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
150P - Use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for non-metastatic muscle-invasive bladder cancer in Asia-Pacific
Presenter: Ravindran Kanesvaran
Session: Poster viewing 03
Resources:
Abstract
Slides
151P - Neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer: Real-world analysis of chemotherapy use and impact on patient outcomes
Presenter: Alison Hiong
Session: Poster viewing 03
152P - An epidemiologic study on PD-L1 expression with clinical observation of initial treatment pattern in the Chinese muscle invasive urothelial bladder carcinoma patients
Presenter: Liqun Zhou
Session: Poster viewing 03
153P - Efficacy and toxicity of HER2-targeted antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the treatment of metastatic urothelial cancer (mUC): A systematic review
Presenter: Tiago Padua
Session: Poster viewing 03
154P - Can urine cytology predict variants of bladder cancer?
Presenter: Hikaru Mikami
Session: Poster viewing 03
155P - Search for circulating tumor cells in patients with urothelial cancer
Presenter: Irina Kruglova
Session: Poster viewing 03
156P - The association between response to enfortumab vedotin therapy and primary tumor location in Japanese urothelial carcinoma patients
Presenter: Nozomi Hayakawa
Session: Poster viewing 03
163P - Outcomes and toxicity of fosfesterol in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Experience from a low middle income country
Presenter: Manuprasad Avaronnan
Session: Poster viewing 03
164P - F-18 PSMA-PET/CT-guided percutaneous prostate biopsy
Presenter: Rajender Kumar
Session: Poster viewing 03
165P - Real-world utilisation of upfront chemohormonal therapy in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer
Presenter: Richard Kelly
Session: Poster viewing 03