4.7 Article

Inpatients with neurologic disease referred for palliative care consultation

Journal

NEUROLOGY
Volume 92, Issue 17, Pages E1975-E1981

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007364

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. California HealthCare Foundation
  2. UniHealth Foundation
  3. Archstone Foundation
  4. Kettering Family Foundation
  5. James Irvine Foundation
  6. Stupski Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To compare characteristics and needs of inpatients with neurologic disease to those with cancer referred for palliative care (PC) consultation. Methods This prospective cohort study used data collected by the Palliative Care Quality Network from January 2013 until December 2016. We compared demographics, reasons for consultation, discharge disposition, Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) score, and outcomes of care among patients with a primary diagnosis of neurologic disease vs cancer. Results The most common reason for PC consultation in all patients was assistance with goals of care and advanced care planning. PC consultation was less often requested for pain and symptom management in patients with neurologic disease compared to patients with cancer (13.7% vs 43%, odds ratio 0.3) and more often for assistance with transition to comfort measures only and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (19.1% vs 7.1%, odds ratio 1.3). Patients with cancer had higher PPS scores (42.1% vs 23.4%) and were more likely to be discharged home from the hospital, while patients with neurologic disease were more likely to die in hospital. Conclusions Patients with neurologic disease as a reason for PC consultation are more in need of end-of-life care planning and more likely to die in the hospital than those with cancer, suggesting that targeted approaches may best address the needs of each patient population. Our results can direct further research and education in neuropalliative care.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available