Search

Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability and comprehensibility of the integrated palliative care outcome scale for the evaluation of palliative care needs in patients with heart failure. Methods and results This cross-sectional study investigated 100 heart failure patients (40 women, 60 men; median age 79 years) within the first few days of their hospitalisation by applying the integrated palliative care outcome scale (3-day recall period) and two additional self-developed questions about the suitability and comprehensibility of the integrated palliative care outcome scale. Clinically relevant somatic and psycho-emotional symptoms were reported very frequently (approximately 75% each), followed by communicational needs or practical issues. Ninety-five per cent of patients thought the integrated palliative care outcome scale very easy to understand, and 91% judged the integrated palliative care outcome scale suitable to assess palliative care needs. Conclusion The integrated palliative care outcome scale was well accepted by hospitalised patients with heart failure and identified a high burden of both physical and psycho-emotional symptoms. Screening for palliative care has to consider patients and their relatives alike, and should be part of a comprehensive care concept jointly integrated into clinical routine by primary and specialised palliative care teams.

Background International associations admit that specialized palliative care (SPC) is an obvious component of excellent cancer care. Nevertheless, gaps in integration at the international level have been identified. Recommendations for integrating SPC in clinical care, research, and education are needed, which are subject of the present study. Materials and methods A Delphi study, with three written Delphi rounds, including a face-to-face-meeting with a multiprofessional expert panel (n = 52) working in SPC in 15 German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) funded by the German Cancer Aid was initiated. Initial recommendations are built on evidence-based literature. Consensus was defined in advance with ≥80% agreement based on the question of whether each recommendation was unambiguously formulated, relevant, and realizable for a CCC. Results A total of 38 experts (73.1%) from 15 CCCs performed all three Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved for 29 of 30 recommendations. High agreement related to having an organizationally and spatially independent palliative care unit (≥6 beds), a mobile multiprofessional SPC team, and cooperation with community-based SPC. Until round 3, an ongoing discussion was registered on hospice volunteers, a chair of palliative care, education in SPC among staff in emergency departments, and integration of SPC in decision-making processes such as tumor boards or consultation hours. Integration of SPC in decision-making processes was not consented by a low-rated feasibility (76.3%) due to staff shortage. Conclusion Recommendations should be considered when developing standards for cancer center of excellence in Germany. Definition and implementation of indicators of integration of SPC in CCCs and evaluation of its effectiveness are current and future challenges. Implications for practice General and specialized palliative care (SPC) is an integral part of comprehensive cancer care. However, significant diversity concerning the design of SPC in the German Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) Network led to the establishment of consensual best practice recommendations for integration of SPC into the clinical structures, processes, research, and education throughout the CCC network. The recommendations contribute to a greater awareness relating to the strategic direction and development of SPC in CCCs. The access to information about SPC and access to offers regarding SPC shall be facilitated by implementing the recommendations in the course of treatment of patients with cancer.