Search

Background: End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. Methods: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. Results: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). Conclusion: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of stakeholders in a way that enables medical EoL care and volunteering to co-exist. Further research is needed to explore how trust and equal partnerships between volunteers and professional staff can be built and sustained. Trial registration: NCT04678310. Registered 21/12/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The topic of death and the dying is a crucial aspect of patient care, especially for individuals with terminal illnesses. However, discussions about death and dying are often avoided during patient interactions. In this article, our aim is to explore the reasons behind our fear of death and dying and to assess the importance of addressing these issues in shaping and cultivating relationships with our patients and in our personal lives. We argue that being open to impermanence is a valuable tool in our work with patients and their families and should be integrated into conversations with them. Furthermore, discussions about death and dying should play a central role in medical and nursing education as well as professional development., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen und Autoren haben keine Interessenkonflikte im Zusammenhang mit diesem Artikel deklariert, (© 2024 Aerzteverlag medinfo AG.)

Objective: To help healthcare professionals (HCP) act with more confidence when communicating about approaching death, we sought to develop a communication model for HCP to facilitate conversations with dying patients and family caregivers (FC) in nonemergency situations., Methods: We used a four-phase integrative approach: (1) creation of a preliminary model based on a systematic literature review and expert knowledge, (2) review of the model draft by international palliative care experts, (3) review by key stakeholders, and (4) final appraisal by communication experts., Results: After the clinical recognition of dying, the communication model provides a structure and practical communication aids for navigating the conversation based on three phases. It describes the content and relational level as core dimensions of effective conversations about approaching death and highlights the importance of HCP self-awareness and self-care when caring for the dying., Conclusion: Based on systematic involvement of key stakeholders, the model supports clinicians navigating challenging conversations about approaching death with dying patients and their FC successfully and with more confidence., Innovation: This study expands the theoretical basis for communication about approaching death and offers a pragmatic model for educational interventions and clinical use., Competing Interests: Sissel Guttormsen reports financial support was provided by Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (KFS-4522-08-2018). If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Background: To date, there is a lack of standardization and consensus on which outcomes are central to assess the care provided to patients in the last month of life. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review to identify relevant outcomes to inform the development of a core outcome set for the best care for the dying person., Methods: We conducted a systematic review of outcomes reported in the scientific literature about the care for the dying person in the last month of life. We searched for peer-reviewed studies published before February 2022 in four electronic databases. To categorise the outcomes, we employed the taxonomy developed by the "Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials" collaboration., Results: Out of the 2,933 articles retrieved, 619 were included for analyses. The majority of studies (71%) were retrospective and with data extracted from chart reviews (71%). We extracted 1,951 outcomes in total, from which, after deletion of repeated outcomes, we identified 256 unique ones. The most frequently assessed outcomes were those related to medication or therapeutic interventions and those to hospital/healthcare use. Outcomes related to psychosocial wellbeing were rarely assessed. The closer to death, the less frequently the outcomes were studied., Conclusions: Most outcomes were related to medical interventions or to hospital use. Only a few studies focused on other components of integrated care such as psychosocial aspects. It remains to be defined which of these outcomes are fundamental to achieve the best care for the dying.