Search

Healthcare aims to help older people to live well, but ultimately must also support them to die well. Most people die in old age, but predicting death in both short- and long-term is impossible for many, although not all, older people. Frail older people live with hope and pride in coping, and often anticipate recovery when ill. Key objectives of healthcare for older people are to maintain independence, minimise suffering and preserve dignity, which requires active medical, mental health and rehabilitation management, even when extending life is not the main goal. Thorough medical diagnosis and appropriate treatment and rehabilitation minimise disability, physical and mental distress and problems resulting from acute illness and crises. In these terms, 'health gain' can be achieved from medical intervention, even when life expectancy is short. Assumptions derived from cancer care about lack of reversibility with medical interventions are sometimes unwarranted. This has to be balanced against investigation- and treatment-burden, including that associated with hospital admission and the adverse effects of drugs and therapy interventions, and the need to respect the identity and autonomy of individuals. The resolution of these tensions requires anticipation of care options, multi-professional assessment, judicious and targeted treatment, good communication with patients and stakeholders and rigorous shared decision-making. In this commentary, we compare geriatric and palliative medicine, and describe how the geriatric medical approach can deliver appropriate healthcare towards the end of life. This is well supported by the broad knowledge, skill-set, flexibility and professional values displayed by geriatricians working in multi-professional teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose This study aimed to validate the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care (SPARC) as an effective tool for screening palliative care needs among Korean cancer patients. Materials and Methods The English version of the SPARC was translated by four Korean oncologists and reconciled by a Korean language specialist and a medical oncologist fluent in English. After the first version of the Korean SPARC (K-SPARC) was developed, back-translation into English was performed by a professional translator and bilingual oncologist. The back-translated version was reviewed by the original author (S.H.A.), and modifications were made (ver. 2). The second version of the K-SPARC was tested against other questionnaires, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Results Thirty patients were enrolled in the pilot trial. Fifteen were male, and the median age was 64.5 years. Six patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or more. All patients except one were receiving chemotherapy. Regarding internal consistency, the Cronbach's a scores for physical symptoms, psychological issues, religious and spiritual issues, independency and activity, family and social issues, and treatment issues were 0.812, 0.804, 0.589, 0.843, 0.754, and 0.822, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the SPARC and FACT-G were 0.479 (p=0.007) for the physical domain and -0.130 (p=0.493) for the social domain. Conclusion This pilot study indicates that the K-SPARC could be a reliable tool to screen for palliative care needs among Korean cancer patients. A further study to validate our findings is ongoing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Adequate cancer pain management (CPM) is challenging in resource-limited settings, where current international guideline recommendations are difficult to implement owing to constraints such as inadequate availability and accessibility of opioids, limited awareness of appropriate opioid use among patients and clinicians, and lack of guidance on how to translate the best evidence into clinical practice. The multinational and multidisciplinary CAncer Pain managEment in Resource-limited settings (CAPER) Working Group proposes a two-step initiative to bridge clinical practice gaps in CPM in resource-limited settings.Methods: A thorough review of the literature, a steering committee meeting in February 2017, and post-meeting teleconference discussions contributed to the development of this initiative. As a first step, we developed practical evidence-based CPM algorithms to support healthcare providers (HCPs) in tailoring treatment according to availability of and access to resources. The second part of the initiative proposes a framework to support an effective implementation of the CPM algorithms that includes an educational program, a pilot implementation, and an advocacy plan.Results: We developed CPM algorithms for first-line use, breakthrough cancer pain, opioid rotation, and refractory cancer pain based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines and expert consensus. Our proposed educational program emphasizes the practical elements and illustrates how HCPs can provide optimal CPM according to evidence-based guidelines despite varied resource limitations. Pilot studies are proposed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the algorithms and the educational program, as well as for providing evidence to support a draft advocacy document, to lobby policymakers to improve availability and accessibility of analgesics in resource-limited settings.Conclusions: These practical evidence-informed algorithms and the implementation framework represent the first multinational step towards achieving optimal CPM in resource-limited settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]