Search

Background: The PACE Steps to Success programme is a complex educational and development intervention to improve palliative care in nursing homes. Little research has investigated processes in the cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of interventions in palliative care across countries, taking account of differences in health and social care systems, legal and regulatory policies, and cultural norms. This paper describes a framework for the cross-cultural development and support necessary to implement such an intervention, taking the PACE Steps to Success programme as an exemplar.Methods: The PACE Steps to Success programme was implemented as part of the PACE cluster randomised control trial in seven European countries. A three stage approach was used, a) preparation of resources; b) training in the intervention using a train-the-trainers model; and c) cascading support throughout the implementation. All stages were underpinned by cross-cultural adaptation, including recognising legal and cultural norms, sensitivities and languages. This paper draws upon collated evidence from minutes of international meetings, evaluations of training delivered, interviews with those delivering the intervention in nursing homes and providing and/or receiving support.Results: Seventy eight nursing homes participated in the trial, with half randomized to receive the intervention, 3638 nurses/care assistants were identified at baseline. In each country, 1-3 trainers were selected (total n = 16) to deliver the intervention. A framework was used to guide the cross-cultural adaptation and implementation. Adaptation of three English training resources for different groups of staff consisted of simplification of content, identification of validated implementation tools, a review in 2 nursing homes in each country, and translation into local languages. The same training was provided to all country trainers who cascaded it into intervention nursing homes in local languages, and facilitated it via in-house PACE coordinators. Support was cascaded from country trainers to staff implementing the intervention.Conclusions: There is little guidance on how to adapt complex interventions developed in one country and language to international contexts. This framework for cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of a complex educational and development intervention may be useful to others seeking to transfer quality improvement initiatives in other contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The provision of high-quality palliative care in nursing homes (NHs) is a major challenge and places demands on the knowledge and skills of the staff. Aim: This study assesses the palliative care knowledge of staff in NHs in Europe. Design: Cross-sectional study using structured survey. Setting/participants: Nurses and care assistants working in 322 representative samples of NHs in Belgium, the Netherlands, England, Finland, Poland and Italy. Palliative care knowledge is measured with the Palliative Care Survey. Scores on the scales range between 0 and 1; higher scores indicate more knowledge. Results: A total of 3392 NH-staff were given a questionnaire, and 2275 responded (67%). Knowledge of basic palliative care issues ranged between 0.20 in Poland (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19; 0.24) and 0.61 in Belgium (95% CI 0.59; 0.63), knowledge of physical aspects that can contribute to pain ranged between 0.81 in Poland (95% CI 0.79; 0.84) and 0.91 in the Netherlands (95% CI 0.89; 0.93), and knowledge of psychological reasons that can contribute to pain ranged between 0.56 in England (95% CI 0.50; 0.62) and 0.87 in Finland (95% CI 0.83; 0.90). Factors associated with knowledge were country, professional role and having undertaken formal training in palliative care. Conclusions: Knowledge of nurses and care assistants concerning basic palliative care issues appears to be suboptimal in all participating countries, although there is substantial heterogeneity. Education of nursing staff needs to be improved across, but each country may require its own strategy to address the unique and specific knowledge gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Pain assessment and monitoring is a prerequisite for its adequate treatment in patients with cancer. We performed a feasibility study on the use of short message service ( SMS) and interactive voice response ( IVR) to improve pain management in patients with cancer, including terminally ill patients. Methods During 4 weeks, palliative patients received a daily IVR asking to provide their pain score on a numeric rating scale ( NRS) with their mobile phone. If pain was moderate or high, the nurse contacted the patient the same day and, if required, adapted the treatment. Results Thirteen of the 17 invited patients agreed to participate (79%), four died during the study period. IVR/ SMS provides a reliable assessment of the pain intensity, and if required, treatment can be rapidly adapted. All patients were satisfied with the intervention. There were no difficulties for the, mainly older, patients in handling this communication way on pain intensity. The mean pain score decreased from 4.78 to 3.33 ( P = 0.07). The pain scale of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire ( EORTC QLQ-C30) decreased significantly from 56 to 35 ( P = 0.047). Discussion Monitoring and managing pain with IVR/ SMS in patients with cancer at home appeared acceptable and feasible, even in terminally ill patients. The reluctance for actively contacting the professional in case of increased pain intensity is circumvented in this setting. Further research, preferably in a controlled study, is needed to establish the use of this intervention in a larger patient population. [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]

Objective In Europe, volunteers have an important role in the delivery of palliative care. As part of the EU co-funded Europall project, 4 aspects of volunteering in palliative care were studied for 7 European countries (Belgium, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain). These included (1) involvement of volunteers in palliative care, (2) organization of palliative care volunteering, (3) legal regulations concerning volunteering, and (4) education and training of palliative care volunteering. Design/Setting/Methods A literature search combined with an interview study. Information from the scientific literature, and country-specific policy documents were obtained and completed, along with data of consecutive semi-structured interviews with experts in the field of palliative care in the participating countries. Results In all countries, volunteers appeared to be involved in palliative care, yet their involvement across health care settings differed per country. England, for example, has the highest number of volunteers whereas Spain has the lowest number. Volunteering is embedded in law and regulations in all participating countries except for England and the Netherlands. In all participating countries, training programs are available and volunteers are organized, both on a national and a regional level. Conclusion This study provides a descriptive overview of volunteer work in palliative care in 7 European countries, with a focus on the organizational aspects. Further research should concentrate on the roles and responsibilities of volunteers in the care for the terminally ill in different European health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which evaluates the reliability and feasibility of a set of quality indicators (QIs) in palliative care settings and services across Europe. Among the methods used are descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and analysis of variance. It shows that the set of QIs seemed to measure four reliable domains including equipment and continuity of care, personnel training and appraisal, and availability of controlled drugs.

Background: Large numbers of vulnerable patients are in need of palliative cancer and dementia care. However, a wide gap exists between the knowledge of best practices in palliative care and their use in everyday clinical practice. As part of a European policy improvement program, quality indicators(QIs) have been developed to monitor and improve the organisation of palliative care for patients with cancer and those with dementia in various settings in different European countries. Method: A multidisciplinary, international panel of professionals participated in a modified RAND Delphi procedure to compose a set of palliative care QIs based on existing sets of QIs on the organisation of palliative care. Panellists participated in three written rounds, one feedback round and one meeting. The panel's median votes were used to identify the final set of QIs. Results: The Delphi procedure resulted in 23 useful QIs. These QIs represent key elements of the organisation of good clinical practice, such as the availability of palliative care teams, the availability of special facilities to provide palliative care for patients and their relatives, and the presence of educational interventions for professionals. The final set also includes QIs that are related to the process of palliative care, such as documentation of pain and other symptoms, communication with patients in need of palliative care and their relatives, and end-of-life decisions. Conclusion: International experts selected a set of 23 QIs for the organisation of palliative care. Although we particularly focused on the organisation of cancer and dementia palliative care, most QIs are generic and are applicable for other types of diseases as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background Neuropathic pain is a prevalent symptom in patients with cancer, which needs a more specific algorithm than nociceptive pain or neuropathic pain from other origin. Clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) can be helpful in optimizing the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. Methods In this study, 9 national CPGs in Europe on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year, and type of publication) were compared between CPGs. Results Nine CPGs including recommendations on neuropathic pain could be selected and were assessed. In total, they used 149 references of which 72 (48%) were about cancer conditions, 39 (26%) about neuropathic pain, and only 3 about neuropathic pain in patients with cancer (2%). Only 28 (19%) references were shared between 2 or more guidelines. There was only one shared reference specifically related to cancer neuropathic pain. Recommendations and their evidence grading strongly differ between CPGs. Conclusion This work demonstrates an important heterogeneity between European recommendations on diagnosis and assessment of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. The main weaknesses are the low level of evidence and the absence of specific data focusing on neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. We recommend that physicians dealing with neuropathic pain in patients with cancer should be specially trained, that a specific methodology to develop CPGs should followed, and that specific research should be developed on the diagnosis of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Between 19% and 39% of patients with cancer pain suffer from neuropathic pain. Its diagnosis and treatment is still challenging. Yet, national clinical practice guidelines ( CPGs) have been developed in several European countries to assist practitioners in managing these patients safely and legally. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of the development and reporting of these CPGs. Methods In collaboration with the European Federation of IASP Chapters, a European inventory of CPGs was conducted. Inclusion criteria were at least one paragraph dedicated to the treatment of neuropathic pain in cancer. Using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II instrument, 2 appraisers independently assessed the quality of the development process of the included CPGs in 6 quality domains. Besides, CPGs developed by governmental organization were compared with those developed by professional societies using t-tests. Results Mean scores of the domains 'scope and purpose' (80%) and 'clarity of presentation' (61%) were satisfactory, 'stakeholder involvement' (58%), 'rigor of development' (57%), and 'editorial independence' (53%) were acceptable, and 'applicability' was insufficient (39%). Governmental guidelines had higher quality scores than professional society guidelines for domain 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' ( P < 0.01). Conclusions The quality of the development process of the 9 included CPGs varied widely. CPGs should be developed within a structured guideline program, including methodological support. As developing a CPG is expensive and time-consuming, we recommend more international cooperation to increase quality and lower the development costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Background: Several studies have highlighted the need for improvement in palliative care delivered to older people long-term care facilities. However, the available evidence on how to improve palliative care in these settings is weak, especially in Europe. We describe the protocol of the PACE trial aimed to 1) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ palliative care intervention for older people in long-term care facilities, and 2) assess the implementation process and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation in different countries. Methods: We will conduct a multi-facility cluster randomised controlled trial in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and England. In total, 72 facilities will be randomized to receive the ‘Pace Steps to Success intervention’ or to ‘care as usual’. Primary outcome at resident level: quality of dying (CAD-EOLD); and at staff level: staff knowledge of palliative care (Palliative Care Survey). Secondary outcomes: resident’s quality of end-of-life care, staff self-efficacy, self-perceived educational needs, and opinions on palliative care. Economic outcomes: direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Measurements are performed at baseline and after the intervention. For the resident-level outcomes, facilities report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over a previous four-month period and structured questionnaires are sent to (1) the administrator, (2) staff member most involved in care (3) treating general practitioner, and (4) a relative. For the staff-level outcomes, all staff who are working in the facilities are asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A process evaluation will run alongside the effectiveness evaluation in the intervention group using the RE-AIM framework. Discussion: The lack of high quality trials in palliative care has been recognized throughout the field of palliative care research. This cross-national cluster RCT designed to evaluate the impact of the palliative care intervention for long-term care facilities ‘PACE Steps to Success’ in seven countries, will provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness as well as the preconditions for optimal implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, and this within different health care systems. Trial registration: The study is registered at www.isrctn.com – ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) Registration date: July 30, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine how relatives evaluate the quality of communication with the treating physician of a dying resident in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and to assess its differences between countries. A cross-sectional retrospective study in a representative sample of LTCFs conducted in 2015. Relatives of residents who died during the previous 3 months were sent a questionnaire. 761 relatives of deceased residents in 241 LTCFs in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland. The Family Perception of Physician-Family Communication (FPPFC) scale (ratings from 0 to 3, where 3 means the highest quality) was used to retrospectively assess how the quality of end-of-life communication with treating physicians was perceived by relatives. We applied multilevel linear and logistic regression models to assess differences between countries and LTCF types. The FPPFC score was the lowest in Finland (1.4 ± 0.8) and the highest in Italy (2.2 ± 0.7). In LTCFs served by general practitioners, the FPPFC score differed between countries, but did not in LTCFs with on-site physicians. Most relatives reported that they were well informed about a resident's general condition (from 50.8% in Finland to 90.6% in Italy) and felt listened to (from 53.1% in Finland to 84.9% in Italy) and understood by the physician (from 56.7% in Finland to 85.8% in Italy). In most countries, relatives assessed the worst communication as being about the resident's wishes for medical treatment at the end of life, with the lowest rate of satisfied relatives in Finland (37.6%). The relatives' perception of the quality of end-of-life communication with physicians differs between countries. However, in all countries, physicians' communication needs to be improved, especially regarding resident's wishes for medical care at the end of life. Training in end-of-life communication to physicians providing care for LTCF residents is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of people in their last years of life with advanced chronic conditions, palliative care needs, and limited life prognosis due to different causes including multi-morbidity, organ failure, frailty, dementia, and cancer is rising. Such people represent more than 1% of the population. They are present in all care settings, cause around 75% of mortality, and may account for up to one-third of total national health system spend. The response to their needs is usually late and largely based around institutional palliative care focused on cancer. There is a great need to identify these patients and integrate an early palliative approach according to their individual needs in all settings, as suggested by the World Health Organization. Several tools have recently been developed in different European regions to identify patients with chronic conditions who might benefit from palliative care. Similarly, several models of integrated palliative care have been developed, some with a public health approach to promote access to all in need. We describe the characteristics of these initiatives and suggest how to develop a comprehensive and integrated palliative approach in primary and hospital care and to design public health and community-oriented practices to assess and respond to the needs in the whole population. Additionally, we report ethical challenges and prognostic issues raised and emphasize the need for research to test the various tools and models to generate evidence about the benefits of these approaches to patients, their families, and to the health system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PACE 'Steps to Success' programme is a complex educational and development intervention for staff to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this programme has been implemented in 37 LTCFs in 7 European countries. Alongside an effectiveness study, a process evaluation study was conducted. This paper reports on the results of this process evaluation, of which the aim was to provide a more detailed understanding of the implementation of the PACE Programme across and within countries., Methods: The process evaluation followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and involved various measures and tools, including diaries for country trainers, evaluation questionnaires for care staff, attendance lists and interviews (online and face-to-face, individual and in groups) with country trainers, managers, PACE coordinators and other staff members. Based on key elements of the PACE Programme, a priori criteria for a high, medium and low level of the RE-AIM components Reach, Adoption, Implementation and intention to Maintenance were defined. Qualitative data on factors affecting each RE-AIM component gathered in the online discussion groups and interviews were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis., Results: The performance of the PACE Programme on the RE-AIM components was highly variable within and across countries, with a high or medium score for in total 28 (out of 37) LTCFs on Reach, for 26 LTCFs on Adoption, for 35 LTCFs on Implementation and for 34 LTCFs on intention to Maintenance. The factors affecting performance on the different RE-AIM components could be classified into three major categories: (1) the PACE Programme itself and its way of delivery, (2) people working with the PACE Programme and (3) contextual factors. Several country-specific challenges in implementing the PACE Programme were identified., Conclusions: The implementation of the PACE Programme was feasible but leaves room for improvement. Our analysis helps to better understand the optimal levels of training and facilitation and provides recommendations to improve implementation in the LTC setting. The results of the process evaluation will be used to further adapt and improve the PACE Programme prior to its further dissemination., Trial Registration: The PACE study was registered at www.isrctn.com-ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) July 30, 2015.

Background: Nursing homes are among the most common places of death in many countries., Aim: To determine the quality of dying and end-of-life care of nursing home residents in six European countries., Design: Epidemiological survey in a proportionally stratified random sample of nursing homes. We identified all deaths of residents of the preceding 3-month period. Main outcomes: quality of dying in the last week of life (measured using End-of-Life in Dementia Scales - Comfort Assessment while Dying (EOLD-CAD)); quality of end-of-life care in the last month of life (measured using Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care (QoD-LTC) scale). Higher scores indicate better quality., Setting/participants: Three hundred and twenty-two nursing homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and England. Participants were staff (nurses or care assistants) most involved in each resident's care., Results: Staff returned questionnaires regarding 1384 (81.6%) of 1696 deceased residents. The End-of-Life in Dementia Scales - Comfort Assessment while Dying mean score (95% confidence interval) (theoretical 14-42) ranged from 29.9 (27.6; 32.2) in Italy to 33.9 (31.5; 36.3) in England. The Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care mean score (95% confidence interval) (theoretical 11-55) ranged from 35.0 (31.8; 38.3) in Italy to 44.1 (40.7; 47.4) in England. A higher End-of-Life in Dementia Scales - Comfort Assessment while Dying score was associated with country ( p = 0.027), older age ( p = 0.012), length of stay ⩾1 year ( p = 0.034), higher functional status ( p < 0.001). A higher Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care score was associated with country ( p < 0.001), older age ( p < 0.001), length of stay ⩾1 year ( p < 0.001), higher functional status ( p = 0.002), absence of dementia ( p = 0.001), death in nursing home ( p = 0.033)., Conclusion: The quality of dying and quality of end-of-life care in nursing homes in the countries studied are not optimal. This includes countries with high levels of palliative care development in nursing homes such as Belgium, the Netherlands and England.

Background: An ageing population in the EU leads to a higher need of long-term institutional care at the end of life. At the same time, healthcare costs rise while resources remain limited. Consequently, an urgency to extend our knowledge on factors affecting efficiency of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) arises. This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In this study, technical efficiency reflects the LTCFs' ability to obtain maximal quality of life (QoL) and quality of dying (QoD) for residents from a given set of resource inputs (personnel and capacity)., Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected by means of questionnaires on deceased residents identified by LTCFs over a three-month period. An output-oriented data-envelopment analysis (DEA) was performed, producing efficiency scores, incorporating personnel and capacity as input and QoL and QoD as output. Scenario analysis was conducted. Regression analysis was performed on explanatory (country, LTCF type, ownership, availability of palliative care and opioids) and case mix (disease severity) variables., Results: 133 LTCFs of only one type (onsite nurses and offsite GPs) were considered in order to reduce heterogeneity. Variation in LTCF efficiency was found across as well as within countries. This variation was not explained by country, ownership, availability of palliative care or opioids. However, in the 'hands-on care at the bedside' scenario, i.e. only taking into account nursing and care assistants as input, Poland (p = 0.00) and Finland (p = 0.04) seemed to be most efficient., Conclusions: Efficiency of LTCFs differed extensively across as well as within countries, indicating room for considerable efficiency improvement. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously, as comprehensive comparative EU-wide research is challenging as it is influenced by many factors., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Objectives: Although a growing number of older people are dying in care homes, palliative care has developed in these settings only recently. Cross-country representative comparative research hardly exists in this area. As part of a large EU-funded project, we aim to undertake representative comparative research in care homes in Europe, to describe and compare 6 countries in terms of (1) resident outcomes, quality and costs of palliative and end-of-life care; and (2) palliative care structures and staff knowledge and attitudes toward palliative care. We also aim to explore country, facility, staff, patient, and care characteristics related to better outcomes at resident level., Design and Methods: To obtain a representative nationwide sample, we will conduct a large-scale cross-sectional study of deceased residents in care homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom, using proportional stratified random sampling (taking into account region, facility type and bed capacity). In each country, all participating care homes retrospectively report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over the previous 3-month period. For each case, structured questionnaires, including validated instruments, are sent to (1) the administrator/manager, (2) staff member most involved in care, (3) treating physician (general practitioner or elderly care physician), and (4) a closely involved relative. It is estimated that, per country, 50 care homes are needed on average to obtain a minimum of 200 deceased residents. Collected data include clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, quality of dying, quality and costs of palliative care and end-of-life care, and palliative care structures at the facility level and country level. To obtain a representative view of staff knowledge and attitudes regarding palliative care, PACE will conduct a cross-sectional study of staff working in the participating care homes., Conclusion: Considering the growing challenges associated with aging in all European countries, there is an urgent need to build a robust international comparative evidence base that can inform the development of policies to target improved palliative care in care homes. By describing this research protocol, we hope to inform international research in care homes on how to perform representative end-of-life care research in these settings and better understand which systems are associated with better outcomes., (Copyright © 2016 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is a common symptom, present in 39% of the patients with cancer pain. Treating this type of pain is challenging, as this patient group is often frail and has comorbidities which increase the risk of side events and hence influences their quality of life. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can be helpful for clinicians, especially when scientific evidence is uncertain or weak. In this study, we focused on the quality of the review of the literature used in treatment recommendations in the selected European CPGs., Methods: In a previous study, 9 CPGs from European countries that contained at least one paragraph on treatment for neuropathic pain in cancer were included. Recommendations with their grade (according SIGN 55 classification) and supporting literature (first author, patients' population, year and type of publication) were compared between CPGs., Results: In all CPGs, amitriptylin was mentioned as the drug of first choice. Six guidelines proposed also gabapentinoids. Only 30 of the 163 citations (18%) were based on studies in patients with cancer. Seven CPGs did not argue the indirect evidence due to extrapolation of study results from non-cancer to patients with cancer., Conclusion: The majority of guideline development groups extrapolated their results from non-cancer publications to formulate recommendations. Consequently, these guidelines fail to address important issues such as altered kinetics and side effect profiles in these patients. We recommend creating specific recommendations by an international expert group for the treatment for neuropathic pain in patients with cancer supported by targeted research in patients with cancer., (© 2013 The Authors Pain Practice © 2013 World Institute of Pain.)

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.

Purpose: The Maturity Matrix is a tool designed in the U.K. to assess family practice organisational development and to stimulate quality improvement. It is practice-led, formative and undertaken by a practice team with the help of trained facilitators. The aim of this study is to assess the Maturity Matrix as a tool and an organisational development measure in European family practice settings., Design/methodology/approach: Using a convenience sample of 153 practices and 11 facilitators based in the U.K., Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and Slovenia, feasibility was assessed against six criteria: completion; coverage; distribution; scaling; translation; and missing data. Information sources were responses to evaluation questionnaires by facilitators and completed Maturity Matrix profiles., Findings: All practices taking part completed the Maturity Matrix sessions successfully. The Netherlands, the U.K. and Germany site staff suggested including additional dimensions: interface between primary and secondary care; access; and management of expendable materials. Maturity Matrix scores were normally distributed in each country. Scaling properties, translation and missing data suggested that the following dimensions are most robust across the participating countries: clinical performance audit; prescribing; meetings; and continuing professional development. Practice size did not make a significant difference to the Maturity Matrix profile scores., Originality/value: The study suggests that the Maturity Matrix is a feasible and valuable tool, helping practices to review organisational development as it relates to healthcare quality. Future research should focus on developing dimensions that are generic across European primary care settings.

Background: Effective practice management is an important prerequisite for offering good clinical care. Internationally valid, reliable and feasible indicators and instruments are needed to describe and compare the management of primary care practices in Europe., Objective: This paper describes development and evaluation of the European Practice Assessment instrument and indicators (Engels Y, Campbell S, Dautzenberg M et al. Developing a framework of, and quality indicators for, general practice management in Europe. Fam Pract 2005; 22(2): 215-22)., Methods: The study design was a validation and feasibility study set in 273 general practices in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland and the UK. Use was made of a set of 62 valid quality indicators derived previously from an international Delphi procedure. The EPA instrument, based on this set of indicators, was used to collect data in the 273 practices. This instrument consists of self-completed questionnaires for doctors, staff managers and patients. In addition, there is an interview schedule for use by an outreach visitor, to be held with the lead GP or manager, and a visitor checklist. The instrument was analysed using expert review by the project partners, factor and reliability analyses, ANOVA analyses and by determining intraclass correlations., Results: Fifty-seven indicators were found to be valid, feasible, reliable and discriminative in all participating countries. The instrument was able to determine differences in practice management within and between countries. All (but one) practices completed the assessment procedure. The data collection method appeared to be feasible, although some aspects can be improved., Conclusion: The EPA instrument provides feedback to practices that facilitates quality improvement and can compare primary care practices on a national and an international level.

Objectives: To develop a framework for general practice management made up of quality indicators shared by six European countries., Methods: Two-round postal Delphi questionnaire in the setting of general practice in Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Six national expert panels, each consisting of 10 members, primarily primary care practitioners and experts in the field of quality in primary care participated in the study. The main outcome measures were: (a) a European framework with indicators for the organization of primary care; and (b) ratings of the face validity of the usefulness of the indicators by expert panels in six countries., Results: Agreement was reached about a definition of practice management across five domains (infrastructure, staff, information, finance, and quality and safety), and a common set of indicators for the organization of general practice. The panellist response rate was 95%. Sixty-two indicators (37%) were rated face valid by all six panels. Examples include out of hours service, accessibility, the content of doctors' bags and staff involvement in quality improvement. No indicators were rated invalid by all six panels., Conclusions: It proved to be possible to develop a European set of indicators for assessing the quality of practice management, despite the differences in health care systems and cultures in the six different countries. These indicators will now be used in a quality assessment procedure of practice management in nine European countries. While organizational indicators are part of the new GMS contract in the UK, this research shows that many practice management issues within primary care are also of relevance in other European countries.