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
214P - Versican G3 domain promotes myeloma cell proliferation, migration and invasion via activation of FAK/STAT3 signaling
Presenter: Nidhi Gupta
Session: Poster viewing 03
215P - Prospective observational study to evaluate impact of metabolic tumor volume on baseline 18F FDG PET/CT and molecular markers on tumor response rate in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Presenter: Ankur Mudgal
Session: Poster viewing 03
216P - Lenalidomide maintenance after whole brain radiotherapy in relapsed/refractory primary CNS lymphoma
Presenter: Bhausaheb Bagal
Session: Poster viewing 03
217P - Role of copper levels in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes
Presenter: Revanth Boddu
Session: Poster viewing 03
218P - Prognostic role of apoptotic index in acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Presenter: Ramya Ramesh
Session: Poster viewing 03
219TiP - Randomised controlled study to compare efficacy & safety of KRd versus VRd regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma using weekly schedule of generic carfilzomib
Presenter: Jasmine Porwal
Session: Poster viewing 03
233P - Cancer awareness, tobacco use and cessation among Malayali tribes, Yelagiri Hills, Tamil Nadu, India: A 8-year follow up study
Presenter: Delfin Lovelina Francis
Session: Poster viewing 03
234P - Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer stem cells: Missing link in oral squamous cell carcinoma
Presenter: Selvaraj Jayaraman
Session: Poster viewing 03
235P - Evaluation of a prognostic model for head and neck cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma using a cumulative number of risk factors
Presenter: Reiichi Doi
Session: Poster viewing 03