Search

Objectives: To identify factors associated with palliative care services being busier during Covid-19. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services (April to July 2020) (CovPall). Ethical approval was received from King's College London Research Ethics committee (LRS-19/20-18541). The primary outcome was change in busyness (five-point ordinal scale). Ordinal logistic regression investigated factors associated with the primary outcome. Results: Of 277 responses, 71 (26%) reported being a lot more busy, 62 (22%) slightly more, 53 (19%) about the same, 50 (18%) slightly less, and 28 (10%) much less busy. Increased business was associated with homecare services (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–3.25), nursing care at home (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.70–6.19), publicly managed services (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.11–4.34), Covid-19 cases (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01), and staff shortages (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64–4.48). Conclusion: Services providing community care, and publicly managed services, may have been better able to respond to escalating needs during Covid-19. This has potential implications for both service delivery and funding models.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with palliative care services being busier during Covid-19. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services (April to July 2020) (CovPall). Ethical approval was received from King's College London Research Ethics committee (LRS-19/20-18541). The primary outcome was change in busyness (five-point ordinal scale). Ordinal logistic regression investigated factors associated with the primary outcome. Results: Of 277 responses, 71 (26%) reported being a lot more busy, 62 (22%) slightly more, 53 (19%) about the same, 50 (18%) slightly less, and 28 (10%) much less busy. Increased business was associated with homecare services (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15–3.25), nursing care at home (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.70–6.19), publicly managed services (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.11–4.34), Covid-19 cases (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.01), and staff shortages (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64–4.48). Conclusion: Services providing community care, and publicly managed services, may have been better able to respond to escalating needs during Covid-19. This has potential implications for both service delivery and funding models.

Background Respiratory medicine (RM) and palliative care (PC) physicians' management of chronic breathlessness in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), fibrotic interstitial lung disease (fILD) and lung cancer (LC), and the influence of practice guidelines was explored via an online survey. Methods A voluntary, online survey was distributed to RM and PC physicians via society newsletter mailing lists. Results 450 evaluable questionnaires (348 (77%) RM and 102 (23%) PC) were analysed. Significantly more PC physicians indicated routine use (often/always) of opioids across conditions (COPD: 92% vs. 39%, fILD: 83% vs. 36%, LC: 95% vs. 76%; all p < 0.001) and significantly more PC physicians indicated routine use of benzodiazepines for COPD (33% vs. 10%) and fILD (25% vs. 12%) (both p < 0.001). Significantly more RM physicians reported routine use of a breathlessness score (62% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) and prioritised exercise training/rehabilitation for COPD (49% vs. 7%) and fILD (30% vs. 18%) (both p < 0.001). Overall, 40% of all respondents reported reading non-cancer palliative care guidelines (either carefully or looked at them briefly). Respondents who reported reading these guidelines were more likely to: routinely use a breathlessness score (chi(2) = 13.8; p < 0.001), use opioids (chi(2) = 12.58, p < 0.001) and refer to pulmonary rehabilitation (chi(2) = 6.41, p = 0.011) in COPD; use antidepressants (chi(2) = 6.25; p = 0.044) and refer to PC (chi(2) = 5.83; p = 0.016) in fILD; and use a handheld fan in COPD (chi(2) = 8.75, p = 0.003), fILD (chi(2) = 4.85, p = 0.028) and LC (chi(2) = 5.63; p = 0.018). Conclusions These findings suggest a need for improved dissemination and uptake of jointly developed breathlessness management guidelines in order to encourage appropriate use of existing, evidence-based therapies. The lack of opioid use by RM, and continued benzodiazepine use in PC, suggest that a wider range of acceptable therapies need to be developed

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the content of interventions provided in early specialised palliative care (SPC).OBJECTIVES: To characterise the content of interventions delivered in early SPC in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT), a multicentre trial with six participating sites.METHODS: A retrospective qualitative and quantitative study coding all new interventions initiated by the palliative teams and documented in the medical records during the 8-week study period of DanPaCT. Interventions were categorised according to (a) symptom/problem prompting the intervention, (b) type of intervention and (c) professional(s) providing the intervention.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomised to the SPC teams. According to the medical records, patients received a median of 3.5 (range 0-22) new interventions in the 8-week intervention-period from the palliative teams. For 24 (18%) of the patients there was no documented interventions in the medical records. The most frequent symptom/problems treated were pain, (100 interventions; 20% of interventions given) and impaired physical function (62; 13% of interventions given). The most frequent type of intervention was pharmacological (232; 42% of interventions given).CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to meticulously investigate the content of interventions documented in the medical records for patients receiving early SPC. Diverse symptoms were treated with many different interventions. However, a relatively low number of interventions were documented. This may explain the lack of effect in DanPaCT but also questions whether all interventions were adequately documented TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01348048.

Background: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients’ symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Aim: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. Design: Cross-sectional national online survey. Setting/participants: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. Findings: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

Background: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. Aim: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. Design: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services’ response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. Respondents: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. Results: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. Conclusions: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.

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.

Background: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients’ symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Aim: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. Design: Cross-sectional national online survey. Setting/participants: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. Findings: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

Background: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. Aim: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. Design: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services’ response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. Respondents: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. Results: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. Conclusions: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.

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.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the content of interventions provided in early specialised palliative care (SPC).OBJECTIVES: To characterise the content of interventions delivered in early SPC in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT), a multicentre trial with six participating sites.METHODS: A retrospective qualitative and quantitative study coding all new interventions initiated by the palliative teams and documented in the medical records during the 8-week study period of DanPaCT. Interventions were categorised according to (a) symptom/problem prompting the intervention, (b) type of intervention and (c) professional(s) providing the intervention.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomised to the SPC teams. According to the medical records, patients received a median of 3.5 (range 0-22) new interventions in the 8-week intervention-period from the palliative teams. For 24 (18%) of the patients there was no documented interventions in the medical records. The most frequent symptom/problems treated were pain, (100 interventions; 20% of interventions given) and impaired physical function (62; 13% of interventions given). The most frequent type of intervention was pharmacological (232; 42% of interventions given).CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to meticulously investigate the content of interventions documented in the medical records for patients receiving early SPC. Diverse symptoms were treated with many different interventions. However, a relatively low number of interventions were documented. This may explain the lack of effect in DanPaCT but also questions whether all interventions were adequately documented TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01348048.

BACKGROUND: Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01348048.

BACKGROUND: Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01348048.

BACKGROUND: Early and integrated specialized palliative care is often recommended but has still only been investigated in relatively few randomized clinical trials.OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus standard care on the explorative outcomes in the Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT).METHODS: We conducted a randomized multicentre, parallel-group clinical trial. Consecutive patients with metastatic cancer were included if they had symptoms or problems that exceeded a predefined threshold according to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Outcomes were estimated as the differences between the intervention and the control groups in the change from baseline to the weighted mean of the 3- and 8-week follow-ups measured as areas under the curve.RESULTS: In total, 145 patients were randomized to early specialized palliative care plus standard care versus 152 to standard care only. Early specialized palliative care had no significant effect on any of the symptoms or problems. Of the 21 items addressing satisfaction, specialized palliative care improved the item 'overall satisfaction with the help received from the health care system' with 9 points (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 14.2, p = 0.0006) and three other items (all p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: In line with the analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT, we did not find that specialized palliative care, as provided in DanPaCT, affected symptoms and problems. However, patients in the intervention group seemed more satisfied with the health care received than those in the standard care group.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01348048.

Background: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Design: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). Setting/participants: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany Results: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (alpha = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items k(w) > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. Conclusion: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, dete

Background: When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden. Aim: To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured. Design: An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1-5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants’ rationales for their choices were analysed thematically. Setting/participants: In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016. Results: Participants’ years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were ‘overall well-being/quality of life’ (2.75), ‘pain’ (2.06), and ‘information needs/preferences’ (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure ‘Phase of Illness’ was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured. Conclusion: The domains of ‘overall well-being/quality of life’, ‘pain’, and ‘information needs/preferences’ are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using ‘Phase of Illness’. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care.

Background: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Design: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). Setting/participants: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany Results: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (alpha = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items k(w) > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. Conclusion: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, dete

Background: When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden. Aim: To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured. Design: An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1-5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants’ rationales for their choices were analysed thematically. Setting/participants: In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016. Results: Participants’ years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were ‘overall well-being/quality of life’ (2.75), ‘pain’ (2.06), and ‘information needs/preferences’ (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure ‘Phase of Illness’ was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured. Conclusion: The domains of ‘overall well-being/quality of life’, ‘pain’, and ‘information needs/preferences’ are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using ‘Phase of Illness’. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care.

Background: Routine use of outcome measures in palliative care is recommended to demonstrate and improve quality of care. The use of outcome measures is relatively recent in UK specialist palliative care services and understanding their use in practice is key to successful implementation. We therefore aimed to explore how patient-centred outcome measures are used in specialist palliative care, and identify key considerations for implementation. Methods: Multi-method qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation). Patients, family caregivers and health professionals were purposively sampled from nine specialist palliative care services (hospice, hospital and community settings) in London, UK. Framework analysis, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was undertaken. Results: Thirty eight interviews and nine observations were conducted. Findings are presented according to the five CFIR domains: (I) intervention: participants highlighted advantages, disadvantages and appropriateness of outcome measures in palliative care; (II) outer setting: policy and national drivers are necessary to encourage use of outcome measures; (III) inner setting: information technology infrastructure, organisational drive, and support from peers and leadership were institutional factors that shaped the use of outcome measures; (IV) individual: clear rationale for using outcome measures and skills to use them in practice were essential; (V) implementation: stepwise introduction of outcome measures, regular feedback sessions, and champions/facilitators were important to strengthen routine use. Conclusions: All CFIR domains need consideration for effective implementation. Outcome data needs to be fed back to and interpreted for professionals in order to improve and sustain outcome data collection, and drive meaningful improvements in palliative care.

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and ho

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and ho

A cancer cachexia classification into stages is warranted in order to guide treatment decisions and clinical trial inclusion. Weight loss and BMI clearly discriminate between non-cachectic and cachectic patients both with regards to all the domains (Intake, Catabolism and Function) and survival. The precachexia stage might be better defined by additional factors in order to be discriminative

BACKGROUND: Beneficial effects of early palliative care have been found in advanced cancer, but the evidence is not unequivocal.AIM: To investigate the effect of early specialist palliative care among advanced cancer patients identified in oncology departments.SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01348048) is a multicentre randomised clinical trial comparing early referral to a specialist palliative care team plus standard care versus standard care alone. The planned sample size was 300. At five oncology departments, consecutive patients with advanced cancer were screened for palliative needs. Patients with scores exceeding a predefined threshold for problems with physical, emotional or role function, or nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnoea or lack of appetite according to the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in each patient's primary need (the most severe of the seven QLQ-C30 scales) at 3- and 8-week follow-up (0-100 scale). Five sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were change in the seven QLQ-C30 scales and survival.RESULTS: Totally 145 patients were randomised to early specialist palliative care versus 152 to standard care. Early specialist palliative care showed no effect on the primary outcome of change in primary need (-4.9 points (95% confidence interval -11.3 to +1.5 points); p = 0.14). The sensitivity analyses showed similar results. Analyses of the secondary outcomes, including survival, also showed no differences, maybe with the exception of nausea/vomiting where early specialist palliative care might have had a beneficial effect.CONCLUSION: We did not observe beneficial or harmful effects of early specialist palliative care, but important beneficial effects cannot be excluded.

Background This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010, on 'Benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in advanced malignant and non-malignant diseases in adults'. Breathlessness is one of the most common symptoms experienced in the advanced stages of malignant and non-malignant disease. Benzodiazepines are widely used for the relief of breathlessness in advanced diseases and are regularly recommended in the literature. At the time of the previously published Cochrane review, there was no evidence for a beneficial effect of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in people with advanced cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives The primary objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in people with advanced disease. Secondary objectives were to determine the efficacy of different benzodiazepines, different doses of benzodiazepines, different routes of application, adverse effects of benzodiazepines, and the efficacy in different disease groups. Search methods This is an update of a review published in 2010. We searched 14 electronic databases up to September 2009 for the original review. We checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews, and websites. For the update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE and registers of clinical trials for further ongoing or unpublished studies, up to August 2016. We contacted study investigators and experts in the field of palliative care asking for further studies, unpublished data, or study details when necessary. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing the effect of benzodiazepines compared with placebo or active control in relieving breathlessness in people with advanced stages of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), motor neurone dis

Context. Episodic breathlessness causes additional distress to breathless patients with advanced disease, but management is still insufficient and there is a lack of knowledge on effective coping strategies. Objectives. The aim was to explore patients' self-management strategies for episodic breathlessness. Methods. In-depth interviews with patients suffering from episodic breathlessness as a result of chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, or motor neuron disease were conducted. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed guided by the analytic hierarchy of Framework analysis. Results. A total of 51 participants were interviewed (15 chronic heart failure, 14 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 13 lung cancer, and nine motor neuron disease; age, mean [SD], 68 [12], 41% women, median Karnofsky index 60%). They described six main strategies for coping with episodes of breathlessness: reduction of physical exertion, cognitive and psychological strategies, breathing techniques and positions, air and oxygen, drugs and medical devices, and environmental and other strategies. Some strategies were used in an opposing way, e.g., concentrating on the breathing vs. distraction from any thoughts of breathlessness or laying down flat vs. standing up and raising hands. Conclusion. Patients used a number of different strategies to cope with episodic breathlessness, adding more detailed understanding of existing strategies for breathlessness. The findings, therefore, may provide a valuable aid for health care providers, affected patients, and their relatives. (C) 2016 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2010, on 'Benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in advanced malignant and non-malignant diseases in adults'. Breathlessness is one of the most common symptoms experienced in the advanced stages of malignant and non-malignant disease. Benzodiazepines are widely used for the relief of breathlessness in advanced diseases and are regularly recommended in the literature. At the time of the previously published Cochrane review, there was no evidence for a beneficial effect of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in people with advanced cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Objectives The primary objective of this review was to determine the efficacy of benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in people with advanced disease. Secondary objectives were to determine the efficacy of different benzodiazepines, different doses of benzodiazepines, different routes of application, adverse effects of benzodiazepines, and the efficacy in different disease groups. Search methods This is an update of a review published in 2010. We searched 14 electronic databases up to September 2009 for the original review. We checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews, and websites. For the update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE and registers of clinical trials for further ongoing or unpublished studies, up to August 2016. We contacted study investigators and experts in the field of palliative care asking for further studies, unpublished data, or study details when necessary. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing the effect of benzodiazepines compared with placebo or active control in relieving breathlessness in people with advanced stages of cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic heart failure (CHF), motor neurone dis

Context. Episodic breathlessness causes additional distress to breathless patients with advanced disease, but management is still insufficient and there is a lack of knowledge on effective coping strategies. Objectives. The aim was to explore patients' self-management strategies for episodic breathlessness. Methods. In-depth interviews with patients suffering from episodic breathlessness as a result of chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, or motor neuron disease were conducted. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed guided by the analytic hierarchy of Framework analysis. Results. A total of 51 participants were interviewed (15 chronic heart failure, 14 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 13 lung cancer, and nine motor neuron disease; age, mean [SD], 68 [12], 41% women, median Karnofsky index 60%). They described six main strategies for coping with episodes of breathlessness: reduction of physical exertion, cognitive and psychological strategies, breathing techniques and positions, air and oxygen, drugs and medical devices, and environmental and other strategies. Some strategies were used in an opposing way, e.g., concentrating on the breathing vs. distraction from any thoughts of breathlessness or laying down flat vs. standing up and raising hands. Conclusion. Patients used a number of different strategies to cope with episodic breathlessness, adding more detailed understanding of existing strategies for breathlessness. The findings, therefore, may provide a valuable aid for health care providers, affected patients, and their relatives. (C) 2016 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore and contrast the experience and meaning of breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer at the end of life. Method: We conducted a qualitative study embedded in a longitudinal study using topic-guided in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of patients suffering from breathlessness affecting their daily activities due to advanced (primary or secondary) lung cancer or COPD stage III/IV. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using framework analysis. Results: Ten COPD and eight lung cancer patients were interviewed. Both groups reported similarities in their experience. These included exertion through breathlessness throughout the illness course, losses in their daily activities, and the experience of breathlessness leading to crises. The main difference was the way in which patients adapted to their particular illness experience and the resulting crises over time. While COPD patients more likely sought to get their life with breathlessness under control, speaking of daily living with breathlessness under certain conditions, the participating lung cancer patients often faced the possibility of death and expressed a need for security. Significance of Results: Breathlessness leads to crises in patients with advanced disease. Although experiences of patients are similar, reactions and coping mechanisms vary and are more related to the disease and the stage of disease.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore and contrast the experience and meaning of breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer at the end of life. Method: We conducted a qualitative study embedded in a longitudinal study using topic-guided in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of patients suffering from breathlessness affecting their daily activities due to advanced (primary or secondary) lung cancer or COPD stage III/IV. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using framework analysis. Results: Ten COPD and eight lung cancer patients were interviewed. Both groups reported similarities in their experience. These included exertion through breathlessness throughout the illness course, losses in their daily activities, and the experience of breathlessness leading to crises. The main difference was the way in which patients adapted to their particular illness experience and the resulting crises over time. While COPD patients more likely sought to get their life with breathlessness under control, speaking of daily living with breathlessness under certain conditions, the participating lung cancer patients often faced the possibility of death and expressed a need for security. Significance of Results: Breathlessness leads to crises in patients with advanced disease. Although experiences of patients are similar, reactions and coping mechanisms vary and are more related to the disease and the stage of disease.

Because of demographic changes of an aging society, palliative care is becoming increasingly important. It is therefore necessary to evaluate preferences at the end of life at an early stage to meet the needs and requests of future patients. The aim of this study was to find out preferences in a theoretical scenario (If you developed a serious medical condition such as cancer and you had less than a year to liveaEuro broken vertical bar aEuroe) regarding the desired involvement in decision-making at the end of life and the preferred place of death. As part of the international PRISMA project, a representative telephone survey was carried out in Germany. A total of 1,363 Germans took part in the survey (response rate 29.0 %, 47.1 +/- 15.7 years, 42 % male). 90.8 % wanted to make their own decisions with regard to end-of-life care, which was most important for people with higher education. 83.3 % wanted to predetermine decisions by means of an advance directive in case they are no longer able to make them at the time. This was again more important for individuals with higher education and for older subjects (a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 65 years). The preferred place of death was their own home (63.3 %), and the least preferred place for death was in hospital in 48.2 %. In particular, women did not want to die in a hospital. These results should be considered when planning health care structures to meet the wishes of people at the end of their life, in particular to strengthen the importance of patient provision and the desire for their own home to be the preferred place to die.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore and contrast the experience and meaning of breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer at the end of life. Method: We conducted a qualitative study embedded in a longitudinal study using topic-guided in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of patients suffering from breathlessness affecting their daily activities due to advanced (primary or secondary) lung cancer or COPD stage III/IV. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using framework analysis. Results: Ten COPD and eight lung cancer patients were interviewed. Both groups reported similarities in their experience. These included exertion through breathlessness throughout the illness course, losses in their daily activities, and the experience of breathlessness leading to crises. The main difference was the way in which patients adapted to their particular illness experience and the resulting crises over time. While COPD patients more likely sought to get their life with breathlessness under control, speaking of daily living with breathlessness under certain conditions, the participating lung cancer patients often faced the possibility of death and expressed a need for security. Significance of Results: Breathlessness leads to crises in patients with advanced disease. Although experiences of patients are similar, reactions and coping mechanisms vary and are more related to the disease and the stage of disease.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore and contrast the experience and meaning of breathlessness in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer at the end of life. Method: We conducted a qualitative study embedded in a longitudinal study using topic-guided in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of patients suffering from breathlessness affecting their daily activities due to advanced (primary or secondary) lung cancer or COPD stage III/IV. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using framework analysis. Results: Ten COPD and eight lung cancer patients were interviewed. Both groups reported similarities in their experience. These included exertion through breathlessness throughout the illness course, losses in their daily activities, and the experience of breathlessness leading to crises. The main difference was the way in which patients adapted to their particular illness experience and the resulting crises over time. While COPD patients more likely sought to get their life with breathlessness under control, speaking of daily living with breathlessness under certain conditions, the participating lung cancer patients often faced the possibility of death and expressed a need for security. Significance of Results: Breathlessness leads to crises in patients with advanced disease. Although experiences of patients are similar, reactions and coping mechanisms vary and are more related to the disease and the stage of disease.

Because of demographic changes of an aging society, palliative care is becoming increasingly important. It is therefore necessary to evaluate preferences at the end of life at an early stage to meet the needs and requests of future patients. The aim of this study was to find out preferences in a theoretical scenario (If you developed a serious medical condition such as cancer and you had less than a year to liveaEuro broken vertical bar aEuroe) regarding the desired involvement in decision-making at the end of life and the preferred place of death. As part of the international PRISMA project, a representative telephone survey was carried out in Germany. A total of 1,363 Germans took part in the survey (response rate 29.0 %, 47.1 +/- 15.7 years, 42 % male). 90.8 % wanted to make their own decisions with regard to end-of-life care, which was most important for people with higher education. 83.3 % wanted to predetermine decisions by means of an advance directive in case they are no longer able to make them at the time. This was again more important for individuals with higher education and for older subjects (a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 65 years). The preferred place of death was their own home (63.3 %), and the least preferred place for death was in hospital in 48.2 %. In particular, women did not want to die in a hospital. These results should be considered when planning health care structures to meet the wishes of people at the end of their life, in particular to strengthen the importance of patient provision and the desire for their own home to be the preferred place to die.

Background: Health-care costs are growing, with little population-based data about people's priorities for end-of-life care, to guide service development and aid discussions. Aim: We examined variations in people's priorities for treatment, care and information across seven European countries. Design: Telephone survey of a random sample of households; we asked respondents their priorities if faced with a serious illness, like cancer, with limited time to live' and used multivariable logistic regressions to identify associated factors. Setting/participants: Members of the general public aged 16 years residing in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: In total, 9344 individuals were interviewed. Most people chose improve quality of life for the time they had left', ranging from 57% (95% confidence interval: 55%-60%, Italy) to 81% (95% confidence interval: 79%-83%, Spain). Only 2% (95% confidence interval: 1%-3%, England) to 6% (95% confidence interval: 4%-7%, Flanders) said extending life was most important, and 15% (95% confidence interval: 13%-17%, Spain) to 40% (95% confidence interval: 37%-43%, Italy) said quality and extension were equally important. Prioritising quality of life was associated with higher education in all countries (odds ratio = 1.3 (Flanders) to 7.9 (Italy)), experience of caregiving or bereavement (England, Germany, Portugal), prioritising pain/symptom control over having a positive attitude and preferring death in a hospice/palliative care unit. Those prioritising extending life had the highest home death preference of all groups. Health status did not affect priorities. Conclusions: Across all countries, extending life was prioritised by a minority, regardless of health status. Treatment and care needs to be reoriented with patient education and palliative care becoming mainstream for serious conditions such as cancer.

Context. Episodic breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom in patients with advanced disease. Still, it is not yet clearly defined. Objectives. The aim of this work was to develop an international definition, categorization, and terminology of episodic breathlessness. Methods. An online Delphi survey was conducted with international breathlessness experts. We used a structured questionnaire to identify specific aspects and reach agreement on a definition, categorization, and terminology (five-point Likert scale). Consensus was defined in advance as >= 70% agreement. Results. Thirty-one of 68 (45.6%), 29 of 67 (43.3%), and 33 of 67 (49.3%) experts responded in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Participants were 20-79 years old, about 60% male, and more than 75% rated their own breathlessness expertise as moderate to high. After three rounds, consensus was reached on a definition, categorization, and terminology (84.4%, 96.3%, and 92.9% agreement). The final definition includes general and qualitative aspects of the symptom, for example, time-limited severe worsening of intensity or unpleasantness of breathlessness in the patient's perception. Categories are predictable or unpredictable, depending on whether any triggers can be identified. Conclusion. There is high agreement on clinical and operational aspects of episodic breathlessness in advanced disease among international experts. The consented definition and categorization may serve as a catalyst for clinical and basic research to improve symptom control and patients' quality of life. (C) 2014 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Context. Breathlessness is a distressing symptom in advanced disease. Understanding its patterns, burden, and palliative care (PC) needs over time is important to improve patients' quality of life. Objectives. To describe and compare the courses of refractory breathlessness, functional status, distress, and PC needs in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer (LC) over time. Methods. This was a cohort study of patients with COPD (Stage III/IV) or LC. Data were assessed monthly with up to 12 telephone interviews, using the modified Borg Scale, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, Distress Thermometer, and Palliative care Outcome Scale as outcomes measures. Descriptive analysis compared all outcomes between COPD and LC at baseline and over time (forward from study entry and backward from death). Results. A total of 82 patients (50 COPD and 32 LC), mean (SD) age of 67.2 (7.8), and 36% female were included (8 COPD and 23 LC deceased). The patients with COPD perceived higher levels of breathlessness and distress at lower functional status steadily over time. The LC patients' breathlessness, distress, and PC needs increased, whereas functional status decreased toward death. The PC needs were similar between disease groups. Breathlessness was negatively correlated with functional status (COPD = mean r = -0.20, P = 0.012; LC = mean r = -0.277, P = 0.029) and positively correlated with PC needs in COPD patients (mean r = 0.343, P < 0.001). Death was significantly predicted by diagnosis (LC: hazard ratio = 7.84, P < 0.001) and functional status (10% decline: hazard ratio = 1.52, P = 0.001). Conclusion. The PC needs of patients with advanced COPD are comparable with LC patients, and breathlessness severity and distress are even higher. The care for COPD patients requires further improvement to address symptom burden and PC needs. (C) 2014 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Background: Weight loss limits cancer therapy, quality of life and survival. Common diagnostic criteria and a framework for a classification system for cancer cachexia were recently agreed upon by international consensus. Specific assessment domains (stores, intake, catabolism and function) were proposed. The aim of this study is to validate this diagnostic criteria (two groups: model 1) and examine a four-group (model 2) classification system regarding these domains as well as survival. Patients and methods: Data from an international patient sample with advanced cancer (N = 1070) were analysed. In model 1, the diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia [weight loss/body mass index (BMI)] were used. Model 2 classified patients into four groups 0-III, according to weight loss/BMI as a framework for cachexia stages. The cachexia domains, survival and sociodemographic/medical variables were compared across models. Results: Eight hundred and sixty-one patients were included. Model 1 consisted of 399 cachectic and 462 non-cachectic patients. Cachectic patients had significantly higher levels of inflammation, lower nutritional intake and performance status and shorter survival. In model 2, differences were not consistent; appetite loss did not differ between group III and IV, and performance status not between group 0 and I. Survival was shorter in group II and III compared with other groups. By adding other cachexia domains to the model, survival differences were demonstrated. Conclusion: The diagnostic criteria based on weight loss and BMI distinguish between cachectic and non-cachectic patients concerning all domains (intake, catabolism and function) and is associated with survival. In order to guide cachexia treatment a four-group classification model needs additional domains to discriminate between cachexia stages.

Background: The rising number of deaths from cancer and other life-limiting illnesses is accompanied by a growing number of family carers who provide long-lasting care, including end-of-life care. This population-based epidemiological study aimed to describe and compare in four European countries the prevalence of and factors associated with physical or emotional overburden and difficulties in covering care-related costs among family carers of people at the end of life. Methods: A cross-national retrospective study was conducted via nationwide representative sentinel networks of general practitioners (GPs). Using a standardized form, GPs in Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain recorded information on the last 3 months of life of every deceased adult practice patient (1 January 2009-31 December 2010). Sudden deaths were excluded. Results: We studied 4466 deaths. GPs judged family carers of 28% (Belgium), 30% (The Netherlands), 35% (Spain) and 71% (Italy) of patients as physically/emotionally overburdened (P < 0.001). For 8% (Spain), 14% (Belgium), 36% (The Netherlands) and 43% (Italy) patients, GPs reported difficulties in covering care-related costs (P < 0.001). Patients <85 years of age (Belgium, Italy) had higher odds of having physically/emotionally overburdened family carers and financial burden. Death from non-malignant illness (vs. cancer) (Belgium and Italy) and dying at home compared with other locations (The Netherlands and Italy) were associated with higher odds of difficulties in covering care-related costs. Conclusion: In all countries studied, and particularly in Italy, GPs observed a considerable extent of physical/emotional overburden as well as difficulties in covering care-related costs among family carers of people at the end of life. Implications for health- and social care policies are discussed.

Background: Weight loss limits cancer therapy, quality of life and survival. Common diagnostic criteria and a framework for a classification system for cancer cachexia were recently agreed upon by international consensus. Specific assessment domains (stores, intake, catabolism and function) were proposed. The aim of this study is to validate this diagnostic criteria (two groups: model 1) and examine a four-group (model 2) classification system regarding these domains as well as survival. Patients and methods: Data from an international patient sample with advanced cancer (N = 1070) were analysed. In model 1, the diagnostic criteria for cancer cachexia [weight loss/body mass index (BMI)] were used. Model 2 classified patients into four groups 0-III, according to weight loss/BMI as a framework for cachexia stages. The cachexia domains, survival and sociodemographic/medical variables were compared across models. Results: Eight hundred and sixty-one patients were included. Model 1 consisted of 399 cachectic and 462 non-cachectic patients. Cachectic patients had significantly higher levels of inflammation, lower nutritional intake and performance status and shorter survival. In model 2, differences were not consistent; appetite loss did not differ between group III and IV, and performance status not between group 0 and I. Survival was shorter in group II and III compared with other groups. By adding other cachexia domains to the model, survival differences were demonstrated. Conclusion: The diagnostic criteria based on weight loss and BMI distinguish between cachectic and non-cachectic patients concerning all domains (intake, catabolism and function) and is associated with survival. In order to guide cachexia treatment a four-group classification model needs additional domains to discriminate between cachexia stages.

Background: The rising number of deaths from cancer and other life-limiting illnesses is accompanied by a growing number of family carers who provide long-lasting care, including end-of-life care. This population-based epidemiological study aimed to describe and compare in four European countries the prevalence of and factors associated with physical or emotional overburden and difficulties in covering care-related costs among family carers of people at the end of life. Methods: A cross-national retrospective study was conducted via nationwide representative sentinel networks of general practitioners (GPs). Using a standardized form, GPs in Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy and Spain recorded information on the last 3 months of life of every deceased adult practice patient (1 January 2009-31 December 2010). Sudden deaths were excluded. Results: We studied 4466 deaths. GPs judged family carers of 28% (Belgium), 30% (The Netherlands), 35% (Spain) and 71% (Italy) of patients as physically/emotionally overburdened (P < 0.001). For 8% (Spain), 14% (Belgium), 36% (The Netherlands) and 43% (Italy) patients, GPs reported difficulties in covering care-related costs (P < 0.001). Patients <85 years of age (Belgium, Italy) had higher odds of having physically/emotionally overburdened family carers and financial burden. Death from non-malignant illness (vs. cancer) (Belgium and Italy) and dying at home compared with other locations (The Netherlands and Italy) were associated with higher odds of difficulties in covering care-related costs. Conclusion: In all countries studied, and particularly in Italy, GPs observed a considerable extent of physical/emotional overburden as well as difficulties in covering care-related costs among family carers of people at the end of life. Implications for health- and social care policies are discussed.

Background: Health-care costs are growing, with little population-based data about people's priorities for end-of-life care, to guide service development and aid discussions. Aim: We examined variations in people's priorities for treatment, care and information across seven European countries. Design: Telephone survey of a random sample of households; we asked respondents their priorities if faced with a serious illness, like cancer, with limited time to live' and used multivariable logistic regressions to identify associated factors. Setting/participants: Members of the general public aged 16 years residing in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: In total, 9344 individuals were interviewed. Most people chose improve quality of life for the time they had left', ranging from 57% (95% confidence interval: 55%-60%, Italy) to 81% (95% confidence interval: 79%-83%, Spain). Only 2% (95% confidence interval: 1%-3%, England) to 6% (95% confidence interval: 4%-7%, Flanders) said extending life was most important, and 15% (95% confidence interval: 13%-17%, Spain) to 40% (95% confidence interval: 37%-43%, Italy) said quality and extension were equally important. Prioritising quality of life was associated with higher education in all countries (odds ratio = 1.3 (Flanders) to 7.9 (Italy)), experience of caregiving or bereavement (England, Germany, Portugal), prioritising pain/symptom control over having a positive attitude and preferring death in a hospice/palliative care unit. Those prioritising extending life had the highest home death preference of all groups. Health status did not affect priorities. Conclusions: Across all countries, extending life was prioritised by a minority, regardless of health status. Treatment and care needs to be reoriented with patient education and palliative care becoming mainstream for serious conditions such as cancer.

Context. Episodic breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom in patients with advanced disease. Still, it is not yet clearly defined. Objectives. The aim of this work was to develop an international definition, categorization, and terminology of episodic breathlessness. Methods. An online Delphi survey was conducted with international breathlessness experts. We used a structured questionnaire to identify specific aspects and reach agreement on a definition, categorization, and terminology (five-point Likert scale). Consensus was defined in advance as >= 70% agreement. Results. Thirty-one of 68 (45.6%), 29 of 67 (43.3%), and 33 of 67 (49.3%) experts responded in the first, second, and third rounds, respectively. Participants were 20-79 years old, about 60% male, and more than 75% rated their own breathlessness expertise as moderate to high. After three rounds, consensus was reached on a definition, categorization, and terminology (84.4%, 96.3%, and 92.9% agreement). The final definition includes general and qualitative aspects of the symptom, for example, time-limited severe worsening of intensity or unpleasantness of breathlessness in the patient's perception. Categories are predictable or unpredictable, depending on whether any triggers can be identified. Conclusion. There is high agreement on clinical and operational aspects of episodic breathlessness in advanced disease among international experts. The consented definition and categorization may serve as a catalyst for clinical and basic research to improve symptom control and patients' quality of life. (C) 2014 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Context. Breathlessness is a distressing symptom in advanced disease. Understanding its patterns, burden, and palliative care (PC) needs over time is important to improve patients' quality of life. Objectives. To describe and compare the courses of refractory breathlessness, functional status, distress, and PC needs in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or lung cancer (LC) over time. Methods. This was a cohort study of patients with COPD (Stage III/IV) or LC. Data were assessed monthly with up to 12 telephone interviews, using the modified Borg Scale, Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, Distress Thermometer, and Palliative care Outcome Scale as outcomes measures. Descriptive analysis compared all outcomes between COPD and LC at baseline and over time (forward from study entry and backward from death). Results. A total of 82 patients (50 COPD and 32 LC), mean (SD) age of 67.2 (7.8), and 36% female were included (8 COPD and 23 LC deceased). The patients with COPD perceived higher levels of breathlessness and distress at lower functional status steadily over time. The LC patients' breathlessness, distress, and PC needs increased, whereas functional status decreased toward death. The PC needs were similar between disease groups. Breathlessness was negatively correlated with functional status (COPD = mean r = -0.20, P = 0.012; LC = mean r = -0.277, P = 0.029) and positively correlated with PC needs in COPD patients (mean r = 0.343, P < 0.001). Death was significantly predicted by diagnosis (LC: hazard ratio = 7.84, P < 0.001) and functional status (10% decline: hazard ratio = 1.52, P = 0.001). Conclusion. The PC needs of patients with advanced COPD are comparable with LC patients, and breathlessness severity and distress are even higher. The care for COPD patients requires further improvement to address symptom burden and PC needs. (C) 2014 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

BACKGROUND: Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialized palliative care (SPC) could offer improvements. The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. DanPaCT is a multicenter, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomization. The planned sample size was 300 patients. The primary data collection for DanPaCT is finished. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for DanPaCT here.RESULTS: This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the statistical analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT. The primary outcome is the change in the patient's 'primary need'. The 'primary need' is a patient-individualised outcome representing the score of the symptom or problem that had the highest intensity out of seven at baseline assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes are the seven scales that are represented in the primary outcome, but each scale evaluated individually for all patients, and survival. The detailed description includes chosen significance levels, models for multiple imputations, sensitivity analyses and blinding. In addition, we discuss the patient-individualized primary outcome, blinding, missing data, multiplicity and the risk of bias.CONCLUSIONS: Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with metastatic cancer from a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01348048 (May 2011).

BACKGROUND: Advanced cancer patients experience considerable symptoms, problems, and needs. Early referral of these patients to specialized palliative care (SPC) could offer improvements. The Danish Palliative Care Trial (DanPaCT) investigates whether patients with metastatic cancer will benefit from being referred to 'early SPC'. DanPaCT is a multicenter, parallel-group, superiority clinical trial with 1:1 randomization. The planned sample size was 300 patients. The primary data collection for DanPaCT is finished. To prevent outcome reporting bias, selective reporting, and data-driven results, we present a detailed statistical analysis plan (SAP) for DanPaCT here.RESULTS: This SAP provides detailed descriptions of the statistical analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes in DanPaCT. The primary outcome is the change in the patient's 'primary need'. The 'primary need' is a patient-individualised outcome representing the score of the symptom or problem that had the highest intensity out of seven at baseline assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Secondary outcomes are the seven scales that are represented in the primary outcome, but each scale evaluated individually for all patients, and survival. The detailed description includes chosen significance levels, models for multiple imputations, sensitivity analyses and blinding. In addition, we discuss the patient-individualized primary outcome, blinding, missing data, multiplicity and the risk of bias.CONCLUSIONS: Only few trials have investigated the effects of SPC. To our knowledge DanPaCT is the first trial to investigate screening based 'early SPC' for patients with metastatic cancer from a broad spectrum of cancer diagnosis.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01348048 (May 2011).