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
196P - Short course brachytherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: Safety and response rate
Presenter: Maryam Garousi
Session: Poster viewing 03
197P - The risk of uterine cervical cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Presenter: Hee Man Kim
Session: Poster viewing 03
198P - Geographic and demographic access to brachytherapy in India, with a special emphasis on gynaecological cancers
Presenter: Abhishek Krishna
Session: Poster viewing 03
199P - Prevalence of cervical cancer in Uzbekistan: A population based study
Presenter: Sayde Djanklich
Session: Poster viewing 03
200P - A retrospective institutional analysis on gynecological malignant mixed Mullerian tumors
Presenter: Monik Patel
Session: Poster viewing 03
201P - Immunotherapy in advanced mismatch repair deficiency endometrial cancer: A real-world single center experience
Presenter: Amit Rauthan
Session: Poster viewing 03
203TiP - Autophagy as a target for therapy in ovarian cancer: A phase II randomized trial with biomarker correlation (ATOC Trial)
Presenter: Luxitaa Goenka
Session: Poster viewing 03
210P - Ultra-sensitive monitoring of leukemia patients using superRCA mutation detection assays
Presenter: Lei Chen
Session: Poster viewing 03
211P - Chemotherapy delivery time affects anti-lymphoma treatment outcome in a sex-dependent manner
Presenter: Yeonsoo Park
Session: Poster viewing 03