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]

Background: In contrast to typical measures employed to assess outcomes in healthcare such as mortality or recovery rates, it is difficult to define which specific outcomes of care are the most important in caring for dying individuals. Despite a variety of tools employed to assess different dimensions of palliative care, there is no consensus on a set of core outcomes to be measured in the last days of life. In order to optimise decision making in clinical practice and comparability of interventional studies, we aim to identify and propose a set of core outcomes for the care of the dying person., Methods: Following the COMET initiative approach, the proposed study will proceed through four stages to develop a set of core outcomes: In stage 1, a systematic review of the literature will identify outcomes measured in existing peer reviewed literature, as well as outcomes derived through qualitative studies. Grey literature, will also be included. Stage 2 will allow for the identification and determination of patient and proxy defined outcomes of care at the end of life via quantitative and qualitative methods at an international level. In stage 3, from a list of salient outcomes identified through stages 1 and 2, international experts, family members, patients, and patient advocates will be asked to score the importance of the preselected outcomes through a Delphi process. Stage 4 consists of a face-to-face consensus meeting of international experts and patient/family representatives in order to define, endorse, and propose the final Core Outcomes Set., Discussion: Core Outcome Sets aim at promoting uniform assessment of care outcomes in clinical practice as well as research. If consistently employed, a robust set of core outcomes for the end of life, and specifically for the dying phase, defined by relevant stakeholders, can ultimately be translated into best care for the dying person. Patient care will be improved by allowing clinicians to choose effective and meaningful treatments, and research impact will be improved by employing internationally agreed clinically relevant endpoints and enabling accurate comparison between studies in systematic reviews and/or in meta-analyses.

Background: This study was performed to evaluate the outcome after hemostatic radiotherapy (RT) of significant bleeding in incurable cancer patients., Methods: Patients treated by hemostatic RT between November 2006 and February 2010 were retrospectively analyzed. Bleeding was assessed according to the World Health Organization (WHO) scale (grade 0 = no bleeding, 1 = petechial bleeding, 2 = clinically significant bleeding, 3 = bleeding requiring transfusion, 4 = bleeding associated with fatality). The primary endpoint was bleeding at the end of RT. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and acute toxicity. The bleeding score before and after RT were compared using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Time to event endpoints were estimated using the Kaplan Meier method., Results: Overall 62 patients were analyzed including 1 patient whose benign cause of bleeding was pseudomyxoma peritonei. Median age was 66 (range, 37-93) years. Before RT, bleeding was graded as 2 and 3 in 24 (39%) and 38 (61%) patients, respectively. A median dose of 20 (range, 5-45) Gy of hemostatic RT was applied to the bleeding site. At the end of RT, there was a statistically significant difference in bleeding (p < 0.001); it was graded as 0 ( n = 39), 1 ( n = 12), 2 ( n = 6), 3 ( n = 4) and 4 (n = 1). With a median follow-up of 19.3 (range, 0.3-19.3) months, the 6-month OS rate was 43%. Forty patients died (65%); 5 due to bleeding. No grade 3 or above acute toxicity was observed., Conclusions: Hemostatic RT seems to be a safe and effective treatment for clinically and statistically significantly reducing bleeding in incurable cancer patients.