BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) infrastructure has developed differently around the globe. Whereas some institutions consider the palliative care unit (PCU) a valuable component, others report that the sole provision of a state-of-the art palliative care consultation service (PCCS) suffices to adequately care for the severely ill and dying. OBJECTIVE: To aid institutional planning, this study aimed at gathering patient data to distinguish assignments of a concomitantly run PCU and PCCS at a large hospital and academic medical center. METHODS: Demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, symptom/problem burden, discharge modality, and team satisfaction with care for all 601 PCU and 851 PCCS patients treated in 2009 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Patients admitted to the PCU versus those consulted by the PCCS: (a) had a significantly worse performance status (odds ratio [OR], 1.48); (b) were significantly more likely to suffer from severe symptoms and psychosocial problems (OR, 2.05), in particular concerning physical suffering and complexity of care; and (c) were significantly much more likely to die during hospital stay (OR, 11.03). For patients who were dying or in other challenging clinical situations (suffering from various severe symptoms), self-rated team satisfaction was significantly higher for the PCU than the PCCS. CONCLUSION: This study presents a direct comparison between patients in a PCU and a PCCS. Results strongly support the hypothesis that the coexistence of both institutions in one hospital contributes to the goal of ensuring optimal high-quality PC for patients in complex and challenging clinical situations.
BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) infrastructure has developed differently around the globe. Whereas some institutions consider the palliative care unit (PCU) a valuable component, others report that the sole provision of a state-of-the art palliative care consultation service (PCCS) suffices to adequately care for the severely ill and dying. OBJECTIVE: To aid institutional planning, this study aimed at gathering patient data to distinguish assignments of a concomitantly run PCU and PCCS at a large hospital and academic medical center. METHODS: Demographics, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, symptom/problem burden, discharge modality, and team satisfaction with care for all 601 PCU and 851 PCCS patients treated in 2009 and 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS:Patients admitted to the PCU versus those consulted by the PCCS: (a) had a significantly worse performance status (odds ratio [OR], 1.48); (b) were significantly more likely to suffer from severe symptoms and psychosocial problems (OR, 2.05), in particular concerning physical suffering and complexity of care; and (c) were significantly much more likely to die during hospital stay (OR, 11.03). For patients who were dying or in other challenging clinical situations (suffering from various severe symptoms), self-rated team satisfaction was significantly higher for the PCU than the PCCS. CONCLUSION: This study presents a direct comparison between patients in a PCU and a PCCS. Results strongly support the hypothesis that the coexistence of both institutions in one hospital contributes to the goal of ensuring optimal high-quality PC for patients in complex and challenging clinical situations.
Authors: Jan Gaertner; Juergen Wolf; Dennis Scheicht; Sebastian Frechen; Ursula Klein; Martin Hellmich; Christoph Ostgathe; Michael Hallek; Raymond Voltz Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Franziska Kötzsch; Stephanie Stiel; Maria Heckel; Christoph Ostgathe; Carsten Klein Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Jayita Kedar Deodhar; Vanita Noronha; Mary Ann Muckaden; Shrikant Atreya; Amit Joshi; Sandeep P Tandon; Arunangshu Ghoshal; Naveen S Salins; Vijay M Patil; Kumar Prabhash Journal: Indian J Palliat Care Date: 2017 Jul-Sep
Authors: J Berendt; C Ostgathe; S T Simon; M Tewes; D Schlieper; M Schallenburger; S Meier; S Gahr; J Schwartz; M Neukirchen Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 0.840