Search

A correction is presented to the article "Palliative care progress in Benin: a situation analysis using the WHO development indicators" published in a previous issue of the periodical.

Context: Palliative care (PC) in most African countries remains under-assessed. Benin has piloted the implementation of a set of indicators proposed by the WHO to measure PC development. Objectives: To examine the current status of PC in Benin. Methods: A workshop with stakeholders was organized to assess the WHO indicators in the Beninese context. Indicators were rated based on relevance and feasibility, data sources were agreed upon, and a survey was adapted. Data were collected between March and May 2023. Results: There is emerging community involvement in PC through the presence of patients' rights promoters, as well as a political commitment expressed in the National PC strategy, the inclusion of PC services in the list of basic health services, and an assigned national authority –within the Ministry of Health–responsible for PC. Although no PC-oriented research has been documented, the celebration of the National PC Conference represents the first step to ground PC delivery in evidence. The reported annual consumption of opioids is 0.18 (ME) milligrams per capita, 34% of healthcare establishments have essential medicines for pain and PC, and 16.5% of patients with palliative needs have access to oral morphine. To date, no medical or paramedical schools offer PC training, and there is no official specialization in palliative medicine for doctors. PC is provided by 11 specialist teams (0.08/100,000 inhabitants), none of which provides pediatric care. Conclusion: Despite growing political, professional, and community commitments to palliative care, there are challenges in education, research, essential medicines, and access to PC services. Key message: This article describes the first macro-level assessment of the status of palliative care development in Benin. A set of indicators adopted by the World Health Organization has enabled an understanding of the gaps in education, essential medicines, and specialized services for an adequate provision of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In contrast to typical measures employed to assess outcomes in healthcare such as mortality or recovery rates, it is difficult to define which specific outcomes of care are the most important in caring for dying individuals. Despite a variety of tools employed to assess different dimensions of palliative care, there is no consensus on a set of core outcomes to be measured in the last days of life. In order to optimise decision making in clinical practice and comparability of interventional studies, we aim to identify and propose a set of core outcomes for the care of the dying person. Methods: Following the COMET initiative approach, the proposed study will proceed through four stages to develop a set of core outcomes: In stage 1, a systematic review of the literature will identify outcomes measured in existing peer reviewed literature, as well as outcomes derived through qualitative studies. Grey literature, will also be included. Stage 2 will allow for the identification and determination of patient and proxy defined outcomes of care at the end of life via quantitative and qualitative methods at an international level. In stage 3, from a list of salient outcomes identified through stages 1 and 2, international experts, family members, patients, and patient advocates will be asked to score the importance of the preselected outcomes through a Delphi process. Stage 4 consists of a face-to-face consensus meeting of international experts and patient/family representatives in order to define, endorse, and propose the final Core Outcomes Set. Discussion: Core Outcome Sets aim at promoting uniform assessment of care outcomes in clinical practice as well as research. If consistently employed, a robust set of core outcomes for the end of life, and specifically for the dying phase, defined by relevant stakeholders, can ultimately be translated into best care for the dying person. Patient care will be improved by allowing clinicians to choose effective and meaningful treatments, and research impact will be improved by employing internationally agreed clinically relevant endpoints and enabling accurate comparison between studies in systematic reviews and/or in meta-analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]