Search

Background: Communities and local governments invest in compassionate communities (CCs) a great deal of time, money, effort, and work. However, it is not known whether the CCs are having the effect they are expected to have, so the value of continuing with these initiatives is unknown, and there is a need for a model for evaluating CCs to solve the question. Objectives: To identify a set of core outcomes or benefits that should be measured to assess the impact of the CCs. Design: Multiple-methods study involving three communities, each in a different country (Argentina, Colombia, and Switzerland). Methods and analysis: To identifying the set of core outcomes, which is the first step in developing the CC evaluation model, five phases will follow: online meetings, literature review, fieldwork, Delphi survey, and social transfer. We will involve members of the local communities of Bern, Buenos Aires, and Medellin at three different levels: (1) citizens (e.g. patients, caregivers, and family members), (2) organizations and institutions involved in the program implementation (e.g. health care organizations, churches, non-governmental organizations, and schools), and (3) political and governmental sectors. Ethics: The study will be conducted following existing international regulations and guidance such as the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics committee of Pallium Latin America and the ethics committee of the canton of Bern considered our application exempt from the need for approval. Ethics approval in Bern and Buenos Aires is in the process of being obtained. The ethics committee of the Pontifical Bolivarian University approved this protocol. Discussion: We expect that this project will help bridge the gap in knowledge regarding the measurable impact of the CCs and enhance more CC development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. Design: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]–100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. Results: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). Conclusions: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International oncology societies recommend early palliative care. Specific models to integrate early palliative care efficiently into clinical practice are debated. The authors designed a study to look at the quantitative and qualitative outcomes of an early palliative care intervention in oncological care to decrease stress and improve quality of life. Aims: To compare a single structured early palliative care intervention added to a usual oncology care in terms of distress and health-related quality of life at baseline compared to 6 months after enrollment. Design: This multicenter randomized controlled trial (NCT01983956) enrolled adult patients with advanced cancer. Participants were either randomly assigned to usual oncology care alone or usual care plus a structured early palliative care intervention. Setting/participants: One hundred fifty adult patients with a variety of advanced cancer diagnoses were randomized. Seventy-four participants were in the intervention and 76 participants in the control group. The primary outcome was the change in patient distress assessed by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer at 6 months. Health-related quality of life, the secondary outcome, was assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General Questionnaire. Results: The results showed no significant effect of the early palliative care intervention neither on patient distress nor on health-related quality of life. Conclusion: The addition of an early intervention to usual care for patients with advanced cancer did not improve distress or quality of life. Thus, patients may need more intensive early palliative care with continuous professional support to identify and address their palliative needs early. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nurses' end of life (EoL) care focuses on direct (eg, physical) and indirect (e,g, coordination) care. Little is known about how much time nurses actually devote to these activities and if activities change due to support by specialized palliative care (SPC) in hospitalized patients. Aims: (1) Comparing care time for EoL patients receiving SPC to usual palliative care (UPC);(2) Comparing time spent for direct/indirect care in the SPC group before and after SPC. Methods: Retrospective observational study; nursing care time for EoL patients based on tacs® data using nonparametric and parametric tests. The Swiss data method tacs measures (in)direct nursing care time for monitoring and cost analyses. Results: Analysis of tacs® data (UPC, n = 642; SPC, n = 104) during hospitalization before death in 2015. Overall, SPC patients had higher tacs® than UPC patients by 40 direct (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.7-75, P =.023) and 14 indirect tacs® (95% CI: 6.0-23, P <.001). No difference for tacs® by day, as SPC patients were treated for a longer time (mean number of days 7.2 vs 16, P <.001).Subanalysis for SPC patients showed increased direct care time on the day of and after SPC (P <.001), whereas indirect care time increased only on the day of SPC. Conclusions: This study gives insight into nurses' time for (in)direct care activities with/without SPC before death. The higher (in)direct nursing care time in SPC patients compared to UPC may reflect higher complexity. Consensus-based measurements to monitor nurses' care activities may be helpful for benchmarking or reimbursement analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators is increasingly common. As patients approach the end of life, it is appropriate to deactivate the shock function. Aim: To assess the prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming to deactivate the shock function at the end of life and the prevalence of advance directives among this population. Design: Following a previously established protocol available in PROSPERO, we performed a narrative synthesis of our findings and used the logit transformation method to perform our quantitative synthesis. Data sources: We searched seven bibliographic databases (Embase, Cochrane Central register of controlled Trials, Medline-Ovid, Web-of-Science, Scopus, PsychInfo, and CINAHL) and additional sources until April 2019. Results: Of the references we identified, 14 were included. We found a pooled prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming at the end of life of 28% (95% confidence interval, 22%–36%) with higher reprogramming rates after the recommendations for managing the device at the end of life were published. Among patients with advance directives, the pooled prevalence of advance directives that explicitly mentioned the device was 1% (95% confidence interval, 1%–3%). Conclusions: The prevalence of implantable cardioverter defibrillator reprogramming and advance directives that explicitly mentioned the device was very low. Study data suggested reprogramming decisions were made very late, after the patient experienced multiple shocks. Patient suffering could be ameliorated if physicians and other healthcare professionals adhere to clinical guidelines for the good management of the device at the end of life and include deactivating the shock function in the discussion that leads to the advance directive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intervention trials confirm that patients with advanced cancer receiving early palliative care experience a better quality of life and show improved knowledge about and use of palliative care services. To involve patients in future health-care decisions, health professionals should understand patients' perspectives. However, little is known about how patients' experience such interventions. Aim: To explore advanced cancer patients' experiences with a structured early palliative care intervention, its acceptability and impact on the patients' life including influencing factors. Design: Qualitative content analysis of in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Setting/participants: Patients with various advanced cancer diagnoses were enrolled in a multicenter randomized controlled trial (NCT01983956), which investigated the impact of "Symptoms, End-of-life decisions, Network, Support," a structured early palliative care intervention, on distress. Of these, 20 patients who underwent the intervention participated in this study. Results: Participants received the intervention well and gained a better understanding of their personal situation. Patients reported that the intervention can feel "confronting" but with the right timing it can be confirming and facilitate family conversations. Patients' personal background and the intervention timing within their personal disease trajectory influenced their emotional and cognitive experiences; it also impacted their understanding of palliative care and triggered actions toward future care planning. Conclusion: Early palliative care interventions like "Symptoms, End-of-life decisions, Network, Support" may provoke emotions and feel "confrontational" often because this is the first time when issues about one's end of life are openly discussed; yet, advanced cancer patients found it beneficial and felt it should be incorporated into routine care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]