Journal of palliative medicine
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
Development of an Outpatient Palliative Care Protocol to Monitor Fidelity in the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access Trial.
Introduction: Palliative care is recommended for patients with life-limiting illnesses; however, there are few standardized protocols for outpatient palliative care visits. To address the paucity of data, this article aims to: (1) describe the elements of outpatient palliative care that are generalizable across clinical sites; (2) achieve consensus about standardized instruments used to assess domains within outpatient palliative care; and (3) develop a protocol and intervention checklist for palliative care clinicians to document outpatient visit elements that might not normally be recorded in the electronic heath record. ⋯ Implementation: The protocol and checklist are being used to document the contents of each outpatient palliative care visit conducted as a part of the Emergency Medicine Palliative Care Access (EMPallA) trial. Variation across palliative care team staffing, clinic session capacity, and physical clinic model presents a challenge to standardizing the delivery of outpatient palliative care.
-
Comparative Study
Withholding and Withdrawal of Treatments: Differences in Perceptions between Intensivists, Oncologists, and Prosecutors in Brazil.
Background: Legal concerns have been implicated in the occurrence of variability in decisions of limitations of medical treatment (LOMT) before death. Objective: We aimed to assess differences in perceptions between physicians and prosecutors toward LOMT. Measurements: We sent a survey to intensivists, oncologists, and prosecutors from Brazil, from February 2018 to May 2018. Respondents rated the degree of agreement with withholding or withdrawal of therapies in four different vignettes portraying a patient with terminal lung cancer. ⋯ Prosecutors were less likely than intensivists and oncologists to agree with withhold of chemotherapy (95.7% vs. 99.2% vs. 100%, respectively, p < 0.001) and withhold of MV (82.4% vs. 98.3% vs. 97.9%, respectively, p < 0.001), whereas intensivists were more likely to agree with withdrawal of MV than oncologists (87.1% vs. 76.1%, p = 0.002). Moreover, prosecutors were more likely to agree with withholding of active cancer treatment than with withholding of MV [difference (95% confidence interval, CI) = 13.2% (5.2 to 21.6), p = 0.001], whereas physicians were more likely to agree with withholding than with withdrawal of MV [difference (95% CI) = 10.9% (7.8 to 14), p < 0.001]. Conclusions: This study found differences and agreements in perceptions toward LOMT between prosecutors, intensivists, and oncologists, which may inform the discourse aimed at improving end-of-life decisions.