Search

Background: The WHO definition of palliative care includes bereavement support as integral to palliative care, yet a previous survey of bereavement support in palliative care in Europe has shown a range of service responses to loss. A rigorous approach to agreeing and implementing a palliative care bereavement framework was required. Aim: The aim of this study was to develop consensus on best-practice recommendations for bereavement care principles, structures, processes and delivery based on current practice and evidence. Design: In accordance with Guidance on Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies, a consensus-building five-round Delphi technique was performed. A scoping review of research literature informed drafting of 54 statements by the EAPC Bereavement Task Force. Evaluation of the statements was performed by an expert panel using a 5-point Likert scale. ⩾80% agreement were defined as essential items and 75%–79% agreement were defined as desirable items. Items with a consensus rating <75% were revised during the process. Setting/participants: The Delphi study was carried out by an expert panel among membership organisations of the European Association for Palliative Care. Results: In total, 376 email requests to complete Delphi questionnaire were distributed with a response rate of 23% (n = 87) and a follow-up response-rate of 79% (n = 69). Of the initial 54 statements in six dimensions, 52 statements were endorsed with 26 essential statements and 26 desirable statements. Conclusions: The six dimensions and 52 statements agreed through this Delphi study clarify a coherent direction for development of bereavement services in palliative care in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with intellectual disabilities often present with unique challenges that make it more difficult to meet their palliative care needs. Aim: To define consensus norms for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe. Design: Delphi study in four rounds: (1) a taskforce of 12 experts from seven European countries drafted the norms, based on available empirical knowledge and regional/national guidelines; (2) using an online survey, 34 experts from 18 European countries evaluated the draft norms, provided feedback and distributed the survey within their professional networks. Criteria for consensus were clearly defined; (3) modifications and recommendations were made by the taskforce; and (4) the European Association for Palliative Care reviewed and approved the final version. Setting and participants: Taskforce members: identified through international networking strategies. Expert panel: a purposive sample identified through taskforce members’ networks. Results: A total of 80 experts from 15 European countries evaluated 52 items within the following 13 norms: equity of access, communication, recognising the need for palliative care, assessment of total needs, symptom management, end-of-life decision making, involving those who matter, collaboration, support for family/carers, preparing for death, bereavement support, education/training and developing/managing services. None of the items scored less than 86% agreement, making a further round unnecessary. In light of respondents’ comments, several items were modified and one item was deleted. Conclusion: This White Paper presents the first guidance for clinical practice, policy and research related to palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities based on evidence and European consensus, setting a benchmark for changes in policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. Aim: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. Design: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. Setting: European. Participants: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. Results: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. Conclusions: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While evidence shows that occupational therapists can play a key role in the care of people with palliative care needs, more knowledge about effective occupational therapy interventions for this group is needed. Aim: To identify, organise and prioritise intervention components considered to be effective within occupational therapy for people with palliative care needs from the perspective of occupational therapy clinicians, managers and researchers. Design: Group Concept Mapping utilising a mixed methods participatory approach. Using a focus prompt, participants brainstormed, sorted, labelled and rated generated statements about effective occupational therapy intervention components. Multidimensional scaling analysis and cluster analysis were conducted. Setting/Participants: Snowball recruitment was used to recruit participants. Participants included occupational therapists worldwide who were able to read and write in English and were working as clinicians, managers and/or researchers with occupational therapy interventions for people with palliative care needs. Results: Seventy-two occupational therapists from 15 countries participated in the study representing Asia (n = 3, 20%), Europe (n = 8, 53%), Oceania (n = 2, 13%) and North America (n = 2, 13%). A total of 117 statements were identified and organised into five clusters: (1) being client-centred, (2) promoting occupational engagement to optimise quality of life, (3) involving the social and relational environment, (4) enabling occupations and (5) facilitating occupational adaptation. Conclusions: Five clusters of core occupational therapy intervention components were considered to be effective when supporting people with palliative care needs. Research should use this knowledge to inform future occupational therapy interventions for this group of people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. Aim: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. Design: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). Setting/participants: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board (n = 13) approved final recommendations. Results: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 (n = 40), Round 3 (n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. Conclusions: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Volunteers make a huge contribution to the health and wellbeing of the population and can improve satisfaction with care especially in the hospice setting. However, palliative and end-of-life-care volunteer services in the hospital setting are relatively uncommon. The iLIVE Volunteer Study, one of eight work-packages within the iLIVE Project, was tasked with developing a European Core Curriculum for End-of-Life-Care Volunteers in hospital. Aim: Establish an international consensus on the content of a European Core Curriculum for hospital end-of-life-care volunteer services which support patients in the last weeks of life. Design: Delphi Process comprising the following three stages: 1. Scoping review of literature into palliative care volunteers. 2. Two rounds of Delphi Questionnaire. 3. Nominal Group Meeting. Setting/participants: Sixty-six participants completed the Round 1 Delphi questionnaire; 75% (50/66) took part in Round 2. Seventeen participants attended the Nominal Group Meeting representing an international and multi-professional group including, clinicians, researchers and volunteer coordinators from the participating countries. Results: The scoping review identified 88 items for the Delphi questionnaire. Items encompassed organisational issues for implementation and topics for volunteer training. Three items were combined and one item added in Round 2. Following the Nominal Group Meeting 53/87 items reached consensus. Conclusion: Key items for volunteer training were agreed alongside items for implementation to embed the end-of-life-care volunteer service within the hospital. Recommendations for further research included in-depth assessment of the implementation and experiences of end-of-life-care volunteer services. The developed European Core Curriculum can be adapted to fit local cultural and organisational contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden. Aim: To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured. Design: An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1–5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants' rationales for their choices were analysed thematically. Setting/participants: In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016. Results: Participants' years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were 'overall wellbeing/quality of life' (2.75), 'pain' (2.06), and 'information needs/preferences' (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure 'Phase of Illness' was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured. Conclusion: The domains of 'overall wellbeing/quality of life', 'pain', and 'information needs/preferences' are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using 'Phase of Illness'. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]