Search

Background: COPD causes high morbidity and mortality, emphasizing the need for palliative care. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of palliative care in patients with COPD. Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial (COMPASSION study; Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644, 07-04-2019). Healthcare providers within the intervention group were trained to implement palliative care components into routine COPD care. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, after 3 and 6 months; medical records were assessed after 12 months. The primary outcome was quality of life (FACIT-Pal). Secondary outcomes were anxiety, depression, spiritual well-being, satisfaction with care, acute healthcare use, documentation of life-sustaining treatment preferences and place of death. Generalized linear mixed modelling was used for analyses. Setting: Eight hospital regions in the Netherlands. Participants: Patients hospitalized for an acute exacerbation of COPD and positive ProPal-COPD score. Results: Of 222 patients included, 106 responded to the questionnaire at 6 months. Thirty-six of 98 intervention patients (36.7%) received the intervention. Intention-to-treat-analysis showed no effect on the primary outcome (adjusted difference: 1.09; 95% confidence interval: −5.44 to 7.60). In the intervention group, fewer intensive care admissions for COPD took place (adjusted odds ratio: 0.21; 95% confidence interval: 0.03–0.81) and strong indications were found for fewer hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.46–1.03). Conclusions: We found no evidence that palliative care improves quality of life in patients with COPD. However, it can potentially reduce acute healthcare use. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic led to suboptimal implementation and insufficient power, and may have affected some of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients receiving palliative care value attention given to their spiritual needs. However, these needs often remain unexplored as healthcare professionals lack the skills to identify and explore them and to integrate this information into care plans. Aim: To evaluate the effects of an interactive communication training intervention for palliative care teams in order to identify and explore the spiritual dimension and integrate it in patients' care plans. Design: A mixed methods pre-post study, including self-assessment questionnaires, evaluation of videos with simulated consultations (applied competence) and medical record review (implementation). Setting/participants: Three palliative care teams including nurses (N = 21), physicians (N = 14) and spiritual caregivers (N = 3). Results: The questionnaires showed an improvement on 'Patient and family-centred communication' of the End-of-life professional caregiver survey (+0.37, p < 0.01; the 8-item S-EOLC (+0.54, p < 0.01) and regarding the Spiritual Care Competence Scale, on the three subscales used (+0.27, p < 0.01, +0.29, p < 0.01 and +0.32, p < 0.01). Video evaluations showed increased attention being paid to patient's aims and needs. The medical record review showed an increase in anticipation on the non-somatic dimension (OR: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.2–4.3, p < 0.05) and, using the Mount Vernon Cancer Network assessment tool, addressing spiritual issues (OR: 10.9, 95% CI: 3.7–39.5, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our training intervention resulted in increased palliative care professionals' competence in identifying and exploring patients' spiritual issues, and their integration in multidimensional proactive palliative care plans. The intervention directly addresses patients' spiritual concerns and adds value to their palliative care plans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic caused an acute risk of deterioration and dying for many, and an urgent need to start advance care planning. Aim: To explore how general practitioners (GPs) experienced discussing values, goals and preferences with patients during COVID-19. Design and setting: Qualitative research in general practice. Methods: Semi-structured interviews for which Dutch GPs were recruited via purposive sampling. Content analysis was used. Results: Fifteen GPs were interviewed. Six themes were identified: (i) urge of advance care planning, (ii) the GP's perceived role in it, (iii) preparations for it, (iv) (proactively) discussing it, (v) essentials for good communication and (vi) advance care planning in the (near) future. Calls for proactively discussing advance care planning in the media and in COVID-guidelines caused awareness of it's importance. GPs envisaged an important role for themselves in initiating it, especially with patients at risk to deteriorate or die from COVID-19. Timing advance care planning appeared difficult but crucial. The recommended digital way of communication was considered problematic due to missing nonverbal communication and difficulties in involving relatives. It was noted that admission to the ICU, which was hardly discussed before the COVID-19 pandemic, should remain a topic during advance care planning. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic brought advance care planning into a new light, GPs were more experienced with discussing it and patients were more aware of their frailty. Because of the nearing 'grey wave', advance care planning should remain top priority. Therefore, it should be central in GP and post-academic training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The delivery of palliative care interventions is not widely integrated in chronic heart failure care as the recognition of palliative care needs is perceived as difficult. Tools may facilitate healthcare professionals to identify patients with palliative care needs in advanced chronic heart failure. Aim: To identify tools to help healthcare professionals recognize palliative care needs in patients with advanced chronic heart failure. Design: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019131896). Evidence of tools' development, evaluation, feasibility, and implementation was sought and described. Data sources: Electronic searches to identify references of tools published until June 2019 were conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE. Hand-searching of references and citations was undertaken. Based on the identified tools, a second electronic search until September 2019 was performed to check whether all evidence about these tools in the context of chronic heart failure was included. Results: Nineteen studies described a total of seven tools. The tools varied in purpose, intended user and properties. The tools have been validated to a limited extent in the context of chronic heart failure and palliative care. Different health care professionals applied the tools in various settings at different moments of the care process. Guidance and instruction about how to apply the tool revealed to be relevant but may be not enough for uptake. Spiritual care needs were perceived as difficult to assess. Conclusion: Seven tools were identified which showed different and limited levels of validity in the context of palliative care and chronic heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Validated quality indicators can help health-care professionals to evaluate their medical practices in a comparativemanner to deliver optimal clinical care. No international set of quality indicators to measure the organizational aspects of palliativecare settings exists.Aim: To develop and validate a set of structure and process indicators for palliative care settings in Europe.Design: A two-round modified RAND Delphi process was conducted to rate clarity and usefulness of a previously developed set of110 quality indicators.Setting/participants: In total, 20 multi-professional palliative care teams of centers of excellence from seven European countries.Results: In total, 56 quality indicators were rated as useful. These valid quality indicators concerned the following domains: thedefinition of a palliative care service (2 quality indicators), accessibility to palliative care (16 quality indicators), specific infrastructureto deliver palliative care (8 quality indicators), symptom assessment tools (1 quality indicator), specific personnel in palliative careservices (9 quality indicators), documentation methodology of clinical data (14 quality indicators), evaluation of quality and safetyprocedures (1 quality indicator), reporting of clinical activities (1 quality indicator), and education in palliative care (4 quality indicator).Conclusion: The modified RAND Delphi process resulted in 56 international face-validated quality indicators to measure andcompare organizational aspects of palliative care. These quality indicators, aimed to assess and improve the organization of palliativecare, will be pilot tested in palliative care settings all over Europe and be used in the EU FP7 funded IMPACT project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]