Blog Layout

Non-Traditional Symptom Management in Hospice and Palliative Care: Aromatherapy and Music

Sep 08, 2020

Articles are provided as informational purposes only and are not intended to constitute medical advice.

Medication protocols are subject to patient’s medical provider’s authorization.

In hospice and palliative care, we sometimes need to consider complementary and alternative (CAM) therapies. One reason might be that the more “traditional” medication therapies are not effective, despite dose optimization, or a given patient has issues with drug allergies, interactions, and/or adverse effects. Or sometimes, patients and caregivers may desire complementary therapies. In a study that took place in a palliative IPU, 82% of the patients surveyed were interested in trying CAM therapies, with the greatest interest expressed in music therapy (61% of patients) and massage therapy (58% of patients). In this same study, 100% of “substitute decision makers” expressed an interest in having CAM therapies available for their loved ones to try.¹ Furthermore, aromatherapy and music therapy typically have a favorable benefit-to-risk ratio, although every patient is unique and should be evaluated individually.


Aromatherapy

When using aromatherapy oils, it is important to use high-quality, 100% pure and genuine essential oils from a reputable supplier or manufacturer that analyzes their oils. Aromatherapy products should typically be used in areas of good ventilation. Keep in mind that they are highly flammable – so they would not be safe or appropriate in patients who use oxygen therapy. Additional information on aromatherapy safety and basic principles can be found on the National Association for Holistic Aromatherapy website at www.naha.org.


One area of application for aromatherapy is nausea. An interesting study took place in an emergency department (ED), comparing inhalation of the fumes from topical antiseptic isopropyl alcohol (IPA) to oral ondansetron.² Patients who came into the ED with nausea were randomized into one of three interventions:

  • IPA inhalation + ondansetron 4mg by mouth; OR
  • IPA inhalation + placebo by mouth; OR
  • Inhaled placebo + ondansetron 4mg by mouth


The patients reported their nausea scores using a 100mm visual analog scale at baseline and at 10, 20, 30, and 60 minutes after the intervention, and then every 60 minutes until ED disposition (i.e. admission to hospital or discharge home). They were allowed to take another inhalation at each measurement.


Patient results were grouped based on how long they stayed in the ED. Graph A shows results for patients in the ED less than 120 minutes. Up to the 30 minute mark, IPA inhalation groups (with or without oral ondansetron) saw significant improvement in their nausea scores. The group receiving oral ondansetron alone did not see any improvement within 30 minutes. After 30 minutes, those receiving oral ondansetron (with or without IPA) showed a greater drop in nausea scores than those receiving IPA inhalation alone.


Mean nausea VAS scores from study administration until ED disposition, for patients with ED disposition less than 120 minutes. From April MD, et al.

Graph C below shows results for patients in the ED less than 240 minutes. Results before the 30 minute mark are similar to those in Graph A, but results after the 30 minute mark are more apparent in Graph C. Similar to the group above, this graph shows how both oral ondansetron groups (with or without inhaled IPA) continue to have significant reductions in their nausea scores between 30 and 60 minutes, while the effects of using IPA inhalation alone leveled off after 30 minutes. This could be attributed to the 30-minute onset of action for oral ondansetron. However, despite the significant nausea score reduction after 30 minutes for participants receiving ondansetron, those receiving ondansetron alone still never reach the same total nausea score reduction as those receiving IPA.



The takeaway: it appears IPA inhalation alone or in combination with oral ondansetron was more effective than oral ondansetron alone at all measurement points. Additionally, IPA inhalation seemed to produce earlier benefits and “boost” the total effectiveness of oral ondansetron.


Mean nausea VAS scores from study administration until ED disposition, for patients with ED disposition less than 240 minutes. From April MD, et al.

Music

The American Music Therapy Association defines music therapy as: “The clinical and evidence-based use of music interventions to accomplish individualized goals within a therapeutic relationship by a credentialed professional who has completed an approved music therapy program.” Another term sometimes used in the literature is “music medicine,” which involves prerecorded music administered by medical or healthcare staff and preselected by study investigators, who may or may not have any formal training in music therapy. Based on the evidence, both approaches appear to be effective in certain situations.

It appears that music is effective for pain, anxiety, and depression because it impacts areas of the brain that are rich in receptors for endogenous opioids and dopamine. Music’s effects on pain are demonstrated by a study that took place in a burn unit.³ Patients chose from 10 pieces of recorded non-lyrical instrumental music that they listened to for 30 minutes before and after their dressing changes; the study found that patient-selected music plus standard treatment reduced pain during the dressing changes. This study also found that while the overall frequency of analgesic use was not reduced, the type of analgesics used changed – there was a significant decrease in use of opioids, but an increase in use of non-opioids (e.g. acetaminophen, NSAIDs), which the authors attribute to lower levels of pain perception.


Illustration of the areas of the brain affected by music, and implicated in the pathophysiology of pain, anxiety, and/or depression. From Archie P, Bruera E, Cohen L.

In many situations, it is preferred for patients to listen to music via headphones – in the study just mentioned, headphones were used specifically to help block out the sounds of the burn unit. However, headphones are contraindicated in situations where the patient needs to hear the comments or directions of the medical team, because wearing headphones may make it difficult for the patient to hear these directions, which can increase the patient’s anxiety and in turn increase their perceived pain.


Aromatherapy and Music: Viable Adjunctive Therapies

As can be seen here, there are studies that seem to support the effectiveness of aromatherapy and music for certain symptoms in hospice and palliative care, although overall, a greater number and rigor of studies are needed. These therapies generally seem to be most effective as add-on measures to more traditional and/or medication therapies and are worth considering in a variety of patient situations.



Written by:  Joelle Potts, PharmD, BCGP

 

References:

1. Grief CJ, Grossman D, Rootenberg M, Mah L. Attitudes of terminally ill older adults toward complementary and alternative medicine therapies. J Palliat Care. 2013 Winter; 29(4): 205-9. [Abstract]

2. April MD, et al. Aromatherapy versus oral ondansetron for antiemetic therapy among adult emergency department patients: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2018 Aug; 72(2): 184-93. Epub 2018 Feb 17.

3. Rohilla L, Agnihotri M, Trehan SK, Sharma RK, Ghai S. Effect of music therapy on pain perception, anxiety, and opioid use during dressing change among patients with burns in India: a quasi-experimental, cross-over pilot study. Ostomy Wound Management, 64(10), October 2018. 40-46. Available at: https://www.o-wm.com/article/effect-music-therapy-pain-perception-anxiety-and-opioid-use-during-dressing-change-among [last accessed 7/9/2020]

Additional References:

4. Deng G, Cassileth BR. Complementary therapies in pain management. Chapter in: Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine; 5th Edition, 2015. Editors: Cherny NI, Fallon MT, Kaasa S, Portenoy RK, Currow DC; Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. 628-31.Grief CJ, Grossman D, Rootenberg M, Mah L. Attitudes of terminally ill older adults toward complementary and alternative medicine therapies. J Palliat Care. 2013 Winter; 29(4): 205-9. [Abstract]

5. Alliance of International Aromatherapists (AIA) website: www.alliance-aromatherapists.org [last accessed 7/31/2020]

6. National Association for Holistic Aromatherapy (NAHA) website: naha.org [last accessed 7/31/2020]

7. Ondansetron. Lexicomp (Lexi-Drugs) online. Wolters Kluwer, copyright UpToDate, Inc.; last updated 7/23/2020. [last accessed 7/31/2020]

8. American Music Therapy Association website: www.musictherapy.org [last accessed 6/27/2020]

9. Archie P, Bruera E, Cohen L. Music-based interventions in palliative care: a review of quantitative studies and neurobiological literature. Support Care Cancer. 2013; 21: 2609-24.

10. Bradt J, Dileo C, Magill L, Teague A. Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016, Issue 8. Art. No.: CD006911.

20 Mar, 2024
Treatment of Insomnia at End of Life
04 Sep, 2023
Fatigue is defined as a subjective feeling of tiredness, weakness, or lack of energy that can affect one’s physical, emotional, and cognitive state.
03 Sep, 2023
Pain is a common and debilitating symptom experienced in our hospice and palliative care patients.
01 Aug, 2023
By Meri Madison, PharmD, RP
By Meri Madison, PharmD, RPh 12 Jun, 2023
By 2030, 1 in 5 Americans will be aged 65 and older and we can anticipate 52 million falls and 12 million fall injuries.
05 Mar, 2023
The presence of noisy respirations due to excessive secretions (also known as “gurgling” or “rattling”) at end of life predict a prognosis of days to weeks and can be alarming to family members.
By Meri Madison, PharmD, RPh 15 Feb, 2023
When managing symptoms at end of life, it can be a struggle to find the most appropriate medications.
21 Oct, 2022
Renal impairment is relatively common in both the elderly and hospice patients, and it can affect the way medications act in the body in several ways. Most commonly, it results in decreased clearance of renally-excreted medications, leading to accumulation of the drug and/or its metabolites and subsequent adverse or toxic effects. The absorption of oral medications may be reduced in patients with renal impairment due to increased gastric pH and gut wall edema. Uremia caused by renal impairment can increase sensitivity to medications that act on the central nervous system (CNS), as well as increase the risk of hyperkalemia due to potassium-sparing drugs. In addition, uremia can enhance the potential for NSAID-induced edema or GI bleeding. Renal impairment can also lead to edema or ascites, cachexia, dehydration, decreased albumin levels and binding capacity, and decreased tissue binding, all of which can impact the effects of medications. To compensate for these renal impairment-induced changes in drug disposition, the typical actions taken regarding medication administration are to decrease the dose, increase the dosing interval, or a combination of the two. The action that would be recommended depends on the drug and its specific characteristics. There are many medications that require dose adjustment in renal impairment, but here we’ll be discussing just those that are most often seen in hospice. The goal is to make you aware of these common medications (and categories) that often need dose adjustment so they trigger a mental alert for possible follow-up if they are ordered for your patients with decreased renal function. Opioids: Many opioids can accumulate in renal impairment as the parent drug and/or metabolites. Tramadol has a maximum daily dose in all patients, but in patients with a creatinine clearance (CrCL) less than 30 mL/minute, this maximum dose is reduced to 200 mg per day and the dosing interval should be extended to every 12 hours. Morphine renal dose reductions start with a CrCL less than 60 mL/minute, with possible extension of the dosing interval at this point as well. It is typically recommended to start considering alternatives to morphine in patients with a CrCL less than 30 mL/minute, and to avoid it altogether in patients with a CrCL less than 15 mL/minute. At end of life, the benefits of morphine can sometimes outweigh the risks. Because the presentation of renal accumulation-based adverse effects may be delayed, morphine can be used even in severe renal impairment or renal failure when the prognosis is hours to days, or in dialysis patients when death is imminent. Typically, oxycodone and hydromorphone are considered preferred alternatives to morphine in patients with significant renal impairment, although they both have metabolites that can accumulate in renal failure. As a result, the dose of oxycodone should be reduced and the dosing interval increased in patients with a CrCL less than 60 mL/minute, and oxycodone extended-release products should usually be avoided in patients with a CrCL less than 30 mL/minute. Hydromorphone dose reduction is also recommended when CrCL is less than 60 mL/minute; further dose reduction and extension of the dosing interval is recommended for hydromorphone when CrCL is less than 30 mL/minute. Although hydrocodone and its active metabolites may accumulate in renal impairment, there are no dose reductions for hydrocodone/acetaminophen according to the manufacturer’s labeling. Hydrocodone extended-release products (Hysingla ER®, Zohydro ER®) are rarely used in hospice, but dose reductions are recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. Methadone and fentanyl patch are considered among the safest opioids in renal impairment because they do not have active metabolites. However, renal impairment can still alter how fentanyl moves in the body, so dose reduction is recommended in patients with a CrCL of 50 mL/minute or less. For methadone, dose reduction is not recommended until very severe renal impairment (CrCL less than 10 mL/minute). No dose reductions are recommended for buprenorphine at any degree of renal impairment, and it is generally considered safe in this population. NSAIDs: Examples of NSAIDs that are commonly used in hospice include ibuprofen (Advil®, Motrin®), naproxen (Aleve®), and meloxicam (Mobic®), and as mentioned previously, there are some concerns regarding the use of NSAIDs in renal impairment. According to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) 2012 Clinical Practice Guideline, prolonged therapy with NSAIDs is not recommended if GFR is less than 60 mL/minute/1.73m² , and NSAIDs should typically be avoided in patients with a GFR less than 30 mL/minute/1.73m². As a general rule, NSAIDs should be used at the lowest effective dose for the shortest time possible in patients with renal impairment. In addition, NSAIDs should be avoided in patients with a high risk for developing acute kidney injury (e.g. volume depleted, elderly, and/or taking other nephrotoxic medications), and should be discontinued if acute kidney injury occurs during use. Antimicrobials: Many antimicrobials require dose reduction and/or extension of the dosing interval in renal impairment. Specific dosing recommendations depend on the antimicrobial in question and the type of infection being treated. When used for multiple doses, the dose of the antifungal fluconazole (Diflucan®) should be reduced in patients with a CrCL of 50 mL/minute or less. Examples of antibiotics commonly used in hospice that need dose adjustment include: sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim (Bactrim®); fluoroquinolone antibiotics, including ciprofloxacin (Cipro®) and levofloxacin (Levaquin®); certain penicillin antibiotics, such as amoxicillin and amoxicillin/clavulanate (Augmentin®); and some cephalosporins, including cephalexin (Keflex®) and cefdinir (Omnicef®). Nitrofurantoin (Macrobid®, Macrodantin®) also has significant concerns in renal impairment. According to the manufacturer’s prescribing information, it is contraindicated in anuria, oliguria, or significant renal impairment (defined as a CrCL less than 60 mL/minute or clinically significant elevated serum creatinine). However, limited data suggest it is safe and effective for short-term use in patients with a CrCL of 30 to 60 mL/minute, although there appears to be an increased risk of pulmonary adverse events when eGFR is less than 50 mL/minute. In any case, nitrofurantoin should be avoided altogether in patients with a CrCL less than 30 mL/minute, due to the risk of pulmonary toxicity, hepatotoxicity, and peripheral neuropathy. Renal impairment can affect drug disposition in several ways, often increasing the risk of adverse and toxic effects. Whenever you have a patient with renal impairment, evaluate whether they are taking medications that may be cause for concern and require dose adjustment, and remember that hospice clinicians, pharmacists, and drug information resources can help by providing specific renal dosing recommendations. By Joelle K. Potts RPh, PharmD, BCGP REFERENCES: Aging and Kidney Disease. National Kidney Foundation. Available at: https://www.kidney.org/news/monthly/wkd_aging [accessed 8/8/2022] Aronoff GR, Bennett WM, Berns JS, Brier ME, Kasbekar N, Mueller BA, et al. Drug Prescribing in Renal Failure: Dosing Guidelines for Adults and Children. 5th American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA; 2007. Renal Impairment. Chapter in: Palliative Care Formulary, 7th Edition (PCF7). Wilcock A, Howard P, Charlesworth S, Eds. Pharmaceutical Press, London, UK. Chapter 17, added April 2017; 715-35. Drug monographs. Lexcomp Online, Lexi-Drugs Online. Waltham, MA: UpToDate, Inc. https://online.lexi.com. O’Connor NR, Corcoran AM. End-stage renal disease: symptom management and advance care planning. Am Fam Physician. 2012; 85(7): 705-10. Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO). KDIGO 2012 clinical practice guideline for the evaluation and management of chronic kidney disease. Kidney International Supplements. Jan 2013; 3(1). Available at: www.kidney-international.org Macrobid® Prescribing Information. Proctor and Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Cincinnati, OH. Revised Jan 2009. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/020064s019lbl.pdf [accessed 6/13/2022] Macrodantin® Prescribing Information. Almatica Pharma Inc. Pine Brook, NJ. Revised Mar 2013. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/016620s072lbl.pdf [accessed 6/13/2022] 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. JAGS. 2019; 00: 1-21
24 Aug, 2022
Buprenorphine is a unique opioid analgesic. It has several benefits (“pros”) for pain management, but it also has a few significant risks (“cons”) that prevent it from being used more frequently in hospice.  For pain management, buprenorphine is available as a buccal film (Belbuca®), a weekly transdermal patch (Butrans®), and an injection solution (Buprenex®). The forms that are most often seen in hospice patients are the buccal film and transdermal patch, which are used routinely as long-acting opioids for chronic pain, and these are the dosage forms we’ll be discussing here. Buprenorphine injection is indicated for acute pain and is not recommended for long-term use, and it is rarely used in hospice. Other dosage forms (monthly subcutaneous injection, 6-month subcutaneous implant, and daily sublingual tablet) are indicated for opioid use disorder and are not FDA-approved for pain management. What makes buprenorphine unique is the way it binds to various opioid receptors. The most commonly used opioid analgesics (e.g. morphine, oxycodone, fentanyl, and hydrocodone) are full mu-opioid receptor agonists, meaning they bind to and activate the mu-opioid receptor. In contrast, an antagonist blocks a receptor by binding to it without activating it; naloxone (Narcan®) is an excellent example of a mu-opioid receptor antagonist. Buprenorphine is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist, which means that it binds to the mu-opioid receptor but activates it to a lesser degree than a full agonist. In addition to its effects at the mu-opioid receptor, buprenorphine has activity at three other opioid receptors: it is an antagonist at the delta- and kappa-opioid receptors, and a full agonist at the ORL-1 (opioid receptor-like 1; a.k.a. nociceptin) opioid receptor. The Pros of Buprenorphine: Effective for pain. Buprenorphine’s partial agonism at the mu-opioid receptor refers only to its activity level at the receptor, and not to its effectiveness as an analgesic. In fact, buprenorphine’s analgesic effects are comparable to full mu-opioid receptor agonists in a variety of different pain types, including moderate to severe post-operative and cancer pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic low back pain. Buprenorphine is also effective for neuropathic pain. Lower risk of certain opioid adverse effects. Because of buprenorphine’s unique activity at four opioid receptors, it is less likely to cause several common opioid adverse effects. When compared with most full mu-opioid receptor agonists, buprenorphine has a lower incidence of respiratory depression – although, as with all opioids, this adverse effect is still possible. Because buprenorphine is also less likely to produce euphoria, it has less potential for physical dependence and addiction; as such, it is classified as a Schedule III (C-III) controlled substance. In addition, when compared with the extended-release forms of oxycodone, hydromorphone, and oxymorphone, buprenorphine buccal film causes significantly less nausea, vomiting, constipation, dizziness, and somnolence. When buprenorphine is compared to morphine, the differences in adverse effect frequency are less pronounced, perhaps due to the dosage forms evaluated (or not evaluated). When comparing buprenorphine buccal film to morphine (dosage form not specified), buprenorphine appears to have just slightly lower incidences of constipation, somnolence, anxiety, and dry mouth. In a 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis of buprenorphine vs. morphine in acute pain management, the only significant difference in adverse effects identified was that buprenorphine was associated with less pruritis. The dosage forms considered in this review varied but were typically morphine injection vs. buprenorphine injection or sublingual tablet (not the patch or buccal film forms of buprenorphine that we usually see in our hospice patients). Safe in special populations. In addition, buprenorphine is considered safe in populations that we see often in hospice: those with renal impairment, including dialysis; those with mild to moderate hepatic impairment; and the elderly. The Cons of Buprenorphine: High cost. Unfortunately, buprenorphine patch and buccal film are relatively high-cost medications, which makes them much less attractive for use in hospice. Depending on the strength, the average cost for the generic weekly patch ranges from approximately $10 to $28 per day; the average cost for the brand buccal film, which is dosed once or twice a day, ranges from approximately $8 to $19 per film. Dosing limitations and cautions in severe hepatic impairment. A potential concern, especially in hospice patients, is that buprenorphine patch and buccal film both have maximum recommended doses. Also, the dose of the patch should be titrated no more frequently than every 72 hours, while the dose of the buccal film should be titrated no more frequently than every 4 days. Because buprenorphine has primarily hepatic metabolism, there are cautions regarding its use in severe liver impairment; in these patients, the dose of the buccal film should be reduced, and the transdermal patch form is not recommended. The Verdict: There are a number of reasons why buprenorphine patch and buccal film are excellent long-acting analgesics for many patients, especially those who are not approaching end of life. However, the cons can be significant, and buprenorphine is usually not preferred as a first- or second-line option for the majority of our hospice patients because other long-acting analgesics are effective and available at a much lower cost (e.g. methadone, morphine extended-release, and many strengths of fentanyl patch). In addition, the fact that buprenorphine patch and buccal film have maximum recommended doses may become an issue at end of life in patients whose pain is rapidly escalating. Of course, the pros and cons must always be weighed for each patient and their specific situation; no doubt there will be some hospice patients for whom buprenorphine patch or buccal film is an ideal choice. Written by Joelle Potts, PharmD, CGP REFERENCES: Lexicomp Online, Lexi-Drugs Online. Waltham, MA: UpToDate, Inc.; July 23, 2022. https://online.lexi.com. [last accessed 7/23/2022] Buprenorphine Practitioner Resources and Information. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Programs: Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT). Last updated 6/24/2021. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/practitioner-resources [last accessed: 2/5/2022] Become a Buprenorphine Waivered Practitioner. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Programs: Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT). Last updated 6/24/2021. Available at: https://www.samhsa.gov/medication-assisted-treatment/become-buprenorphine-waivered-practitioner [last accessed: 2/5/2022] Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Register document number 2021-08961, pages 22439-40; 4/28/2021. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/04/28/2021-08961/practice-guidelines-for-the-administration-of-buprenorphine-for-treating-opioid-use-disorder [last accessed 2/5/2022] Pharmacist’s Manual: An Informational Outline of the Controlled Substances Act. EO-DEA154; revised 2020. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Diversion Control Division. Available at: https://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/ [last accessed 2/28/2022] Pharmacological Treatment. Under: Opioids > Medication Assisted Recovery. Indian Health Service (IHS), Rockville, MD. https://www.ihs.gov/opioids/recovery/pharmatreatment/ [accessed 12/9/2021] Hale M, Garofoli M, Raffa RB. Benefit-risk analysis of buprenorphine for pain management. Journal of Pain Research, 2021:14; 1359-69. Gudin J, Fudin J. A narrative pharmacological review of buprenorphine: a unique opioid for the treatment of chronic pain. Pain Ther. Published online: 28 Jan 2020. Childers JW, Lou K, Arnold R. Fast Facts and Concepts #268. Low-dose buprenorphine patch for pain. October 2020. Available at: https://www.mypcnow.org Davis MP. Twelve reasons for considering buprenorphine as a frontline analgesic in the management of pain. The Journal of Supportive Oncology. Nov-Dec 2012; 10(6): 209-19. Khanna IK, Pillarisetti S. Buprenorphine – an attractive opioid with underutilized potential in treatment of chronic pain. Journal of Pain Research, 2015:8. 859-70. White LD, et al. Efficacy and adverse effects of buprenorphine in acute pain management: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2018; 120(4): 668-78. Morphine (systemic). Lexicomp Online, Lexi-Drugs Online. Waltham, MA: UpToDate, Inc.; July 20, 2022. https://online.lexi.com. [last accessed 7/23/2022] Butrans® (buprenorphine patch) prescribing information. Purdue Pharma LP, Stamford, CT. Revised March 2021. Available at: https://butrans.com [last accessed 3/15/2022] Belbuca® (buprenorphine buccal film) prescribing information. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., Raleigh, NC. Revised March 2021. Available at: https://www.belbuca.com. [last accessed 3/15/2022]
26 May, 2022
There are many types of chronic, non-healing wounds. These include pressure ulcers, diabetic ulcers, arterial insufficiency ulcers, venous ulcers, and malignant wounds. Pressure ulcers are the most common type of wound we encounter as patients decline, become bed bound, and approach end-of-life. Stage 1 and 2 pressure ulcers cause superficial skin changes, and Stage 3 and 4 pressure ulcers affect the deep tissue framework.¹ Pressure ulcers should be staged depending on damage and presence of certain characteristics. It is important to note that if a wound is healing, reverse staging is not done. If a patient has a stage 3 ulcer that is getting better, we would say that the patient has a “healing” stage 3 pressure ulcer.² A patient’s initial assessment should include a review of their skin and existing wounds, if any, and an assessment of the risk factors that are affecting wound healing. The Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Sore Risk is one tool used when assessing patients. It is based on sensory perception, moisture, activity, mobility, nutrition, and friction/shear. Keep in mind, most tools used to predict risk do not account for end-of-life decline, so hospice/palliative care patients may be at greater risk than the scales show.³ Other risk factors for chronic non-healing wounds include obesity, tobacco use, vascular issues, diabetes, elderly, radiation therapy, poor self-care, alcohol use, and neurological issues. After the initial assessment, a plan should be developed that aligns with the patient and family’s goals. If there are emotional or spiritual issues that are contributing to poor self-care or alcohol/substance abuse, consider calling on other members of your multi-disciplinary team (i.e., social worker or clergy) for assistance. Therapy goals, which aim to improve quality of life, should be based on patient prognosis, patient factors, heal-ability of existing wound, type of wound, and patient and family wishes. Goals should include preventing new wounds or worsening of existing wounds, prevent/relieve distressing symptoms, reduce discomfort, reduce risk of infection, bleeding, and odor.³ The TIME mnemonic can help us improve wound care.
More Posts
Share by: