Abstract 1612P
Background
Patient centred outcome measures (PCOMs) are increasingly used to structure proactive symptom assessment and help centre care around the specific needs of the patient. This study aimed to review the use of PCOMs as part of the routine care of inpatients reviewed by the integrated palliative care team in a specialist cancer centre.
Methods
Anonymised electronic palliative care PCOM data were retrieved for inpatients between 7/4/2021 to 31/01/2023, including Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), ECOG performance status, Australian Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) and Phase of Illness (POI). Descriptive statistics were used to define the complexity of palliative care needs based on IPOS, PS and POI. The effectiveness of the integrated palliative care service was evaluated by examining the difference between PCOM at initial and follow up assessment.
Results
Digital PCOM records for 1115 episodes of inpatient care were included, of which 391 had follow up data. On initial assessment 63% (703) patients had ECOG PS of 3 or 4 and 77% (864) had AKPS of less than 70. The most prevalent physical symptoms were weakness (84%, 1265), pain (80.7%, 1215), and poor mobility (72.3%, 1089). The most prevalent psychosocial symptom was family or friends feeling anxious or worried (85.8%, 1292). 83% (1250) had at least one palliative care need of severe or overwhelming intensity on initial assessment. 67.5% (753) were in an unstable POI on initial assessment, requiring urgent input. On follow up 92% (328) patients were in a stable, deteriorating or dying POI with no change to the care plan required. In patients with initial moderate to overwhelming symptoms, pain improved in 74%, nausea improved in 84%, vomiting improved in 93%, and constipation improved in 68% at follow up.
Conclusions
The high prevalence of physical and psychosocial symptoms demonstrates the complexity of needs and provides evidence of the requirement for integration of specialist palliative care services in cancer centres. The improvement in symptom scores between initial and follow up assessment demonstrates the effectiveness of integrated palliative care for cancer centre inpatients.
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
1604P - A comparative study of symptom prevalence between adults and elderly patients with advanced cancer diagnosis under palliative care: A single institution experience
Presenter: Hodan Abdullah
Session: Poster session 05
1605P - The impact of cancer pain on survival of lung cancer patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Sichao Wang
Session: Poster session 05
1606P - Sarcopenia, depression, and modes of feeding among cancer patients
Presenter: Muhammad Khokhar
Session: Poster session 05
1607P - Patient perceptions of the efficacy, safety, and quality of the evidence available on medicinal cannabis: A survey of Australian cancer patients - comparing users to non-users
Presenter: Joseph Taylor
Session: Poster session 05
1608P - Albumin-myosteatosis gauge as a prognostic factor in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer undergoing first-line chemotherapy
Presenter: Omer Dizdar
Session: Poster session 05
1609P - A machine learning-based prognostic model to predict survival in patients with advanced cancer admitted to an acute palliative care unit
Presenter: Eun Hee Jung
Session: Poster session 05
1610P - A new updated prognostic index for patients with brain metastases (BM) treated with palliative whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) in the era of precision oncology: METASNCore project
Presenter: Pablo Flores Paco
Session: Poster session 05
1611P - Family carers’ experiences with brain metastases: A longitudinal qualitative study
Presenter: Tonje Lundeby
Session: Poster session 05
1613P - The BreakThrough cancer malnutrition
Presenter: Stefano De Santis
Session: Poster session 05
1614P - Integrated palliative care for patients referred for Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy: A service evaluation
Presenter: Rebekah Williams
Session: Poster session 05