Search

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID pandemic is an example of a crisis challenging healthcare systems worldwide. The impact of the pandemic on providing high-quality palliative care calls for a deeper understanding of specialist services during crises. This is essential in preparation for further crises. Aim: To develop a conceptual understanding of the impact of the pandemic on specialist palliative care as an example for arising future crises. Design: Qualitative interview study across Germany, following a constructivist grounded theory methodology. Setting/participants: Eleven semi-structured interviews with experts with overarching knowledge of structures and processes in specialist palliative care between 05–07/2020 and between 02–06/2021, 23 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals working in a specialist palliative care setting. Results: The complex system of palliative care provision during crises has properties that cannot be understood as separated parts of the care process. The pandemic led to unique structural and processual challenges characterized by interconnectedness, uncertainty, dynamic, underlying dilemmas, and unclear long-term goal. In response to the pandemic, teams experienced different phases, which enhanced adaption, innovation, and progress within complex care situations. Creative strategy approaches and dynamic responsiveness facilitated innovative development and could lead to long-lasting improvement within services. Availability of information, transparent communication, comprehensible instructions, participation in decision-making, and search for solutions contributed to teams' proactive development throughout the pandemic. Conclusion: Addressing the complex problems in specialist palliative care caused by crises requires system thinking and a learning mindset. This can facilitate teams to overcome the crisis and move forward rather than bounce back to normal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pharmacotherapy plays a crucial role in symptom management in palliative care and is associated with risks potentially leading to drug-related problems (DRP). Pharmacists can identify DRPs and advise prescribers on optimizing drug therapy. The aim of this study was to identify DRP in a palliative care unit (PCU) and evaluate corresponding pharmaceutical interventions. A non-randomized before-and-after study in a PCU starts with a control phase, an interphase, and an intervention phase. Primary endpoint: DRP, including pharmaceutical interventions and their acceptance. The medication of all inpatients was recorded at set time points, assessed for potential and manifest DRP, and categorized. In the control phase, the ward pharmacist did not interfere with the clinical team. In the intervention phase, the pharmacist could intervene when a DRP was identified and give recommendations. During the 12-month period, 284 patients were included (control phase n = 138; intervention phase n = 146) and 1079 DRPs were identified (control phase n = 634; intervention phase n = 445). The number of DRPs/patient was significantly reduced by the pharmacist's interventions between the control and intervention phases (4 vs. 3 DRPs, p = 0.001). Overall acceptance of pharmaceutical interventions by prescribers was very high (227/256; 88%). DRPs are hardly preventable. With a clinical pharmacist as a member of the palliative care team, it is possible to reduce the number of DRPs and identify potential problems earlier. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last decades, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) have been developed for a better understanding of patient needs. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is an internationally recommended PROM in palliative care. The validated electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) was implemented in four German specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams for use in everyday clinical practice. Patients reported symptoms and concerns via eIPOS, which were transmitted directly to the electronic patient record of the respective SPHC team. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe and explore the health care professionals' (HCPs') experiences regarding acceptance and use of eIPOS in clinical practice in SPHC. Design: The mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comprised an anonymized quantitative online survey followed by qualitative focus groups. Methods: The online survey asked in both closed and open questions for HCP's experience with eIPOS. Ambiguous results from the survey were discussed in two focus groups. Survey data were analysed with descriptive and univariable statistics, and the framework approach was used for qualitative data. In a further step, we conducted integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative results using joint displays. Results: All HCPs of the four SPHC teams (n = 52) were invited to participate. HCPs participating in the survey (n = 32) and the focus groups (n = 7) saw potentials for implementing ePROM in palliative home care – as far as it is technically easy to handle and can be easily integrated into clinical practice. Conclusion: Successful use of ePROMs is affected by the possibility of easy integration into the teams' different structures and processes and the HCPs' perceptions of potentials regarding ePROM use in SPHC. Registration: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.org (NCT03879668). Plain Language Summary: The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in specialist palliative home care: what do professionals think about it? A mixed-methods study Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are short questionnaires developed to assess a patient's health status at a particular point in time. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is such a questionnaire, and eIPOS is an electronic version of IPOS. IPOS asks about patients' symptoms and problems when they suffer from advanced diseases. We conducted this study to understand what health care professionals (HCPs) think about electronic PROMs (ePROMs) in palliative home care. We first asked the HCPs to answer questions in an online survey. Then, HCPs discussed the use of eIPOS in small discussion groups. This study design is called 'Mixed-Methods sequential design'. We found that all HCPs used the information they received through eIPOS – some frequently and some less often. Many HCPs see potential in using ePROMs to support care. For example, because ePROMs help them to understand patients' symptoms and problems better. However, they also pointed out that eIPOS needs technical improvement. Also, the procedures of eIPOS need to fit into the work routine of the palliative care team. The findings demonstrate the perspectives of HCPs on ePROM. These are valuable to understand how ePROM can be implemented in palliative home care. We can also learn about how to implement other digital tools in other settings of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) validly and reliably measures symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To determine the equivalence of the paper version with an electronic version of the IPOS (eIPOS). Design: Multicentre randomised crossover trial (NCT03879668) with a within-subject comparison of the two modes (washout period 30 min). Setting/Participants: Convenience sample of specialist inpatient and palliative home care patients aged over 18 years with cancer and non-cancer conditions was recruited. Scores were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and via a mixed-effects analysis of variance. Results: Fifty patients were randomised to complete paper-electronic (n = 24) and electronic-paper (n = 26) IPOS with median age 69 years (range 24–95), 56% male, 16% non-cancer. The ICCs showed very high concordance for the total score (ICC 0.99, 95% CI 0.98–1.00), lowest ICCs being observed for symptoms 'Appetite loss' and 'Drowsiness' (ICC 0.95, 95% CI 0.92–0.97). Nine of seventeen items had ICCs above 0.98, as did all subscales. No statistically significant mode, order, age, and interaction effects were observed for IPOS total score and subscales, except for 'Communication' (Fmode = 5.9, p = 0.019). Fifty-eight percent preferred the electronic version. In the group 75+ years, 53% preferred the paper version. Only three entries in the free-text main problems differed between the versions. Conclusion: The very high equivalence in scores and free text between the IPOS and the eIPOS demonstrates that eIPOS is feasible and reliable in an older palliative population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]