Clelland Sarah, Nuttall Christina L, Stott Helen E, Cope Joseph, Barratt Natalie L, Farrell Kelly, Eyong Manyi V, Gleeson Jack P, Lamarca Angela, Hubner Richard A, Valle Juan W, McNamara Mairéad G
The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester M20 4BX, UK.
Division of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester M20 4BX, UK.
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Oct 23;11(20):2802. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11202802.
Advanced pancreatic cancer is associated with a poor prognosis, often less than 1 year. Honest prognosis discussions guide early community palliative care services input, facilitating timely advance care planning and improving quality of life. The aims were to assess if patients were offered prognosis discussions and community palliative care services referral. A retrospective analysis of consecutive case-notes of new advanced pancreatic cancer patients was conducted. Chi-squared test assessed the association with prognosis discussion and community palliative care services referral. In total, 365 cases (60%) had a documented prognosis discussion at any time-point in the treatment pathway; 54.4% during the first appointment. The frequency of prognosis discussion was greater with nurse clinician review at first appointment ( < 0.001). In total, 171 patients (28.1%) were known to community palliative care services at the first appointment. Of those not known, 171 (39.1%) and 143 (32.7%) were referred at this initial time-point or later, respectively. There was a significant association between the referral to community palliative care services at first appointment and the reviewing professional (this was greatest for nurse clinicians (frequency 65.2%)) ( < 0.001), and also if reviewed by clinical nurse specialist at first visit or not (47.8% vs. 35.6%) ( < 0.01). Prognosis discussions were documented in approximately two-thirds of cases, highlighting missed opportunities. Prognosis discussion was associated with clinician review and was most frequent for nurse clinician, as was referral to community palliative care services. Clinical nurse specialist review increased referral to community palliative care services if seen at the initial visit. Multi-disciplinary review, specifically nursing, therefore, during the first consultation is imperative and additive. It should be considered best practice to offer and negotiate the content and timing of prognosis discussions with cancer patients, and revisit this offer throughout their treatment pathway. Greater attention to prognosis discussion documentation is recommended.
晚期胰腺癌预后较差,生存期通常不足1年。坦诚的预后讨论有助于早期引入社区姑息治疗服务,促进及时进行预立医疗计划并提高生活质量。本研究旨在评估是否向患者提供了预后讨论及社区姑息治疗服务转诊。对新诊断的晚期胰腺癌患者的连续病历进行回顾性分析。采用卡方检验评估预后讨论及社区姑息治疗服务转诊之间的关联。共有365例(60%)患者在治疗过程中的任何时间点有预后讨论记录;54.4%在首次就诊时进行了预后讨论。首次就诊时由护士临床医生进行评估时,预后讨论的频率更高(<0.001)。共有171例患者(28.1%)在首次就诊时已被社区姑息治疗服务机构知晓。在那些未被知晓的患者中,分别有171例(39.1%)和143例(32.7%)在首次就诊时或之后被转诊。首次就诊时转诊至社区姑息治疗服务机构与评估专业人员之间存在显著关联(护士临床医生的转诊率最高(频率为65.2%))(<0.001),首次就诊时是否由临床护理专家评估也存在关联(47.8%对35.6%)(<0.01)。约三分之二的病例有预后讨论记录,这凸显了存在错失的机会。预后讨论与临床医生评估相关,护士临床医生进行预后讨论的频率最高,转诊至社区姑息治疗服务机构的情况也是如此。如果在首次就诊时由临床护理专家进行评估,会增加转诊至社区姑息治疗服务机构的比例。因此,在首次会诊期间进行多学科评估,特别是护理评估,是必要且有益的。与癌症患者提供并协商预后讨论的内容和时机,并在整个治疗过程中重新提出这一建议,应被视为最佳实践。建议更加重视预后讨论的记录。