Naomi George1, Elizabeth Phillips2, Milana Zaurova3, Carolyn Song3, Sangeeta Lamba4, Corita Grudzen5. 1. Brown University Alpert Medical School, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. Electronic address: nrgeorge@gmail.com. 2. George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA. 3. Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 4. New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA. 5. New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Emergency department (ED) providers and policy makers are increasingly interested in developing palliative care (PC) interventions for ED patients. Many patients in the ED may benefit from PC screening and referral. Multiple ED-based PC screening projects have been undertaken, but there has been no study of these projects or their effects. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and critical analysis to evaluate the methods, tools, and outcomes of PC screening and referral projects in the ED. METHODS: Three reviewers independently selected eligible studies from the PubMed database. Eligible studies evaluated a PC screening tool, assessment, or referral modality aimed at identifying patients appropriate for PC. Four reviewers independently evaluated the final articles. Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Each was reviewed for methodological quality and strength. The studies were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study developed an independent screening or evaluation tool for PC needs. Each required additional ED personnel to perform screening and referral, and success was limited by availability of specialized personnel. All the studies were successful in increasing rates of PC referral. CONCLUSION: We have identified multiple studies demonstrating that screening and referral for PC consultation are feasible in the ED setting. The strengths and limitations of these studies were explored. Further evidence for the development of an effective, evidence-based PC screening, and referral process is needed. We recommend a screening framework based on a synthesis of available evidence.
CONTEXT: Emergency department (ED) providers and policy makers are increasingly interested in developing palliative care (PC) interventions for ED patients. Many patients in the ED may benefit from PC screening and referral. Multiple ED-based PC screening projects have been undertaken, but there has been no study of these projects or their effects. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and critical analysis to evaluate the methods, tools, and outcomes of PC screening and referral projects in the ED. METHODS: Three reviewers independently selected eligible studies from the PubMed database. Eligible studies evaluated a PC screening tool, assessment, or referral modality aimed at identifying patients appropriate for PC. Four reviewers independently evaluated the final articles. Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodological quality, and outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. Each was reviewed for methodological quality and strength. The studies were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study developed an independent screening or evaluation tool for PC needs. Each required additional ED personnel to perform screening and referral, and success was limited by availability of specialized personnel. All the studies were successful in increasing rates of PC referral. CONCLUSION: We have identified multiple studies demonstrating that screening and referral for PC consultation are feasible in the ED setting. The strengths and limitations of these studies were explored. Further evidence for the development of an effective, evidence-based PC screening, and referral process is needed. We recommend a screening framework based on a synthesis of available evidence.
Authors: Christopher R Carpenter; Don Melady; Craig Krausz; Jason Wagner; Brian Froelke; Jennifer Cordia; Derrick Lowery; Brent E Ruoff; Laurie E Byrne; Douglas K Miller; Lawrence Lewis Journal: Mo Med Date: 2017 Nov-Dec
Authors: Nita Khandelwal; Ann C Long; Robert Y Lee; Cara L McDermott; Ruth A Engelberg; J Randall Curtis Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Kelly C Vranas; Amber L Lin; Dana Zive; Susan W Tolle; Scott D Halpern; Christopher G Slatore; Craig Newgard; Robert Y Lee; Erin K Kross; Donald R Sullivan Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Julia Berendt; Stephanie Stiel; Steffen T Simon; Andrea Schmitz; Birgitt van Oorschot; Peter Stachura; Christoph Ostgathe Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-07-20
Authors: Jan Shoenberger; Sangeeta Lamba; Rebecca Goett; Paul DeSandre; Kate Aberger; Suzanne Bigelow; Todd Brandtman; Garrett K Chan; Robert Zalenski; David Wang; Mark Rosenberg; Karen Jubanyik Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2018-03-22