Hui David, Meng Yee-Choon, Bruera Sebastian, Geng Yimin, Hutchins Ron, Mori Masanori, Strasser Florian, Bruera Eduardo
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA Department of Palliative Care, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Oncologist. 2016 Jul;21(7):895-901. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0006. Epub 2016 May 16.
Outpatient palliative care clinics facilitate early referral and are associated with improved outcomes in cancer patients. However, appropriate candidates for outpatient palliative care referral and optimal timing remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify criteria that are considered when an outpatient palliative cancer care referral is initiated.
We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1948-2013 citations) and Ovid Embase (1947-2015 citations) for articles related to outpatient palliative cancer care. Two researchers independently reviewed each citation for inclusion and extracted the referral criteria. The interrater agreement was high (κ = 0.96).
Of the 186 publications in our initial search, 21 were included in the final sample. We identified 20 unique referral criteria. Among these, 6 were recurrent themes, which included physical symptoms (n = 13 [62%]), cancer trajectory (n = 13 [62%]), prognosis (n = 7 [33%]), performance status (n = 7 [33%]), psychosocial distress (n = 6 [29%]), and end-of-life care planning (n = 5 [24%]). We found significant variations among the articles regarding the definition of advanced cancer and the assessment tools for symptom/distress screening. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (n = 7 [33%]) and the distress thermometer (n = 2 [10%]) were used most often. Furthermore, there was a lack of consensus in the cutoffs in symptom assessment tools and timing for outpatient palliative care referral.
This systematic review identified 20 criteria including 6 recurrent themes for outpatient cancer palliative care referral. It highlights the significant heterogeneity regarding the timing and process for referral and the need for further research to develop standardized referral criteria.
Outpatient palliative care clinics improve patient outcomes; however, it remains unclear who is appropriate for referral and what is the optimal timing. A better understanding of the referral criteria would help (a) referring clinicians to identify appropriate patients for palliative care interventions, (b) administrators to assess their programs with set benchmarks for quality improvement, (c) researchers to standardize inclusion criteria, and (d) policymakers to develop clinical care pathways and allocate appropriate resources. This systematic review identified 20 criteria including 6 recurrent themes for outpatient palliative cancer care referral. It represents the first step toward developing standardized referral criteria.
门诊姑息治疗诊所有助于早期转诊,并与癌症患者改善的预后相关。然而,门诊姑息治疗转诊的合适人选以及最佳时机仍不明确。我们对文献进行了系统回顾,以确定启动门诊姑息性癌症治疗转诊时所考虑的标准。
我们在Ovid MEDLINE(1948 - 2013年引文)和Ovid Embase(1947 - 2015年引文)中搜索与门诊姑息性癌症治疗相关的文章。两名研究人员独立审查每篇引文以确定是否纳入,并提取转诊标准。评分者间一致性较高(κ = 0.96)。
在我们最初搜索的186篇出版物中,21篇被纳入最终样本。我们确定了20条独特的转诊标准。其中,6条是反复出现的主题,包括身体症状(n = 13 [62%])、癌症病程(n = 13 [62%])、预后(n = 7 [33%])、体能状态(n = 7 [33%])、心理社会困扰(n = 6 [29%])和临终关怀计划(n = 5 [24%])。我们发现各文章在晚期癌症的定义以及症状/困扰筛查的评估工具方面存在显著差异。最常使用的是埃德蒙顿症状评估量表(n = 7 [33%])和困扰温度计(n = 2 [10%])。此外,症状评估工具的临界值以及门诊姑息治疗转诊的时机缺乏共识。
本系统回顾确定了20条标准,包括门诊癌症姑息治疗转诊的6个反复出现的主题。它突出了转诊时机和过程方面的显著异质性,以及进一步研究以制定标准化转诊标准的必要性。
门诊姑息治疗诊所可改善患者预后;然而,仍不清楚谁适合转诊以及最佳时机是什么。更好地理解转诊标准将有助于(a)转诊临床医生识别适合姑息治疗干预的患者,(b)管理人员根据既定质量改进基准评估其项目,(c)研究人员标准化纳入标准,以及(d)政策制定者制定临床护理路径并分配适当资源。本系统回顾确定了20条标准,包括门诊姑息性癌症治疗转诊的6个反复出现的主题。这是朝着制定标准化转诊标准迈出的第一步。