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
167P - Genetic testing for prostate cancer: The Indian scenario
Presenter: Ganesh Bakshi
Session: Poster viewing 03
168P - Transcriptional profiling of metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) and distinct features are associated with clinical outcome
Presenter: BYULA JEE
Session: Poster viewing 03
169P - Urine tumor DNA fragmentation profiles provided a novel biomarker for early detection of prostate cancer
Presenter: Nianzeng Xing
Session: Poster viewing 03
170P - Safety, efficacy and pharmacoeconomic implications of low dose abiraterone in prostate cancer
Presenter: Suryakanta Acharya
Session: Poster viewing 03
171P - Clinical significance of prostate volume and testosterone reduction on lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with prostate cancer undergoing androgen deprivation therapy
Presenter: Jin Cho
Session: Poster viewing 03
172P - Impact on management of non-metastatic prostate cancer biochemical recurrence with use of 68Ga PET-PSMA PET/CT scans in single-institution experience
Presenter: Pimchanok Tuitemwong
Session: Poster viewing 03
173P - Clinical outcomes in stratification subgroups in the ARASENS study in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)
Presenter: Francis Parnis
Session: Poster viewing 03
175TiP - A prospective phase II study to investigate the efficacy and safety of olaparib plus abiraterone and prednisone combination therapy in mHSPC patients with HRR gene mutation
Presenter: Junlong Zhuang
Session: Poster viewing 03