before death (OR 2.55, p=0.016) and higher odds of advance care planning documentation before death (OR 6.79, p=<0.001). Among patients with an inpatient PCC, 44% underwent a marker of aggressive medical care at the end of life and 82% enrolled in hospice before death. Among patients with an outpatient PCC, 25% underwent a marker of aggressive medical care at the end of life and 92% enrolled in hospice before death. Patients with outpatient PCC were engaged in palliative care longer than patients with inpatient PCC (median 106days vs. 33days prior to death).ConclusionsPCC increased hospice enrollment and advance care planning documentation. Patients with outpatient PCC had lower rates of aggressive medical care and higher rates of hospice enrollment when compared to inpatient PCC. Location of initial PCC plays an important role in end of life care outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available