ABSTRACT It is not uncommon for patients to have an expected death in an ICU. This review covers issues related to the end of life in the absence of discordance between the patient's family and caregivers.

Moving dislocations experience a damping force because of their interactions with lattice phonons and electrons. Except at velocities close to the transverse sound velocity this force is proportional to the dislocation velocity. At high plastic strain rates dislocations may be required to move so quickly that dislocation damping forces determine the flow stress. In this note an estimate is made of strain rate at which dislocation damping becomes important. In the plastic flow stress range of 10 MPa to 100 MPa (for aluminum) the critical strain rate is of the order of 4 x 10(5) s(-1) to 10(6) s(-1) if almost all the dislocations within a piece of metal are mobile during plastic straining. If only a small fraction of the dislocations during plastic straining is mobile, the critical strain rate is reduced by an amount equal to this fraction.

An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer.Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patient's illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available.Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO.Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care-when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care-leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panel's expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE: ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

Purpose of review;Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in men and women. Most patients present with advanced disease and face significant morbidity, with many reporting distressing symptoms throughout the course of their illness. The purpose of this review is to highlight the recent studies that support the integration of early palliative care into the standard oncology care of patients with advanced lung cancer.Recent findings;Historically, palliative care was provided predominantly as a hospital-based consultation service; however, recent data support an outpatient delivery model of early palliative care alongside standard oncology care. In two randomized controlled trials, patients with advanced cancer who were assigned to early palliative care reported improved quality of life and mood. Numerous organizations have published guidelines to support the integration of palliative care into the routine care of patients with lung cancer.Summary;Palliative care is appropriate for patients at any point in a serious illness. Unlike hospice, palliative care is not limited by prognosis and may be provided at the same time as disease-directed therapies. There is strong evidence underscoring the importance of integrating palliative care across the trajectory of lung cancer. The primary oncology team should routinely assess for pain and other symptoms, and regularly inquire about a patient's understanding of his disease and his goals of care. Specialty palliative care can provide an extra layer of support for patients with lung cancer and their families by helping with more challenging symptom management, psychosocial support, complex decision-making, advance care planning, and transitions in care.

Patients with advanced incurable face complex physical, psychological, social, and spiritual consequences of disease and its treatment. Care for these patients should include an individualized assessment of the patient's needs, goals, and preferences throughout the course of illness. Consideration of disease-directed therapy, symptom management, and attention to quality of life are important aspects of quality care. However, emerging evidence suggests that, too often, realistic conversations about prognosis, the potential benefits and limitations of disease-directed therapy, and the potential role of palliative care, either in conjunction with or as an alternative to disease-directed therapy, occur late in the course of illness or not at all. This article addresses the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) for improved communication with and decision making for patients with . This statement advocates an individualized approach to discussing and providing disease-directed and supportive care options for patients with throughout the continuum of care. Building on ASCO's prior statements on end-of-life care (1998) and palliative care (2009), this article reviews the evidence for improved patient care in when patients' individual goals and preferences for care are discussed. It outlines the goals for individualized care, barriers that currently limit realization of this , and possible strategies to overcome these barriers that can improve care consistent with the goals of our patients and evidence-based medical practice.

In the United States, the majority of deaths occur in the hospital but the dying process there is at best unsatisfactory and more likely inadequate for both patients and caregivers. The development of hospital-based palliative care programs (HBPCPs) can vastly improve inpatient end-of-life care. This study is the first to examine the prevalence and characteristics of HBPCPs in the United States, thus providing a snapshot of the characteristics of these HBPCPs. It also serves as a baseline and benchmark against which future development and patterns of HBPCPs can be compared. Phase 1: Data were obtained from the American Hospital Association (AHA) 1998 Annual Survey, on the existence of end-of-life care (EOLC) and pain management (PM) services in U.S. hospitals. Phase 2: A focused survey further assessed programs in Phase 1 and was sent to all registered hospitals that responded affirmatively to the AHA survey questions as having either a PM service, an EOLC service, or both. In phase 1, 1,751 (36%) hospitals reported having a PM service and 719 (15%) had an EOLC service, for a total of 2,015 unique hospitals that had one or both. For Phase 2, 1,120 of 2,015 responded (56%). Of these, 337 (30%) hospitals reported having an HBPCP, and another 228 (20.4%) had plans to establish one. HBPCPs are most commonly structured as inpatient consultation service and hospital-based hospice. They tend to be based in oncology, general medicine, and geriatrics. We also assessed reasons for consultation, patient characteristics, and future development needs. These findings can help guide future funding, educational, and programming efforts in hospital-based palliative care.

Background: Hospital-based specialist palliative care services are common, yet existing evidence of inpatient generalist providers’ perceptions of collaborating with hospital-based specialist palliative care teams has never been systematically assessed. Aim: To assess the existing evidence of inpatient generalist palliative care providers’ perceptions of what facilitates or hinders collaboration with hospital-based specialist palliative care teams. Design: Narrative literature synthesis with systematically constructed search. Data sources: PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ProQuest Social Services databases were searched up to December 2014. Individual journal, citation and reference searching were also conducted. Papers with the views of generalist inpatient professional caregivers who utilised hospital-based specialist palliative care team services were included in the narrative synthesis. Hawker’s criteria were used to assess the quality of the included studies. Results: Studies included (n = 23) represented a variety of inpatient generalist palliative care professionals’ experiences of collaborating with specialist palliative care. Effective collaboration is experienced by many generalist professionals. Five themes were identified as improving or decreasing effective collaboration: model of care (integrated vs linear), professional onus, expertise and trust, skill building versus deskilling and specialist palliative care operations. Collaboration is fostered when specialist palliative care teams practice proactive communication, role negotiation and shared problem-solving and recognise generalists’ expertise. Conclusion: Fuller integration of specialist palliative care services, timely sharing of information and mutual respect increase generalists’ perceptions of effective collaboration. Further research is needed regarding the experiences of non-physician and non-nursing professionals as their views were either not included or not explicitly reported.

A randomised controlled trial was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of a hospital Palliative Care Team (PCT) on physical symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL); patient, family carer and primary care professional reported satisfaction with care; and health service resource use. The full package of advice and support provided by a multidisciplinary specialist PCT ('full-PCT') was compared with limited telephone advice ('telephone-PCT', the control group) in the setting of a teaching hospital trust in the SW of England. The trial recruited 261 out of 684 new inpatient referrals; 175 were allocated to 'full-PCT', 86 to 'telephone-PCT' (2 : 1 randomisation); with 191 (73%) being assessed at 1 week. There were highly significant improvements in symptoms, HRQoL, mood and 'emotional bother' in 'full-PCT' at 1 week, maintained over the 4-week follow-up. A smaller effect was seen in 'telephone-PCT'; there were no significant differences between the groups. Satisfaction with care in both groups was high and there was no significant difference between them. These data reflect a high standard of care of patients dying of and other in an acute hospital environment, but do not demonstrate a difference between the two models of service delivery of specialist palliative care.

Abstract Background: Studies report cost-savings from hospital-based palliative care consultation teams compared to usual care only, but drivers of observed differences are unclear. Aim: To analyse cost-differences associated with palliative care consultation teams using two research questions: (Q1) What is the association between early palliative care consultation team intervention, and intensity of services and length of stay, compared to usual care only? (Q2) What is the association between early palliative care consultation team intervention and day-to-day hospital costs, compared to a later intervention? Design: Prospective multi-site cohort study (2007-2011). Patients who received a consultation were placed in the intervention group, those who did not in the comparison group. Intervention group was stratified by timing, and groups were matched using propensity scores. Setting/participants: Adults admitted to three US hospitals with advanced cancer. Principle analytic sample contains 863 patients ( nUC = 637; nPC EARLY = 177; nPC LATE = 49) discharged alive. Results: Cost-savings from early palliative care accrue due to both reduced length of stay and reduced intensity of treatment, with an estimated 63% of savings associated with shorter length of stay. A reduction in day-to-day costs is observable in the days immediately following initial consult but does not persist indefinitely. A comparison of early and late palliative care consultation team cost-effects shows negligible difference once the intervention is administered. Conclusion: Reduced length of stay is the biggest driver of cost-saving from early consultation for patients with advanced cancer. Patient- and family-centred discussions on goals of care and transition planning initiated by palliative care consultation teams may be at least as important in driving cost-savings as the reduction of unnecessary tests and pharmaceuticals identified by previous studies.

Hospital-based Palliative Care Consultation Teams (PCCTs) have a consulting role to specialist services at their request. Referral of patients is often late. Early palliative care in oncology has shown its effectiveness in improving quality of life, thereby questioning the “on request” model of PCCTs. Whether this evidence changed practice is unknown. This multicentre prospective cohort study aims to describe the activity and integration of PCCTs at the patient level. For consecutive patients newly referred to participating PCCTs, the team collected the following data: circumstances of first referral, problems identified, number of interventions, patient’s survival after first evaluation and place of death. Seventeen PCCTs based in university hospitals in Paris area, recruited 744 newly referred adult patients, aged 7265±651502years, 52% males, and 504(68%) with cancer as primary diagnosis. After 602months, 548(74%) had died. At first evaluation, 12% patients were outpatients, 88% were inpatients. Symptoms represented the main reasons for referral and problems identified; 79% of patients had altered performance status; 24% encountered the PCCT only once. Median survival (1st-3rd quartile) after first evaluation by the PCCT was 22 (5–82) days for overall patients, and respectively 31 (8–107) days and 9 (3–34) days for cancer versus noncancer patients (p65<650.0001). Place of death was acute care hospital for 51.7% patients, and home or Palliative Care Unit for 35%. Patients referred earlier died more often in PCU. The study provides original data showing a still late referral to the PCCTs in France. Cancer patients represent their predominant activity. The integrated palliative care model seems to emerge besides the “on request” model which originally characterised their missions. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-017-0209-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

To determine whether hospital-based palliative care teams improve the process or outcomes of care for patients and families at the end of life, a systematic literature review was performed employing a qualitative meta-synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Ten databases were searched. This was augmented by hand searching specific journals, contacting authors, and examining the reference lists of all papers retrieved. Studies were included if they evaluated palliative care teams working in hospitals. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers. Studies were graded using two independent hierarchies of evidence. A Signal score was used to assess the relevance of publications. Two analyses were conducted. In a qualitative meta-synthesis data were extracted into standardized tables to compare relevant features and findings. In quantitative meta-analysis we calculated the effect size of each outcome (dividing the estimated mean difference or difference in proportions by the sample's standard deviation). Nine studies specifically examined the intervention of a hospital-based palliative care team or studies. A further four studies considered interventions that included a component of a hospital or support team, although the total intervention was broader. The nature of the interventions varied. The studies were usually in large teaching hospitals, in cities, and mainly in the United Kingdom. Outcomes considered symptoms, quality of life, time in hospital, total length of time in palliative care, or professional changes, such as prescribing practices. Only one of the studies was a randomized controlled trial and this considered a hospital team as part of other services. Most method scores indicated limited research quality. Comparison groups were subject to bias and the analyses were not adjusted for confounding variables. In addition, there were problems of attrition and small sample sizes. Nevertheless, all studies indicated a small positive effect of the hospital team, except for one study in Italy, which documented deterioration in patient symptoms. The Signal scores indicated that the studies were relevant. No study compared different models of hospital team. This review suggests that hospital-based palliative care teams offer some benefits, although this finding should be interpreted with caution. The study designs need to be improved and different models of providing support at the end of life in hospital need comparison. Standardized outcome measures should be used in such research and in practice.