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
246P - Clinicoepidemiological profile and patterns of failure in carcinoma oral cavity in Indian patients: A 6-year retrospective study
Presenter: Aashita -
Session: Poster viewing 03
247TiP - Addition of induction, concurrent and maintenance durvalumab to induction and concurrent chemoradiation vs induction and concurrent chemoradiation for previously untreated locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A phase II randomised-controlled trial
Presenter: Victor Lee
Session: Poster viewing 03
248P - The use of complementary medicine in Chinese pediatric patients receiving palliative care: A multi-centre study
Presenter: Chun SIng Lam
Session: Poster viewing 03
249P - Improving quality of life and symptom burden with opioids and adjuncts in lung cancer (IQSOL study)
Presenter: Naren Gokulanathan
Session: Poster viewing 03
250P - An analysis of nutritional and psychological status of patients with advanced cancer
Presenter: Shasha Wang
Session: Poster viewing 03
251P - Is QUAD SHOT palliative cyclical hypo-fractionated radiotherapy in advanced head and neck cancer the way to go? An alternative regimen in low resource countries
Presenter: Ravi Kanodia
Session: Poster viewing 03
253P - Hemostatic radiotherapy for gastric cancer: MRI as an alternative to endoscopy for post-treatment evaluation
Presenter: Osamu Tanaka
Session: Poster viewing 03
254P - Sexual function of cervical cancer survivors: A single center prospective study
Presenter: Dinesh Ravikumar
Session: Poster viewing 03
255P - Volunteers’ role to provide quality palliative care for terminal cancer
Presenter: SAPTAPARNA JANA
Session: Poster viewing 03