Search

Context Palliative medicine (PM), still in the development phase, is a new, growing specialty aimed at caring for both oncology and non-oncology patients. There is still confusion about the training offered in the various European PM certification programs. Objectives To provide a detailed, comparative update and analysis of the PM certification process in Europe, including the different training approaches and their main features. Methods Experts from each country completed an online survey addressing historical background, program name, training requirements, length of time in training, characteristic and content, official certifying institution, effectiveness of accreditation, and 2013 workforce capacity. We prepared a comparative analysis of the data provided. Results In 2014, 18 of 53 European countries had official programs on specialization in PM (POSPM): Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and the U.K. Ten of these programs were begun in the last five years. The PM is recognized as a “specialty,” “subspecialty,” or “special area of competence,” with no substantial differences between the last two designations. The certification contains the term “palliative medicine” in most countries. Clinical training varies, with one to two years being the most frequent duration. There is a clear trend toward establishing the POSPM as a mandatory condition for obtaining a clinical PM position in countries' respective health systems. Conclusion PM is growing as a specialization field in Europe. Processes leading to certification are generally long and require substantial clinical training. The POSPM education plans are heterogeneous. The European Association for Palliative Care should commit to establishing common learning standards, leading to additional European-based recognition of expertise in PM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The COVID-19 pandemic strongly challenged healthcare workers, disrupting their work routine and impacting on their professional life. A previous investigation explored levels of burnout and psychological morbidity among palliative care professionals (PCPs) during COVID-19 first wave.Objective: To update data about burnout and psychological morbidity among PCPs after a year of COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: The same questionnaires on burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory, MBI) and psychological morbidity (General Health Questionnaire 12 items, GHQ-12) were administered a year after. Differences in MBI and GHQ-12 scores obtained in the two studies (COVID2020 and COVID2021), as well as distributions of PCPs showing burnout symptoms and psychological morbidity were analyzed and compared. We also explored the association between the three dimensions of burnout and socio-demographic and professional characteristics.Results: The sample consisted of 145 PCPs (59% physicians and 41% nurses). Response rate (70.4%) was quite similar to the previous study (73.2%). No differences were observed in the frequency of burnout between COVID2021 and COVID2020; the PCPs in COVID2021 reported marginally higher level of EE (P = .049) and this result is confirmed in physicians (P = .010) while no difference was observed in nurses (P = .326). In addition, the percentage of cases showing psychological morbidity significantly decreased.Conclusion: Our findings show stable levels of burnout and decreasing levels of psychological morbidity among PCPs one year after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, more research is needed to detail the significance of emotional exhaustion dimension, a variable influenced by the survey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current understanding of genetic factors associated with pain severity, and improvement of pain with opioids in advanced cancer patients (AC) is inadequate for delivery of personalized pain therapy (PPT). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the genetic factors associated with pain severity, daily opioid dose, and pain response in AC patients receiving supportive care.Methods: In this prospective study, AC patients were eligible if they had cancer pain ≥4/10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) - Pain Item and needed opioid rotation for pain control by specialist at the outpatient supportive care center. Association of genetic factors with pain phenotype was assessed using logistic regression models and SKATO (Gene-block) analysis.Results: About 174/178 (98%) patient samples were analyzed. After adjustment for demographic and clinical variables, pain severity was negatively associated with intron variant alleles in OPRM1 rs9322446, P = 0.02; rs2270459, P = 0.038; rs62052210, P = 0.038. Opioid daily dose was positively associated NFKBIA rs2233419, P = 0.008; rs2233417, P = 0.007; rs3138054, P = 0.008; rs1050851, P = 0.015; ORPM1 rs9479759, P = 0.046; rs2003185, P = 0.047; rs636433, P = 0.044; COMT (rs9306234, P = 0.014; rs165728, P = 0.014; rs2020917, P = 0.036; rs165728, P = 0.034); ARRB2 (rs1045280, P = 0.045); and pain response to opioids was negatively associated OPRM1 rs1319339, P = 0.024; rs34427887, P = 0.048; and COMT rs4646316, P = 0.03; rs35478083, P = 0.028, respectively. SKATO analysis showed association between pain severity and CXCL8 (P = 0.0056), and STAT6 (P = 0.0297) genes respectively, and pain response with IL-6 (P = 0.00499).Conclusions: This study identified that SNPs of OPRM1, COMT, NFKBIA, CXCL8, IL-6, STAT6, and ARRB2 genes were associated with pain severity, opioid daily dose, and pain response in AC receiving supportive care. Additional studies are needed to validate our findings for PPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Providing palliative care (PC) at home for patients with advanced cancer has become essential during the COVID-19 emergency. Nevertheless, the home PC professionals (PCPs) faced a challenging situation because of increased number of discharged patients, reduced availability of health-care facilities, and physical/relational barriers between them and patients.Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on burnout and psychological morbidity among home PCPs in Italy.Methods: One hundred and ninety-eight PC physicians and nurses working in home assistance in Italy were invited to participate. The results obtained by the investigation conducted during the COVID-19 emergency (COVID2020) were compared with data collected in 2016 in the same setting (BURNOUT2016). The questionnaires (socio-demographics, Maslach Burnout Inventory and General Health Questionnaire-12) were the same for both the surveys. The PCPs participating in COVID2020 survey (n = 145) were mostly the same (70%) who participated in the BURNOUT2016 study (n = 179).Results: One hundred and forty-five PCPs participated in the study (response rate 73.2%). During the COVID-19 emergency, home PCPs presented a lower burnout frequency (P < .001) and higher level of personal accomplishment than in 2016 (P = .047). Conversely, the risk for psychological morbidity was significantly higher during the pandemic (P < .001).Conclusions: In the age of COVID-19, the awareness of being at the forefront of containing the pandemic along with the sense of responsibility toward their high-risk patients may arouse PCPs' psychological distress, but, on the other hand, this condition may improve their sense of professional satisfaction and personal accomplishment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]