Search

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.

Background: Digital health interventions are becoming increasingly important for adults, children, and young people with cancer and palliative care needs, but there is little research to guide policy and practice. Objectives: To identify recommendations for policy development of digital health interventions in cancer and palliative care. Design: Expert elicitation workshop. Setting: European clinical (cancer and palliative care, adult and pediatric), policy, technical, and research experts attended a one-day workshop in London, England, in October 2022, along with MyPal research consortium members. Methods: As part of the European Commission-funded MyPal project, we elicited experts' views on global, national, and institutional policies within structured facilitated groups, and conducted qualitative analysis on these discussions. Results/Implementation: Thirty-two experts from eight countries attended. Key policy drivers and levers in digital health were highlighted. Global level: global technology regulation, definitions, access to information technology, standardizing citizens' rights and data safety, digital infrastructure and implementation guidance, and incorporation of technology into existing health systems. National level: country-specific policy, compatibility of health apps, access to digital infrastructure including vulnerable groups and settings, development of guidelines, and promoting digital literacy. Institutional level: undertaking a needs assessment of service users and clinicians, identifying best practice guidelines, providing education and training for clinicians on digital health and safe digital data sharing, implementing plans to minimize barriers to accessing digital health care, minimizing bureaucracy, and providing technical support. Conclusions: Developers and regulators of digital health interventions may find the identified recommendations useful in guiding policy making and future research initiatives.

Background: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. Aim: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. Design: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). Setting/participants: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board (n = 13) approved final recommendations. Results: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 (n = 40), Round 3 (n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. Conclusions: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.

Background: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. Aim: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. Design: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). Setting/participants: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board (n = 13) approved final recommendations. Results: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 (n = 40), Round 3 (n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. Conclusions: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.

Background: The number of older people dying in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is increasing and represents a public health challenge. Palliative care provision can be poor. Interventions to improve palliative care in LTCFs have been shown to be effective but little is known about their implementation. The aim of this review is to identify facilitators and barriers to implementing palliative care interventions in LTCFs and to describe the nature of implementation strategies Methods: A scoping review was undertaken: electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Proquest, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched to identify studies published between January 2007 and January 2018. Controlled studies, non-controlled studies, qualitative studies and evaluations on the implementation of interventions to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities were included. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected and data extracted on key variables including, the implementation of the intervention and reported facilitators and barriers to implementation. Results: The review identified 8,071 abstracts, from which 55 studies were included in the review. Implementation strategies varied in four areas; internal and external facilitation, intended audience, extent of joint working and delivery of education/training. Support from managers, stakeholder involvement, flexibility in delivery of the intervention and adopting a ‘whole home’ approach to involvement were facilitators to implementation. High staff turnover, lack of physician involvement and failure to adopt changes into routine practice were identified as barriers to implementation. Conclusion: Limited implementation of interventions may lead to inequalities in palliative care among older adults who may benefit from it. The characteristics of palliative care interventions compared to their implementation can be difficult to separate and are often underreported. Further resea