We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This project sought to evaluate the impact of a hospital-based Palliative Care Consultation (PCC) service utilizing a common practice: the resident mortality review conference.
Method:
Internal Medicine residents used a revised chart audit tool during the mortality review conference, which included domains described in the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care (2004). This study attempted to transform the common practice into a methodology for collecting data that could be used as a platform to assess the quality of hospital care near the end of life. In this review, the residents were asked not only “what care was delivered appropriately?” but “what could we have done?” to relieve the patient's and family's suffering.
Results:
The results showed that the mortality review process could be used to assess care at the end of life. It also showed that those patients who received a PCC received better care. Symptoms were addressed at a significantly higher rate for those patients who received a PCC than for those who did not. Specifically, these were symptoms of pain (75% vs. 51%, p <.0001), dyspnea (75% vs. 59%, p < 0.0001), nausea (28% vs. 18%, p < 0.0001), and agitation (53% vs. 33%, p < 0.0001).
Significance of results:
The mortality review process was found to be valuable in assessing care delivery for patients near the end of life. The tool yielded results that were consistent with findings of other studies looking at pain and symptom management, advance care planning, and the rate of palliative care consults across major diagnostic categories, supporting the face validity of the mortality review process.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.