RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Existential suffering in patients with serious illness significantly impacts quality of life, yet it remains a challenge to define, assess, and manage adequately. Improving upon understanding and practice in the existential domain is a topic of interest for palliative care providers. METHODS: As a quality improvement project, our palliative care team created an existential assessment tool utilizing a dialogue-oriented approach with four questions designed to identify sources of existential distress as well as strengths and challenges in coping with this distress. The tool utilized the mnemonic CASH, with each letter representing the core objective of the question. Providers who requested the palliative care consult were asked to evaluate the CASH assessment. On completion of the project, palliative care consultants evaluated the appropriateness of the CASH assessment tool. RESULTS: Patient responses to the CASH questions were insightful and reflected their beliefs, priorities, and concerns. Eight of nine providers found that the assessment enabled understanding of their patient. Seven noted a positive impact on their practice, and five reported an improvement in patient care after the assessment. The palliative care consultants who used the tool enjoyed using it, and half of them suggested changes to patient care based on their assessment. The most common reasons for not using the CASH assessment were inappropriateness to the consult, lack of perceived patient/caregiver receptiveness, or consultation service too busy. CONCLUSION: Our quality improvement project demonstrated that the CASH assessment tool is useful in ascertaining existential concerns of patients with serious illness. It enhances patient care by the primary team as well as the palliative care team. As a brief set of questions with an easy-to-remember mnemonic, the CASH assessment tool is feasible for a busy palliative consult service. Furthermore, the positive results of this project merit more rigorous evaluation of the CASH assessment tool in the future.
Asunto(s)
Evaluación de Necesidades , Cuidados Paliativos/métodos , Cuidados Paliativos/psicología , Estrés Psicológico/psicología , Adaptación Psicológica , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Existencialismo , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Desarrollo de Programa , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
CONTEXT: The topical gel known as "ABH gel," comprising lorazepam (Ativan(®)), diphenhydramine (Benadryl(®)), and haloperidol (Haldol(®)), is frequently used to treat nausea because of its perceived efficacy, relatively low cost, and ease of use in the home setting. There are limited scientific data on this medication, however. Recent pilot studies showed no absorption of the active ingredients of the gel, prompting further prospective studies into the cause of the perceived efficacy in the clinical setting. OBJECTIVES: To determine any difference in the effectiveness of ABH gel compared with placebo in cancer patients with nausea. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, noninferiority clinical trial was developed to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the effectiveness of ABH gel compared with placebo in cancer patients with nausea. The primary outcome was the difference in nausea score (on a 0-10 scale) at baseline and at 60 minutes in each treatment group. The difference in the ABH gel-treated group compared with placebo was evaluated for noninferiority. Secondary outcomes included the number of vomiting episodes and side effects over time. RESULTS: The mean change in nausea score from baseline to 60 minutes after treatment in the ABH gel group was 1.7 ± 2.05 and 0.9 ± 2.45 for the placebo group (P = 0.42). The placebo group was found to be noninferior to the ABH gel group in reducing the nausea score. ABH gel also did not decrease vomiting events better than placebo (P = 0.34). Only one patient reported any side effects from the treatments in either arm of the study. CONCLUSION: ABH gel in its current formulation should not be used in cancer patients experiencing nausea.