Search

AbstractObjective:The efficacy of intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS) was compared with that of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) for the relief of cancer-related breakthrough pain (BTP) in an open-label, crossover trial.Methods:Adult cancer patients receiving stable background opioid treatment and experiencing BTP episodes were recruited from 44 study centres in seven European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom); of the 196 patients enrolled, 139 were randomised to receive INFS followed by OTFC, or vice versa. Patients were titrated to an effective dose of one agent (50, 100 or 200 µg INFS; 200, 400, 600, 800, 1200 or 1600 µg OTFC) to treat six BTP episodes, then titration and treatment were repeated with the other agent. The primary outcome was patient-recorded time to onset of ‘meaningful’ pain relief. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity difference (PID) at 10 and 30 minutes (PID10, PID30), sum of PID at 15 and 60 minutes (SPID0–15, SPID0–60), ease of administration, treatment preference and relationship between background opioid dose and effective INFS dose. Additional outcome measures included proportions of episodes with ≥33 and ≥50 pain intensity (PI) reduction, and PID at additional time points.Clinical trial registration number:NCT00496392.Results:Among the intention-to-treat population (n  139), median time to onset of ‘meaningful’ pain relief was 11 minutes with INFS versus 16 minutes with OTFC; 65.7 of patients attained faster time to ‘meaningful’ pain-relief onset with INFS (p < 0.001). PID was statistically significantly greater for INFS than OTFC from 5 minutes post-dosing. Significantly more INFS-treated breakthrough pain episodes achieved clinically important pain relief (≥33 and ≥50 PI reduction) up to 30 minutes post-dosing. The proportions of episodes treated with INFS and OTFC achieving a PI reduction of ≥33 at 5 minutes were 25.3 versus 6.8 (p < 0.001), and at 10 minutes were 51.0 versus 23.6 (p < 0.001), respectively; the proportions of episodes treated with INFS and OTFC achieving a ≥50 PI reduction at 5 minutes were 12.8 versus 2.1 (p < 0.001), and at 10 minutes were 36.9 versus 9.7 (p < 0.001), respectively. Higher SPID0–15and SPID0–60scores were achieved with INFS (p < 0.001). More patients preferred INFS than OTFC (p < 0.001) and more patients found it very easy/easy to use. Both treatments were well tolerated. In the safety population (n  139), 56.8 (n  79) of patients experienced ≥1 AE during the trial. The only AE that occurred in ≥5 of patients in either treatment group was nausea. Among those patients who experienced serious AEs (13.7, n  19), none were considered to be related to either study medication. There was a weak correlation between effective INFS doses and background opioid doses.Conclusion:In this open-label, randomised, crossover trial, significantly more patients attained faster ‘meaningful’ pain relief with INFS than OTFC, and more patients preferred INFS to OTFC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) has developed evidence-based recommendations and expert opinions about end-of-life (EoL) and palliative care for critically ill adults to optimize patient-centered care, improving outcomes of relatives, and supporting intensive care unit (ICU) staff in delivering compassionate and effective EoL and palliative care. An international multi-disciplinary panel of clinical experts, a methodologist, and representatives of patients and families examined key domains, including variability across countries, decision-making, palliative-care integration, communication, family-centered care, and conflict management. Eight evidence-based recommendations (6 of low level of evidence and 2 of high level of evidence) and 19 expert opinions were presented. EoL legislation and the importance of respecting the autonomy and preferences of patients were given close attention. Differences in EoL care depending on country income and healthcare provision were considered. Structured EoL decision-making strategies are recommended to improve outcomes of patients and relatives, as well as staff satisfaction and mental health. Early integration of palliative care and the use of standardized tools for symptom assessment are suggested for patients at high risk of dying. Communication training for ICU staff and printed communication aids for families are advocated to improve outcomes and satisfaction. Methods for enhancing family-centeredness of care include structured family conferences and culturally sensitive interventions. Conflict-management protocols and strategies to prevent burnout among healthcare professionals are also considered. The work done to develop these guidelines highlights many areas requiring further research., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Palliative sedation aims to relieve refractory suffering in patients with life-limiting disease. The 2009 framework on palliative sedation of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) has recently been updated. Recommendations have also been formulated by the research group SedPall in Germany. This article describes the social and ethical complexity of decision-making and summarises the recommendations. Patient autonomy is emphasised. Refractoriness of the suffering should be determined jointly by physician and patient. Sedation should be proportional, that is to say, its form and duration should be adapted to the patient's individual situation. The decision on palliative sedation and that on hydration involve two separate decision-making processes. Midazolam should be used as first choice. Particular attention should be paid to the patient's relatives/significant others and the treating team., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Palliative sedation is a commonly accepted medical practice. This study aims to clarify how palliative sedation is regulated in various countries and whether this may impact its practice., Methods: An online survey requesting regulations on palliative sedation was conducted in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the UK. Purposive sampling strategy was used to identify clinicians from different medical fields and legal experts for each country. Regulations were analyzed using the principles of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework on palliative sedation. Country reports describing how palliative sedation is regulated were elaborated., Results: One hundred and thirty-nine out of 223 (62%) participants identified 31 laws and other regulations affecting palliative sedation. In Spain, 12 regional laws recognize palliative sedation as a right of the patient at the end of life when there are refractory symptoms. In Italy, the law of informed consent and advance directives specifically recognizes the doctor can use deep sedation when there are refractory symptoms. There are also general medical laws that, while not explicitly referring to palliative sedation, regulate sedation-related principles: the obligation of doctors to honour advance directives, informed consent, the decision-making process and the obligation to document the whole process. In Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, palliative sedation is also regulated through professional guidelines that are binding as good practice with legal significance., Conclusions: Palliative sedation is considered in the general law of medical practice, in laws regarding the patient's autonomy, and through professional guidelines., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Background: Palliative care involves the care for patients with severe and advanced diseases with a focus on quality of life and symptom management. Integration of palliative care with curative and/or chronic care is expected to lead to better results in terms of quality of life and reduced costs. Although initiatives in different countries in Europe choose different structures to integrate care, they face similar challenges when it comes to creating trust and aligning visions, cultures and professional values. This paper sets out to answer the following research question: what roles and attitudes do palliative care professionals need to adopt to further integrate palliative care in Europe?, Methods: As part of the European Union (EU)-funded research project InSup-C (Integrated Supportive and Palliative Care). (2012-2016), 19 semi-structured group interviews with 136 (palliative) care professionals in 5 European countries (Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, Hungary) were conducted. A thematic analysis was conducted., Results: Integration of palliative care calls for diplomatic professionals that can bring a cultural shift: to get palliative care, with its particular focus on the four dimensions (physical, psychological, social, spiritual), integrated into historically established medical procedures and guidelines. This requires (a) to find an entrance (for telling a normative story), and (b) to maintain and deepen relationships (in order to build trust). It means using the appropriate words and sending a univocal team message to patients and being grateful, modest, and aiming for a quiet revolution with curation oriented healthcare professionals., Conclusion: Diplomacy appears to be essential to palliative care providers for realizing trust and what can be defined as normative integration between palliative and curative and/or chronic medicine. It requires a practical wisdom about the culture and goals of regular care, as well as keeping a middle road between assimilating with values in regular medicine and standing up for the basic values central to palliative care., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: In many countries, the consumption of opioid medicines is too low to meet population needs. Discussions within the Access To Opioid Medication in Europe project indicated that there may be significant differences in the perception of barriers for their adequate use, depending on the stakeholders., Aim: The aim of this study was to examine the perception of barriers and their impact concerning opioid medicines, comparing policy makers, healthcare professionals working in the field of pain management, palliative care or harm reduction and other stakeholders., Design: Data were collected using a questionnaire partially constructed from existing surveys, reviewed for content validity by four experts and pilot-tested in Latvia., Setting/participants: Participants of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe national conferences were invited to complete the questionnaire. Stakeholder groups were compared using non-parametric rank-sum tests., Results: In total, 199 participants (54%) in seven countries completed the questionnaire. Most frequently rated major barriers included lack of financial resources and inadequate knowledge, skills and training among policy makers (55%-66%). Overall, policy makers perceived issues less often as major barriers or having major impact (29% barrier, 32% impact) compared to other stakeholders (36%-42% barrier, 39%-51% impact). Significant differences were seen on several aspects. For example, excessive regulation or bureaucracy for prescribing was rated as having major impact by 55%-57% of healthcare professionals in contrast to only 20% of the policy makers ( p  = 0.002)., Conclusion: Multiple barriers may play an important role, partly depending on the perspective of the stakeholder involved. Hence, when addressing perceived barriers, it is important to include all relevant stakeholder groups. Only then, effective and widely supported solutions can be implemented.

Medical professional societies have traditionally opposed physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia (PAS-E), but this opposition may be shifting. We present 5 reasons why physicians shouldn't be involved in PAS-E. 1. Slippery slopes: There is evidence that safeguards in the Netherlands and Belgium are ineffective and violated, including administering lethal drugs without patient consent, absence of terminal illness, untreated psychiatric diagnoses, and nonreporting; 2. Lack of self-determination: Psychological and social motives characterize requests for PAS-E more than physical symptoms or rational choices; many requests disappear with improved symptom control and psychological support; 3. Inadequate palliative care: Better palliative care makes most patients physically comfortable. Many individuals requesting PAS-E don't want to die but to escape their suffering. Adequate treatment for depression and pain decreases the desire for death; 4. Medical professionalism: PAS-E transgresses the inviolable rule that physicians heal and palliate suffering but never intentionally inflict death; 5. Differences between means and ends: Proeuthanasia advocates look to the ends (the patient's death) and say the ends justify the means; opponents disagree and believe that killing patients to relieve suffering is different from allowing natural death and is not acceptable., Conclusions: Physicians have a duty to eliminate pain and suffering, not the person with the pain and suffering. Solutions for suffering lie in improving palliative care and social conditions and addressing the reasons for PAS-E requests. They should not include changing medical practice to allow PAS-E.

The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) represents many thousands of health care workers and volunteers working in or with an interest in palliative care. In 2016, the EAPC has individual members from 48 nations across the world, and collective members from 57 national palliative care associations in 32 European countries. Throughout its history, the EAPC has produced guidance on a range of palliative care issues. The biennial congresses and research congresses and the comprehensive Web site (www.eapcnet.eu) are renowned and well utilized platforms for dissemination and exchange of palliative care information. The EAPC has also published a newsletter specifically for Eastern European and Central Asian countries that has been available in both English and Russian from 2005 to 2012. In addition, for a period of time, a Russian Web site (www.eapcspeaksrussian.eu) was also available. A survey of palliative care in Central and Eastern European nations sponsored by Open Society Foundation's International Palliative Care Initiative found that in most countries, the national language is preferred rather than using English or Russian for the provision of information. Accordingly, the EAPC Web site provides translations of white papers, position papers, and blog posts in a number of languages., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: People with dementia may benefit from palliative care which specifically addresses the needs of patients and families affected by this life-limiting disease. On behalf of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), we recently performed a Delphi study to define domains for palliative care in dementia and to provide recommendations for optimal care. An international panel of experts in palliative care, dementia care or both, achieved consensus on almost all domains and recommendations, but the domain concerning the applicability of palliative care to dementia required revision., Methods: To examine in detail, the opinions of the international panel of 64 experts around the applicability of palliative care, we explored feedback they provided in the Delphi process. To examine which experts found it less important or less applicable, ordinal regression analyses related characteristics of the panelists to ratings of overall importance of the applicability domain, and to agreement with the domain's four recommendations., Results: Some experts expressed concerns about bringing up end-of-life issues prematurely and about relabeling dementia care as palliative care. Multivariable analyses with the two outcomes of importance and agreement with applicability indicated that younger or less experienced experts and those whose expertise was predominantly in dementia care found palliative care in dementia less important and less applicable., Conclusions: Benefits of palliative care in dementia are acknowledged by experts worldwide, but there is some controversy around its early introduction. Further studies should weigh concerns expressed around care receiving a "palliative" label versus the benefits of applying palliative care early.

Background: Outcome measurement plays an increasing role in improving the quality, effectiveness, efficiency and availability of palliative care., Aim: To provide expert recommendations on outcome measurement in palliative care in clinical practice and research., Methods: Developed by a European Association for Palliative Care Task Force, based on literature searches, international expert workshop, development of outcome measurement guidance and international online survey. A subgroup drafted a first version and circulated it twice to the task force. The preliminary final version was circulated to wider expert panel and 28 international experts across 20 European Association for Palliative Care member associations and the European Association for Palliative Care Board of Directors and revised according to their feedback. The final version was approved by the European Association for Palliative Care Board for adoption as an official European Association for Palliative Care position paper., Results: In all, 12 recommendations are proposed covering key parameters of measures, adequate measures for the task, introduction of outcome measurement into practice, and national and international outcome comparisons and benchmarking. Compared to other recommendations, the White Paper covers similar aspects but focuses more on outcome measurement in clinical care and the wider policy impact of implementing outcome measurement in clinical palliative care. Patient-reported outcome measure feedback improves awareness of unmet need and allows professionals to act to address patients' needs. However, barriers and facilitators have been identified when implementing outcome measurement in clinical care that should be addressed., Conclusion: The White Paper recommends the introduction of outcome measurement into practice and outcomes that allow for national and international comparisons. Outcome measurement is key to understanding different models of care across countries and, ultimately, patient outcome having controlled for differing patients characteristics., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: Access to many controlled medicines is inadequate in a number of European countries. This leads to deficits in the treatment of moderate to severe pain as well as in opioid agonist therapy., Objective: The study objective was to elaborate the reasons for this inadequacy. The work plan of the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe (ATOME) project included two six-country workshops. These workshops comprised a national situational analysis, drafting tailor-made recommendations for improvement and developing action plans for their implementation., Methods: In total, 84 representatives of the national Ministries of Health, national controlled substances authorities, experts representing regulatory and law enforcement authorities, leading health care professionals, and patient representatives from 13 European countries participated in either one of the workshops. The delegates used breakout sessions to identify key common challenges. Content analysis was used for the evaluation of protocols and field notes., Results: A number of challenges to opioid accessibility in the countries was identified in the domains of knowledge and educational, regulatory, legislative, as well as public awareness and training barriers that limit opioid prescription. In addition, short validity of prescriptions and bureaucratic practices resulting in overregulation impeded availability of some essential medicines. Stigmatization and criminalisation of people who use drugs remained the major impediment to increasing opioid agonist program coverage., Conclusions: The challenges identified during outcomes of the workshops were used as the basis for subsequent dissemination and implementation activities in the ATOME project, and in some countries the workshop proceedings already served as a stepping-stone for the first changes in regulations and legislation.

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care., Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers., Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care., Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care.

In Germany, approximately half a million people suffer from cancer pain, which is one of the most common first symptoms of tumor disease in 20-40% of the patients. The prevalence increases during the course of the disease to approximately 90% among patients in a palliative care unit. Treatment in the field of cancer pain is often provided by interdisciplinary teams of different pain or palliative care services. Due to the high availability of opioids and also, in European comparison, of a high number of specialized services in hospice and palliative care provision, Germany plays a special role next to Great Britain. There is a great need for the further development of the coordination and networking of these services within Germany, which is regulated by the Hospice and Palliative Act. The cross-sectional curricula QB 13 (palliative medicine) and QB 14 (pain medicine) were implemented in German medical faculties in order to improve integration of cancer pain management into the teaching of medical students. Research in the area of cancer pain addresses clinical topics such as the availability of opioids, but also basic research including genetic variability as a predictor for the efficacy of opioids and the neurobiology of cancer pain.

Background: Dementia involves a progressive decline in many functional areas. Policy and practice guidelines should cover the entire course of the disease from early detection to the end-of-life. The present study aimed to evaluate the contents of national dementia strategies with a focus on palliative care content., Methods: We employed qualitative content analyses. Sixteen national dementia strategies from 14 countries were reviewed. Using open coding, the contents were compared to the domains and recommendations of the palliative care in dementia white paper of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC)., Results: Although palliative care was not explicitly referred to in eight of the 14 countries and only to a limited extent in three countries, a number of domains from the EAPC white paper were well represented, including "person-centered care, communication, and shared decision making"; "continuity of care"; and "family care and involvement." Three countries that referred to palliative care did so explicitly, with two domains being well represented: "education of the health care team"; and "societal and ethical issues." The strategies all lacked reference to the domain of "prognostication and timely recognition of dying" and to spiritual caregiving., Conclusions: National dementia strategies cover part of the recent definition of palliative care in dementia, although they do not frequently label these references as "palliative care." In view of the growing numbers of people dying with dementia, preparation for the last phase of life should be added to national strategies.

Background: A well-organized palliative care service is a prerequisite for offering good palliative care. Reliable and feasible quality indicators are needed to monitor the quality of their organization., Aim: To test feasibility and reliability of a previously developed set of quality indicators in settings and services that provide palliative care across Europe., Methods: A total of 38 quality indicators, applicable in all types of settings, rated in a RAND Delphi process, and operationalized into 38 yes/no questions, were used. Descriptives statistics, factor and reliability analyses, analysis of variance, and chi-square analyses were used., Design: Cross-sectional online survey., Setting/participants: Questionnaires were sent to representatives of 217 palliative care settings in 25 countries. Included settings were hospices, inpatient dedicated palliative care beds, palliative care outpatient clinics, palliative care units, day care centers for palliative care, palliative care home support teams, inpatient palliative care support teams, care homes, and nursing homes., Results: All invited 25 European Association of Palliative Care countries took part. In total, 107 out of 217 participants responded (57%). The quality indicators were reduced to four coherent sub-scales, being "equipment and continuity of care," "structured documentation of essential palliative care elements in the medical record," "training and appraisal of personnel," and "availability of controlled drugs." No significant differences in quality criteria between the different types of settings and services were identified., Conclusion: The set of quality indicators appeared to measure four reliable domains that assess the organization of different palliative care settings. It can be used as a starting point for quality improvement activities., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

In a cross-national survey, we examined the information needs and barriers to accessing palliative care information in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). In total, 584 healthcare professionals from 22 countries completed the questionnaire. Information on legislation and official papers (67 percent) and information on education courses in palliative care (65 percent) were the most frequently reported information needs. Major barriers to accessing palliative care information were language and a lack of easily accessible and affordable, clinically relevant information. An informative Web site, an electronic newsletter, and regular meetings or conferences were rated as the most important information channels. We concluded that access to reliable and well-structured information should be facilitated for healthcare professionals in CEE and CIS countries to assist them in their clinical decision making. Most importantly, more in-depth qualitative research and dialogue with stakeholders in the different countries are needed to develop context-specific, tailor-made strategies.

Context: Overregulation of controlled medicines is one of the factors contributing to limited access to opioid medicines., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify legal barriers to access to opioid medicines in 12 Eastern European countries participating in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europa project, using a quick scan method., Methods: A quick scan method to identify legal barriers was developed focusing on eight different categories of barriers. Key experts in 12 European countries were requested to send relevant legislation. Legislation was quick scanned using World Health Organization guidelines. Overly restrictive provisions and provisions that contain stigmatizing language and incorrect definitions were identified. The selected provisions were scored into two categories: 1) barrier and 2) uncertain, and reviewed by two authors. A barrier was recorded if both authors agreed the selected provision to be a barrier (Category 1)., Results: National legislation was obtained from 11 of 12 countries. All 11 countries showed legal barriers in the areas of prescribing (most frequently observed barrier). Ten countries showed barriers in the areas of dispensing and showed stigmatizing language and incorrect use of definitions in their legislation. Most barriers were identified in the legislation of Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Serbia, and Slovenia. The Cypriot legislation showed the fewest total number of barriers., Conclusion: The selected countries have in common as main barriers prescribing and dispensing restrictions, the use of stigmatizing language, and incorrect use of definitions. The practical impact of these barriers identified using a quick scan method needs to be validated by other means., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large numbers of vulnerable patients are in need of palliative cancer and dementia care. However, a wide gap exists between the knowledge of best practices in palliative care and their use in everyday clinical practice. As part of a European policy improvement program, quality indicators (QIs) have been developed to monitor and improve the organisation of palliative care for patients with cancer and those with dementia in various settings in different European countries., Method: A multidisciplinary, international panel of professionals participated in a modified RAND Delphi procedure to compose a set of palliative care QIs based on existing sets of QIs on the organisation of palliative care. Panellists participated in three written rounds, one feedback round and one meeting. The panel's median votes were used to identify the final set of QIs., Results: The Delphi procedure resulted in 23 useful QIs. These QIs represent key elements of the organisation of good clinical practice, such as the availability of palliative care teams, the availability of special facilities to provide palliative care for patients and their relatives, and the presence of educational interventions for professionals. The final set also includes QIs that are related to the process of palliative care, such as documentation of pain and other symptoms, communication with patients in need of palliative care and their relatives, and end-of-life decisions., Conclusion: International experts selected a set of 23 QIs for the organisation of palliative care. Although we particularly focused on the organisation of cancer and dementia palliative care, most QIs are generic and are applicable for other types of diseases as well.

Background: Dementia is a life-limiting disease without curative treatments. Patients and families may need palliative care specific to dementia., Aim: To define optimal palliative care in dementia., Methods: Five-round Delphi study. Based on literature, a core group of 12 experts from 6 countries drafted a set of core domains with salient recommendations for each domain. We invited 89 experts from 27 countries to evaluate these in a two-round online survey with feedback. Consensus was determined according to predefined criteria. The fourth round involved decisions by the core team, and the fifth involved input from the European Association for Palliative Care., Results: A total of 64 (72%) experts from 23 countries evaluated a set of 11 domains and 57 recommendations. There was immediate and full consensus on the following eight domains, including the recommendations: person-centred care, communication and shared decision-making; optimal treatment of symptoms and providing comfort (these two identified as central to care and research); setting care goals and advance planning; continuity of care; psychosocial and spiritual support; family care and involvement; education of the health care team; and societal and ethical issues. After revision, full consensus was additionally reached for prognostication and timely recognition of dying. Recommendations on nutrition and dehydration (avoiding overly aggressive, burdensome or futile treatment) and on dementia stages in relation to care goals (applicability of palliative care) achieved moderate consensus., Conclusion: We have provided the first definition of palliative care in dementia based on evidence and consensus, a framework to provide guidance for clinical practice, policy and research.

Context: Throughout Europe, there are major differences in the stages of development and in the types of service delivery of palliative care. Consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe is needed for advocacy and health policy decision making., Objectives: To provide an empirical basis for a common understanding of palliative care delivery in Europe., Methods: A two-round, online consensus Delphi study was undertaken with a multiprofessional expert panel of board members of national hospice and palliative care associations in Europe., Results: Respondents represented 80% of the member associations of the European Association for Palliative Care, comprising 96 experts and 35 national hospice and palliative care associations from 22 countries. High to very high consensus was found for common values and principles of palliative care (e.g., autonomy, dignity) and the provision of different levels of palliative care. Lower consensus emerged for concepts such as end-of-life care or terminal care, the demand of services and the composition of palliative care teams. The role of social workers was emphasized, but there was ambiguity about the contribution of psychologists. The need for health professionals without specialist palliative care skills to strengthen their contribution to palliative care provision was emphasized., Conclusion: Overall, this study contributed to a higher level of consensus toward the proposed recommendations. Expert comments underlined the need for clearer definitions and specifications of terms and indicated important topics where cultural issues, geographical aspects, and the local health care setting have to be considered in palliative care., (Copyright © 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) plays an increasing role in palliative and end-of-life (EOL) care but their use in EOL care and research remains varied and inconsistent. We aimed to facilitate pan-European collaboration to improve PROMs in palliative and EOL care and research., Methods: The study includes a workshop with experts experienced in using PROMs in clinical care and research from Europe, North America, and Africa. Information from presentations, and plenary and group discussions was analysed using content analysis for extracting the main themes., Results: Thirty-two professionals from 15 countries and eight different professional backgrounds participated in the workshop. The discussion identified: 1) the need for standardisation with improvement of existing PROMs, e.g., with a modular system and an optional item pool; 2) the aspects of further development with a multi-professional approach taking into account cultural sensitivity especially for translated versions; and 3) the need for guidance, training, and resources. An international network for sharing concepts, experiences, and solutions could enhance these steps of further development., Conclusion: PROMs must be based on rigorous scientific methods and respond to patient complexity. Coordinated pan-European collaboration including researchers and clinicians is required to develop and attain quality care and systematic research in outcome measurement in palliative and EOL care.

Context: This is a subset analysis of fatigue data and associated clinical variables collected as part of the European Palliative Care Research Collaborative Computerized Symptom Assessment (CSA) study. The overall aim of CSA was to determine the prevalence of common symptoms in a mixed advanced cancer group using an electronic data collection system., Objectives: This analysis was conducted to identify factors independently associated with fatigue., Methods: Only patient records containing complete data for all three measured blood parameters in the CSA study (C-reactive protein [CRP], hemoglobin, and albumin) were included in our subset analysis (n=720). Participants with locoregional or metastatic disease of all tumor types were included (with or without concurrent palliative anticancer treatment). A large number of symptoms were recorded using a predesigned computer program and widely used symptom measurement scales. Fatigue was measured using a well-validated three-item fatigue scale taken from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire. A logistic regression model was developed using a cutoff score based on the available normative data to define the presence or the absence of severe fatigue., Results: Cases of fatigue were independently associated with chemotherapy treatment and experiencing other symptoms such as pain and depression. There was a moderate association with hemoglobin level. However, there was no link to cachexia, albumin, or CRP., Conclusion: Severe fatigue is linked with treatment history and hemoglobin levels rather than CRP, mood, and other common symptoms in a mixed advanced cancer group., (Copyright © 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cancer pain patients need variable opioid doses. Preclinical and clinical studies suggest that opioid efficacy is related to genetic variability. However, the studies have small samples, findings are not replicated, and several candidate genes have not been studied. Therefore, a study of genetic variability with opioid doses in a large population using a confirmatory validation population was warranted. We recruited 2294 adult European patients using a World Health Organization (WHO) step III opioid and analyzed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes with a putative influence on opioid mechanisms. The patients' mean age was 62.5 years, and the average pain intensity was 3.5. The patients' primary opioids were morphine (n=830), oxycodone (n=446), fentanyl (n=699), or other opioids (n=234). Pain intensity, time on opioids, age, gender, performance status, and bone or CNS metastases predicted opioid dose and were included as covariates. The patients were randomly divided into 1 development sample and 1 validation sample. None of 112 SNPs in the 25 candidate genes OPRM1, OPRD1, OPRK1, ARRB2, GNAZ, HINT1, Stat6, ABCB1, COMT, HRH1, ADRA2A, MC1R, TACR1, GCH1, DRD2, DRD3, HTR3A, HTR3B, HTR2A, HTR3C, HTR3D, HTR3E, HTR1, or CNR1 showed significant associations with opioid dose in both the development and the validation analyzes. These findings do not support the use of pharmacogenetic analyses for the assessed SNPs to guide opioid treatment. The study also demonstrates the importance of validating findings obtained in genetic association studies to avoid reporting spurious associations as valid findings. To elicit knowledge about new genes that influence pain and the need for opioids, strategies other than the candidate gene approach is needed., (Copyright © 2011 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.)

Background: of cancer patients receiving palliative care, 80% suffer from cancer pain, and again 80% of these patients report breakthrough pain. This study explores the patients' perception of breakthrough pain, their experiences with existing therapeutic regimens and their expectations regarding an ideal breakthrough pain medication., Method: from November 2008 to February 2010 two German palliative care units recruited 80 in- or outpatient cancer patients who completed a standardized questionnaire on breakthrough pain characteristics, analgesic medication, attitudes towards new treatment approaches for breakthrough pain, and experiences with alternative routes of drug administration as part of the "European Survey of Oncology Patients' Experience of Breakthrough Pain"., Results: the study participants suffered from 1-12 episodes of either incident (47.5%) or spontaneous pain (37.5%) per day which were perceived as "severe" in 71% of all cases. These exacerbations highly interfered with the patients' general activity, mood, walking ability, and normal work. Overall, 64% of the patients reported alleviation from pharmacological (26%) and non-pharmacological (73%) interventions. Subcutaneous (40%) and oral (39%) routes were used frequently; intranasal (1.25%) and intrapulmonary (1.25%) routes were used rarely. Only 64% of all participants stated an overall satisfaction with their breakthrough analgesia., Conclusion: the diagnosis and treatment of breakthrough pain seems to be conducted in a suboptimal manner, and standard recommendations on breakthrough pain relief are not implemented consistently. Possible causes of pain should be taken into account as well as multi-professional treatment interventions and alternative routes of administration of fast onset, effective drugs should be considered.

The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) considers sedation to be an important and necessary therapy option in the care of selected palliative care patients with otherwise refractory distress. Prudent application of this approach requires due caution and good clinical practice. Inattention to potential risks and problematic practices can lead to harmful and unethical practice which may undermine the credibility and reputation of the responsible clinicians and institutions as well as the discipline of palliative medicine more generally. Procedural guidelines are helpful to educate medical providers, set standards for best practice, promote optimal care and convey the important message to staff, patients and families that palliative sedation is an accepted, ethical practice when used in appropriate situations. EAPC aims to facilitate the development of such guidelines by presenting a 10-point framework that is based on the pre-existing guidelines and literature and extensive peer review.

Background: Many patients in Europe do not receive adequate relief of pain because of excessive regulatory restrictions on the availability and accessibility of opioids. This is a major public health problem. The aim of the study is to evaluate and report on opioid availability and the legal and regulatory barriers to accessibility across the countries of Europe., Methods: European Society for Medical Oncology and European Association for Palliative Care national representatives reported data regarding survey of opioid availability and accessibility. Formulary adequacy is evaluated relative to the World Health Organization (WHO) essential drugs list and the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care list of essential medicines for palliative care. Overregulation is evaluated according to the guidelines for assessment of national opioid regulations of the WHO., Results: Data were reported on the availability and accessibility of opioids for the management of cancer pain in 21 Eastern European countries and 20 Western European countries. Results are presented describing the availability and cost of opioids for cancer pain in each surveyed country and nine forms of regulatory restrictions., Conclusions: Using standards derived from the WHO and International Narcotics Control Board, this survey has exposed formulary deficiencies and excessive regulatory barriers that interfere with appropriate patient care in many European countries. There is an ethical and public health imperative to address these issues.

An Expert Working Group was convened under the auspices of the Steering Committee of the Research Network of the European Association of Palliative Care to review the status of the use of pain measurement tools (PMTs) in palliative care research conducted in a multilingual-multicenter setting. Based on a literature review and on the experts' opinion, the present work recommends that standardized methods should be applied for the use of PMTs in research in palliative care. Visual analogue scales, numerical rating scales, and verbal rating scales are considered valid to assess pain intensity in clinical trials and in other types of studies. Among the multidimensional questionnaires designed to assess pain, the McGill Pain Questionnaire and Brief Pain Inventory are valid in many multilingual versions. Specific recommendations for PMT use and administration, depending on the study type and aim, are reviewed. Special population requirements specific of clinical situations encountered in palliative care (elderly, terminal, cognitively impaired patients, pediatric patients) are also considered.

Background: Breakthrough pain is transitory exacerbation of pain that occurs in addition to otherwise stable persistent pain. The wide differences in estimation of incidence reported in literature are probably because of different settings and meanings attributed to the definition of breakthrough pain., Methods: A panel of experts met to establish the actual knowledge on breakthrough pain, according to the evidence in literature and experience. They agreed that episodic or transient pain could be a more simple and adequate term in most languages, including English, French, Italian, and Spanish., Results: A specific assessment and precise pain characterization are essential to plan the most appropriate treatments. Despite the relevance of this temporal pain pattern for the influence on the outcome and quality of life, few controlled studies have been performed to give evidence of a specific approach. Several experiences have reported the possible efficacy of different drugs, route of administration, and modalities of administration in different circumstances., Conclusions: Prospective studies with previous treatments using similar terminologies are necessary to find the most convenient therapeutic intervention, according to the temporal pattern characteristics and the pain mechanism involved., (Copyright 2002 American Cancer Society. DOI 10.1002/cncr.10249)