Abstract 252P
Background
The place of death is an important aspect of end-of-life care. An individual achieving his or her preferred place of death (PPOD) is a quality marker of good death. Concordance in the wishes of the patient and family is also equally important. Not much data is available on the reasons pertaining to PPOD in the Indian population. We aimed to identify the PPOD among terminally ill cancer patients and their reasons. We also assessed the concordance between patient and primary family caregiver (PFCG) regarding the same.
Methods
A questionnaire-based cross-sectional survey was done among terminally ill cancer patients and their PFCG, when admitted to the palliative care ward in BRA IRCH, AIIMS, New Delhi. After obtaining ethical committee approval, patients satisfying eligibility criteria were prospectively recruited and informed consent was taken. The questionnaire included socio-demographic details, questions about the preferred place of death, and their reasons for the patient and PFCG.
Results
A total of 185 patients were recruited. Home was the PPOD for 115(62%) patients, while 62(33%) preferred palliative care ward and 8(5%) favored nursing homes.48 (26%) patients had discussed their PPOD with PFCG and 16% of the PFCGs agreed with their loved ones. Among 115 patients with home as PPOD, 60 (52%) wanted a peaceful death without any intensive procedure, 37 (32%) wanted care only from their loved ones, 35 (30%) did not like long hospital stays, and 28 (24%) did not want to financially overburden their family. Among 70 patients who had PPOD other than home, 49(70%) wanted a pain-free death, 32(45%) feared inaccessibility to medical care at times of emergency and 28 (40%) did not want to depend on family for self-care.
Conclusions
Home was the PPOD for almost two-thirds of the patients. However, we observed a lack of consensus regarding PPOD between patients and their PFCG. We should address this issue, and effective communication about PPOD between the patient and PFCG should be encouraged and both should come to similar terms in this regard.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
140P - Lenvatinib + everolimus in mRCC that has progressed on immunotherapy: A real-world single center experience
Presenter: CHINNU JOMI
Session: Poster viewing 03
141P - Real-world study of cabozantinib treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma in Taiwan
Presenter: Yu-Chieh Tsai
Session: Poster viewing 03
143P - Clinical outcomes of systemic therapy for hemodialysis patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma
Presenter: Shun Iwasa
Session: Poster viewing 03
144P - Association between immune-related adverse events and survival in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab plus ipilimumab
Presenter: Takanori Hayase
Session: Poster viewing 03
145P - Treatment outcomes and FGFR alterations in unresectable locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer in Taiwan
Presenter: Jian-Ri Li
Session: Poster viewing 03
146P - Comparison of the survival outcomes between primary and secondary muscle-invasive bladder cancer: A propensity score-matched Chinese cohort
Presenter: WAICHAN LOK
Session: Poster viewing 03
Resources:
Abstract
147P - Activity of single-agent PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in 1st-line (1L) “platinum-ineligible” patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC) in real-life clinical practice
Presenter: Javier Molina Cerrillo
Session: Poster viewing 03
149P - A need for clear definitions and improved management for BCG-unresponsive tumors in Asia-Pacific
Presenter: Lui Shiong Lee
Session: Poster viewing 03
Resources:
Abstract