Search

Background: Palliative sedation refers to the proportional use of titrated medication which reduces consciousness with the aim of relieving refractory suffering related to physical and psychological symptoms and/or existential distress near the end of life. Palliative sedation is intended to be an end of life option that enables healthcare professionals to provide good patient care but there remains controversy on how it is used. Little is known about decision-making processes regarding this procedure. The aim of this study was to explore decision-making processes in palliative sedation based on the experiences and perceptions of relatives and healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study with dyads (a bereaved relative and a healthcare professional) linked to 33 deceased patient with cancer who had palliative sedation, in seven in-patient palliative care settings in five countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain). A framework analysis approach was used to analyse the data. Results: Two main themes are defined: 1) Decision-making about palliative sedation is a complex iterative process, 2) Decision-making is a shared process between the patient, healthcare professionals, and relatives. Decision-making about palliative sedation appears to follow an iterative process of shared information, deliberation, and decision-making. The patient and healthcare professionals are the main stakeholders, but relatives are involved and may advocate for, or delay, the decision-making process. Starting palliative sedation is reported to be an emotionally difficult decision for all parties. Conclusions: As decision-making about palliative sedation is a complex and iterative process, patients, relatives and healthcare professionals need time for regular discussions. This requires a high level of engagement by healthcare professionals, that takes into account patients' wishes and needs, and helps to facilitate decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. Aim: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. Design: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. Setting: European. Participants: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. Results: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. Conclusions: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce. Aim: To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries. Design: Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators. Setting/participants: Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion. Results: Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p < 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p < 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3). Conclusions: Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research requires high-quality ethical and governance scrutiny and approval. However, when research is conducted across different countries, this can cause challenges due to the differing ethico-legal framework requirements of ethical boards. There is no specific guidance for research which does not involve non-medicinal products. Aim: To describe and address differences in ethical and research governance procedures applied by research ethics committees for non-pharmaceutical palliative care studies including adult participants in collaborative European studies. Design: An online survey analysed using descriptive statistics. Setting/participants: Eighteen principal investigators in 11 countries conducting one of three European-funded studies. Results: There was variation in practice including whether ethical approval was required. The time to gain full approvals differed with the United Kingdom having governance procedures that took the longest time. Written consent was not required in all countries nor were data safety monitoring committees for trials. There were additional differences in relation to other data management issues. Conclusion: Researchers need to take the differences in research approval procedures into account when planning studies. Future research is needed to establish European-wide recommendations for policy and practice that dovetail ethical procedures and enhance transnational research collaborations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research is important internationally, impacting on health service provision and patient benefit. Journals play an important dissemination role, but there may be geographical bias, potentially affecting access to evidence. Aim: To understand if there is a relationship between the continent of journals and that of contributing authors. Design: Bibliometric analysis of journal citation report data (June 2018). Odds ratio of association of an author being from region, region of journal publication, publication model and the number of papers. Setting: Journals specialising in palliative care research, with an impact factor above the median impact factor for their most common indexing category. Results: Five journals: three published in Europe (Palliative Medicine, BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care, and BMC Palliative Care) and two in North America (Journal of Pain and Symptom Management and Journal of Palliative Medicine). Authors were from 30+ countries, but mostly North America (54.18%) or Europe (27.94%). Preliminary sensitivity tests show that the odds of an author being from a North American institution increase 16.4 times (p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 12.9, 20.8) if the region of journal publication is North America. The odds of an author being from a European institution is 14.0 times (p < 0.01; 95% confidence interval: 10.9, 17.9) higher if the region of journal publication is Europe. Conclusion: Publishers, editors and authors are concentrated in North America or Europe. North American authors are more present in North American journals and European authors in European journals. This polarised approach, if replicated across readerships, may lead to research waste, duplication, and be sub-optimal for healthcare development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrated palliative care aims at improving coordination of palliative care services around patients' anticipated needs. However, international comparisons of how integrated palliative care is implemented across four key domains of integrated care (content of care, patient flow, information logistics and availability of (human) resources and material) are lacking. Aim: To examine how integrated palliative care takes shape in practice across abovementioned key domains within several integrated palliative care initiatives in Europe. Design: Qualitative group interview design. Setting/participants: A total of 19 group interviews were conducted (2 in Belgium, 4 in the Netherlands, 4 in the United Kingdom, 4 in Germany and 5 in Hungary) with 142 healthcare professionals from several integrated palliative care initiatives in five European countries. The majority were nurses (n = 66; 46%) and physicians (n = 50; 35%). Results: The dominant strategy for fostering integrated palliative care is building core teams of palliative care specialists and extended professional networks based on personal relationships, shared norms, values and mutual trust, rather than developing standardised information exchange and referral pathways. Providing integrated palliative care with healthcare professionals in the wider professional community appears difficult, as a shared proactive multidisciplinary palliative care approach is lacking, and healthcare professionals often do not know palliative care professionals or services. Conclusion: Achieving better palliative care integration into regular healthcare and convincing the wider professional community is a difficult task that will take time and effort. Enhancing standardisation of palliative care into education, referral pathways and guidelines and standardised information exchange may be necessary. External authority (policy makers, insurance companies and professional bodies) may be needed to support integrated palliative care practices across settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although examining perspectives of patients on integrated palliative care organisation is essential, available literature is largely based on administrative data or healthcare professionals' perspectives. Aim: (1) Providing insight into the composition and quality of care networks of patients receiving palliative care and (2) describing perceived integration between healthcare professionals within these networks and its association with overall satisfaction. Design: Cross-sectional explorative design. Setting/participants: We recruited 157 patients (62% cancer, 25% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 13% chronic heart failure, mean age 68 years, 55% female) from 23 integrated palliative care initiatives in Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, Hungary and the Netherlands. Results: About 33% reported contact with a palliative care specialist and 48% with a palliative care nurse. Relationships with palliative care specialists were rated significantly higher than other physicians (p < 0.001). Compared to patients with cancer, patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio = 0.16, confidence interval (0.04; 0.57)) and chronic heart failure (odds ratio = 0.11, confidence interval (0.01; 0.93)) had significantly lower odds of reporting contact with palliative care specialists and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (odds ratio = 0.23, confidence interval (0.08; 0.71)) had significantly lower odds of reporting contact with palliative care nurses. Perceptions of main responsible healthcare professionals or caregivers in patient's care networks varied across countries. Perceived integration was significantly associated with overall satisfaction. Conclusion: Palliative care professionals are not always present or recognised as such in patients' care networks. Expert palliative care involvement needs to be explicated especially for non-cancer patients. One healthcare professional should support patients in understanding and navigating their palliative care network. Patients seem satisfied with care provision as long as continuity of care is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a notable inequity in access to palliative care (PC) services between cancer and Chronic Heart Failure (CHF)/Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) patients which also translates into discrepancies in the level of integration of PC. By cross-examining the levels of PC integration in published guidelines/pathways for CHF/COPD and cancer in Europe, this study examines whether these discrepancies may be attributed to the content of the guidelines. Design: A quantitative evaluation was made between integrated PC in published guidelines for cancer and CHF/COPD in Europe. The content of integrated PC in guidelines/pathways was measured using an 11 point integrated PC criteria tool (IPC criteria). A statistical analysis was carried out to detect similarities and differences in the level of integrated PC between the two groups. Results: The levels of integration between CHF/COPD and cancer guidelines/pathways have been shown to be statistically similar. Moreover, the quality of evidence utilized and the date of development of the guidelines/pathways appear not to impact upon the PC integration in the guidelines. Conclusion: In Europe, the empirically observed imbalance in integration of PC for patients with cancer and CHF/COPD may only partially be attributed to the content of the guidelines/pathways that are utilized for the PC implementation. Given the similarities detected between cancer and CHF/COPD, other barriers appear to play a more prominent role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative Care (PC) aims to improve the quality of life for patients with cancer and their families and its benefits have been demonstrated by several studies. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the integration of PC in the content of guidelines/pathways of adult cancer patients in Europe. Methods: We included studies of adult patients with cancer published from 01/01/1995 and 31/12/2013 in Europe in six languages. We searched nine electronic databases, hand-searched six journals and also performed citation tracking. Studies were ranked using Emanuel's Integrated Palliative Care (IPC) criteria, a tool containing 11 domains to assess PC content in guidelines. Two reviewers screened the results and narrative synthesis has been employed. Results: We identified a total of 28,277 potentially relevant articles from which 637 were eligible for full-text screening. The final review included 60 guidelines and 14 pathways. Eighty percent (80 %) of the guidelines/pathways emphasize a holistic approach and 66 % focus on PC interventions aimed at reducing suffering. Fifty seven percent (57 %) did not discuss referral criteria for PC. Of all studies, five fulfilled at least 10/11 IPC criteria. Differences existed with regard to the referral criteria for bereavement care and the continuous adjustment of goals of care. Conclusion: Overall, most of the identified guidelines/pathways highlighted the importance of the holistic approach of IPC. The studies that were found to fulfil at least 10/11 Emanuel's IPC criteria could serve as benchmarks of IPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the positive impact of Palliative Care (PC) on the quality of life for patients and their relatives, the implementation of PC in non-cancer health-care delivery in the EU seems scarcely addressed. The aim of this study is to assess guidelines/pathways for integrated PC in patients with advanced Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in Europe via a systematic literature review. Methods: Search results were screened by two reviewers. Eligible studies of adult patients with CHF or COPD published between 01/01/1995 and 31/12/2013 in Europe in 6 languages were included. Nine electronic databases were searched, 6 journals were hand-searched and citation tracking was also performed. For the analysis, a narrative synthesis was employed. Results: The search strategy revealed 26,256 studies without duplicates. From these, 19 studies were included in the review; 17 guidelines and 2 pathways. 18 out of 19 focused on suffering reduction interventions, 13/19 on a holistic approach and 15/19 on discussions of illness prognosis and limitations. The involvement of a PC team was mentioned in 13/19 studies, the assessment of the patients' goals of care in 12/19 and the advance care planning in 11/19. Only 4/19 studies elaborated on aspects such as grief and bereavement care, 7/19 on treatment in the last hours of life and 8/19 on the continuation of goal adjustment. Conclusion: The results illustrate that there is a growing awareness for the importance of integrated PC in patients with advanced CHF or COPD. At the same time, however, they signal the need for the development of standardized strategies so that existing barriers are alleviated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) endorses integrated palliative care which has a significant impact on quality of life and satisfaction with care. Effective integration between hospices, palliative care services, hospitals and primary care services are required to support patients with palliative care needs. Studies have indicated that little is known about which aspects are regarded as most important and should be priorities for international implementation. The Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) project, aimed to investigate integrated practices in Europe and to formulate requirements for effective palliative care integration. It aimed to develop recommendations, and to agree priorities, for integrated palliative care linked to the InSuP-C project. Methods: Transparent expert consultation was adopted at the approach used. Data were collected in two phases: 1) international transparent expert consultation using face-to-face roundtable discussions at a one day workshop in Brussels, and 2) via subsequent online cross-sectional survey where items were rated to indicate degree of agreement on their importance and ranked to indicate priority for implementation. Workshop discussions used content analysis to develop a list of 23 recommendations, which formed the survey questionnaire. Survey analysis used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis of open responses. Results: Thirty-six international experts in palliative care and cancer care, including senior clinicians, researchers, leaders of relevant international organisations and funders, were invited to a face-to-face workshop. Data were collected from 33 (19 men, 14 women), 3 declined. They mostly came from European countries (31), USA (1) and Australia (1). Twenty one of them also completed the subsequent online survey (response rate 63%). We generated 23 written statements that were grouped into the organisational constructs: macro (10), meso (6) and micro (7) levels of integration of palliative care. Highest priority recommendations refer to education, leadership and policy-making, medium priority recommendations focused on funding and relationship-building, and lower priority recommendations related to improving systems and infrastructure. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that amongst a group of international experts there was overall good agreement on the importance of recommendations for integrated palliative care. Understanding expert's priorities is important and can guide practice, policymaking and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Many patients prefer an active role in making decisions about their care and treatment, but participating in such decision-making is challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether patient-reported outcomes (quality of life and patient satisfaction), patients' coping strategies, and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer., Methods: We used baseline data from the ACTION trial of patients with advanced colorectal or lung cancer from six European countries, including scores on the decision-making participation self-efficacy (DEPS) scale, EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL questionnaire, and the EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression analyses were used to examine associations with self-efficacy scores., Results: The sample included 660 patients with a mean age of 66 years (SD 10). Patients had a mean score of 73 (SD 24) for self-efficacy. Problem-focused coping (B 1.41 (95% CI 0.77 to 2.06)), better quality of life (B 2.34 (95% CI 0.89 to 3.80)), and more patient satisfaction (B 7.59 (95% CI 5.61 to 9.56)) were associated with a higher level of self-efficacy. Patients in the Netherlands had a higher level of self-efficacy than patients in Belgium ((B 7.85 (95% CI 2.28 to 13.42)), whereas Italian patients had a lower level ((B -7.50 (95% CI -13.04 to -1.96)) than those in Belgium., Conclusion: Coping style, quality of life, and patient satisfaction with care were associated with self-efficacy for participation in decision-making among patients with advanced cancer. These factors are important to consider for healthcare professionals when supporting patients in decision-making processes., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care., Aim: To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19., Design: Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach., Setting/participants: Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country., Results: Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership., Conclusions: Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use. ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.