Search

Background: Resilience is an increasingly used term in medicine and subject to various definitions, often not easy to grasp. There are established core concepts for patients receiving palliative care, for example, meaning in life, that have already been researched a lot. Resilience, relative to these concepts, is a new object of research in palliative care, where it has so far been used predominantly with regard to the well-being of teams. Aim: To explore how experts in palliative care define the concept of resilience and its suitability for patients, significant others, and professionals. Design: Qualitative study using summarizing content analysis according to Mayring. Setting/participants: Twenty-one health and social care professionals with expertise caring for persons with life-threatening/limiting illnesses and their relatives were interviewed in three individual interviews and four focus groups. All conversations were recorded, transcribed, coded via MAXQDA, and validated by another researcher. Results: Resilience has been described as something procedural, dynamic, individual, and flexible. In connection with well-known concepts such as posttraumatic growth or terms from the field of mindfulness, social environment or personal factors have also been linked to resilience. Resources such as spirituality can contribute to resilience, and resilience itself can function as a resource, for example, by contributing to quality of life. An active use of the term in practical work with patients or relatives is rare, but it is used in education or team measures. Limited lifespan can pose a challenge to an active use of the concept of resilience. Conclusion: Resilience as a very individual approach provides added value to other core concepts of palliative care. Within the palliative context, the normative dimension of resilience must be well reflected. A broader definition of resilience is recommended, leaving room for everyone to find their own form of resilience. The concept of resilience in palliative care includes opportunities as well as risks and should, therefore, be implemented carefully, requiring specific training. Plain language summary: What experts think about resilience in palliative care Why was this study done? Resilience is described as a process of coping with stress or adversity while remaining physically and mentally functional. Resilience is subject to a range of definitions. In the context of palliative care, where many other concepts, such as meaning in life, are already used, the definition of resilience also represents a challenge. We wanted to learn how people working in palliative care, defined by us as experts, understand and use the concept of resilience. In addition, there are three different target groups for resilience: patients, significant others and professionals. We wanted to learn about the differences in the application of resilience to these groups. What did the researchers do? We conducted interviews with a total of 21 experts in individual and group settings (so-called focus groups). All interviews and focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim to analyse them precisely using qualitative methods. What did the researchers find? This study shows how resilience is understood in the work field of the participants: namely as something procedural, dynamic, individual and flexible but normative at the same time. Factors such as the social environment, the number and intensity of crises already experienced (known as the idea of posttraumatic growth), aspects from the field of mindfulness or spirituality can contribute to developing resilience, which is why we call these things resources for resilience. Experts use the term resilience less in their daily work with patients or significant others, but more in education. What do the findings mean? The concept of resilience in palliative care involves both risks and opportunities. Practical work with the concept has to be well reflected and must be applied sensitively. Therefore, it is essential that professional as well as informal caregivers receive specific training that also includes respect for each individual's personal concept of resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Objectives: Fatigue is a frequent and burdensome symptom in patients with advanced disease in palliative care. However, it is under-assessed and undertreated in clinical practice, even though many treatment options have been identified in systematic reviews. Care pathways with defined and standardised steps have been recommended for effective management in the clinical setting. This paper describes a care pathway for managing fatigue in palliative care patients. This study aims to develop a care pathway with detailed guidance for screening, assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of fatigue in palliative care patients. Material and methods: A collaborative effort of multidisciplinary clinicians participated in constructing the care pathway. The care pathway was developed using the following steps: (a) Developing an intervention; (b) piloting and feasibility; (c) evaluating the intervention; (d) reporting; and (e) implementation. This paper covers the first step, which includes the evidence base identification, theory identification/development, and process/outcomes modeling. A literature search was conducted to understand the extent of the fatigue problem in the palliative care setting and identify existing guidelines and strategies for managing fatigue. Consistent recommendations emanating from the included papers were then contributed to a care pathway. Patient representatives and palliative care professionals provided feedback on the draft. Results: The care pathway address the following care processes: (1) Screening for the presence of fatigue; (2) assessment to evaluate the severity of fatigue; (3) diagnostic procedure, including history, physical examination, and laboratory finding; (4) therapeutic management pathway for clinical decision- making; and (5) valuation of treatment effect, using questionnaires, diaries and physical activity monitoring with body-worn sensors. Conclusion: The development of a care pathway will help to implement regular and structured assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of fatigue for healthcare professionals treating palliative care patients. Reviewing the pathway with a multidisciplinary expert group and field testing the pathway will be the next steps toward implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to improve the quality of their content and the applicability of their recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers. Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care. Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance directives (ADs) are assumed to reflect the patients' preferences, even if these are not clearly expressed. Research into whether this assumption is correct has been lacking. This study explores to what extent ADs reflect the true wishes of the signatories. Methods Semi-structured interviews (INT), pretest. Transcribed INT and the contents of ADs were inductively categorised (Mayring) and triangulated. Software: MAXQDA 2007. Participants: Patients receiving palliative care (PPC), healthy (H) and chronically ill (CI) individuals with an AD completed .3 months prior to recruitment. Results Between 08/2008 and 07/2009, 53 individuals (20 H, 17 CI, 16 PPC) were interviewed (mean age 63.2 years (55.70 years)), 34% male). Most important (in)consistencies between preferences as expressed in INT compared to ADs included preconditions for termination/rejection of life-sustaining measures, refusal of/demand for medical interventions and the nomination of proxies. Standardized AD forms were rarely tailored to the individual. We found a high tendency to use set phrases, such as want to die with dignity or do not want to suffer/vegetate. Likely events in the course of an existing progressive disease were not covered, even in ADs of PPC close to death. Conclusions Only some of the incongruities between verbally expressed preferences and the contents of the AD can be put down to use of standardized forms or lack of medical knowledge. Nevertheless, the non-involvement of a doctor in the process of making an AD must be seen as potentially problematic and seeking medical advice should be promoted by politics and physicians. Standardised forms should encourage amendments and present space for free text entries for all aspects covered. Set phrases need to be defined by the individual to enable them to be translated into a specific course of action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There is a growing consensus worldwide that palliative care needs to be both more inclusive of conditions other than cancer and to improve. This paper explores some common challenges currently faced by professionals providing palliative care for patients with either cancer or dementia across five countries. Method: One focus group (n = 7) and 67 interviews were conducted in 2012 across five countries: England, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway, with professionals from dementia, cancer and palliative care settings. Results: The interviews revealed five common challenges faced across the five countries: communication difficulties (between services; and between professionals, and patients and their families); the variable extent of structural/functional integration of services; the difficulties in funding of palliative care services; problematic processes of care (boundaries, definitions, knowledge, skills and inclusiveness) and, finally, time constraints. Conclusion: These are not problems distinct to palliative care, but they may have different origins and explanations compared to other areas of health care. This paper explored deeper themes hidden behind a discourse about barriers and facilitators to improving care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the Seismic Shift in End-of-Life Care: Palliative Care Challenges in the Era of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), describes the palliative care challenges in the era of MAiD. Topics include assisted suicide has no criminal offence in the German penal code, physicians have not allowed to assist with suicide from professional code; and the court ruling has provided some ethical dilemma.

Background: According to EU policy, anyone in need of palliative care should be able to have access to it. It is therefore important to investigate which palliative care topics are subject to legislation and regulations in Europe and how these are implemented in (national) health care plans. This paper aims to deliver a structured overview of the legislation, existing regulations and the different health care policies regarding palliative care in seven European countries. Methods: In 2008 an inventory of the organisation of palliative care was developed by the researchers of the Europall project. Included were two open questions about legislation, regulations, and health policy in palliative care. This questionnaire was completed using palliative care experts selected from Belgium, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Additionally, (grey) literature on palliative care health policy and regulations from the participating countries was collected to complete the inventory. Comparative analysis of country specific information was performed afterwards. Results: In all countries palliative care regulations and policies existed (either in laws, royal decrees, or national policies). An explicit right to palliative care was mentioned in the Belgium, French and German law. In addition, access to palliative care was mentioned by all countries, varying from explicit regulations to policy intentions in national plans. Also, all countries had a national policy on palliative care, although sometimes mainly related to national cancer plans. Differences existed in policy regarding palliative care leave, advance directives, national funding, palliative care training, research, opioids and the role of volunteers. Conclusions: Although all included European countries have policies on palliative care, countries largely differ in the presence of legislation and regulations on palliative care as well as the included topics. European healthcare policy recommendations should support palliative care access across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article assesses the potential of drug-based treatments for constipation in palliative care. The study evaluated the present therapy guideline recommendations in terms of efficacy and safety of laxative use for treating constipation, along with the social acceptability of other constipation treatment options like naloxone and methynatrexone. Results showed that methylnaltrexone was discovered to be a reliable treatment against constipation and side effects in palliative care patients.

Background: Palliative care for people with dementia is often sub-optimal. This is partly because of the challenging nature of dementia itself, and partly because of system failings that are particularly salient in primary care and community services. There is a need to systematize palliative care for people with dementia, to clarify where changes in practice could be made. To develop a model of palliative care for people with dementia that captures commonalities and differences across Europe, a technology development approach was adopted, using mixed methods including 1) critical synthesis of the research literature and policy documents, 2) interviews with national experts in policy, service organisation, service delivery, patient and carer interests, and research in palliative care, and 3) nominal groups of researchers tasked with synthesising data and modelling palliative care. Discussion: A generic model of palliative care, into which quality indicators can be embedded. The proposed model includes features deemed important for the systematisation of palliative care for people with dementia. These are: the division of labour amongst practitioners of different disciplines; the structure and function of care planning; the management of rising risk and increasing complexity; boundaries between disease-modifying treatment and palliative care and between palliative and end-of-life care; and the process of bereavement. Summary: The co-design approach to developing a generic model of palliative care for people with dementia has placed the person needing palliative care within a landscape of services and professional disciplines. This model will be explored further in the intervention phase of the IMPACT project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Due to the ageing of the European population, the burden of non-acute dying on society is expected to increase. The aim of this study is to estimate the number of persons dying of cancer and chronic disease in Europe, including regional differences. Methods Death certificates of deceased persons in the European Union (EU)-27 countries in 2007 (some countries 2006 or 2004) were analysed and primary death causes were listed. These data were prepared for the general population and for the population of 65 years and older. Crude death rates (CDRs) were calculated for both groups and for all included countries. Results Of 480 million deceased European people, 202 million died of cancer and chronic disease in 2007 (42%). The CDR of the EU-27 countries was 409 (95% CI 370 to 451) for cancer and other chronic diseases per 100 000 inhabitants in 2007. For the 65+ population, the CDR for the EU-27 was 1783 (95% CI 1701 to 1868) for cancer and chronic disease. Large differences across countries appeared. An inverse relationship was shown for country- specific CDRs for cancer and chronic disease versus CDRs for other death causes (R=-0.41; p=0.04). Conclusions Dying of cancer and chronic diseases involves a considerable burden on the European society. Future research should relate this information to the prevalence of symptoms and the use of palliative care services. European policy makers should take into account regional variations in developing long- and short- term palliative care strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the practice of palliative sedation (PS) in Germany. This paper presents an analysis of sedation-related data obtained from the German standardized core documentation system (HOPE) for palliative care patients. Methods: HOPE was complemented by an optional module on ethical decision making (EDM) which was pretested in 2004, data was collected in 2005-6 during the annual 3-month census. Data was analyzed descriptively from palliative care units (PCU - representative) and inpatient hospice (H - non-representative control group). Chi2 test was used to test for differences between the reported data per item and year within one kind of setting (significance level p ≤ 0.05). Free-text entries were categorized inductively. Results: Datasets were obtained for 1,944 patients (P) with EDM. PS was performed in 13.0/11.8% (2005/2006) P in palliative care units (PCU) and 25.5/22.9% in hospices (H). Main reasons for PS in PCU were dyspnea, pain, fear or anxiety, in H reasons were inconsistent, high prevalence of psychosocial reasons. Most PS in PCU and about half of the PS in H were intermittent. Sedated P were younger than non-sedated. Only 7 P received PS after asking for euthanasia. The most used medication was midazolam. Conclusions: This study reveals a first insight into the use and practice of PS in German PCU and H. For a more detailed systematic survey into the course of decision-making and procedures, a new complementary optional module on PS is being developed by the HOPE group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family carers manage a wide range of responsibilities in the lives and care of patients receiving palliative care. They fulfil multiple roles and perform activities within different settings. This has immediate consequences on family carers’ every-day lives. According to literature, family carers in palliative care are both part of the formal and informal care network, but also persons in need of support. This article aims to investigate 1) burdens and rewards associated with family caregiving and 2) what family carers find helpful in their contact with professionals from integrated palliative care initiatives (IPC-i) and other services. Methods: Family carers looking after patients with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic heart failure were purposefully recruited at 22 IPC-i in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in the course of the project “Patient-centred palliative care pathways in advanced cancer and chronic disease” (InSup-C). Semi-structured interviews (n = 156) and 87 quantitative questionnaires (CRA, POS, CANHELP Lite) were conducted with family carers. Interviews were analysed with transnationally agreed thematic codes (MAXQDA or NVivo). Statistical tests (SPSS) were carried out in accordance with the characteristic value of the items and distributions. Results: On average, quantitative data showed moderate burden, but the qualitative findings indicated that this burden might be underrated. There is some evidence that IPC-i with well-developed professional care networks and communication systems relieved family carers’ burden by direct and indirect interventions; e.g. provision of night shift nurses or psychological support. Needs of family carers were similar in all participating countries. However, in all countries IPC-i mostly offered one-off events for family carers, lacking systematic or institutionalised support structures. Conclusions: Data suggest that, most IPC-i did not pay enough attention to the needs of most family carers, and did not offer proactive care and access to supportive resources to them (e.g. training, respite care, access to resources). We recommend recognizing family carers as part of the ‘unit of care’ and partner in caregiving, to improve their knowledge about, and access to, and the support available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: According to EU policy, anyone in need of palliative care should be able to have access to it. It is therefore important to investigate which palliative care topics are subject to legislation and regulations in Europe and how these are implemented in (national) health care plans. This paper aims to deliver a structured overview of the legislation, existing regulations and the different health care policies regarding palliative care in seven European countries.Methods: In 2008 an inventory of the organisation of palliative care was developed by the researchers of the Europall project. Included were two open questions about legislation, regulations, and health policy in palliative care. This questionnaire was completed using palliative care experts selected from Belgium, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Additionally, (grey) literature on palliative care health policy and regulations from the participating countries was collected to complete the inventory. Comparative analysis of country specific information was performed afterwards.Results: In all countries palliative care regulations and policies existed (either in laws, royal decrees, or national policies). An explicit right to palliative care was mentioned in the Belgium, French and German law. In addition, access to palliative care was mentioned by all countries, varying from explicit regulations to policy intentions in national plans. Also, all countries had a national policy on palliative care, although sometimes mainly related to national cancer plans. Differences existed in policy regarding palliative care leave, advance directives, national funding, palliative care training, research, opioids and the role of volunteers.Conclusions: Although all included European countries have policies on palliative care, countries largely differ in the presence of legislation and regulations on palliative care as well as the included topics. European healthcare policy recommendations should support palliative care access across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care., Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers., Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care., Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care.