Search

Background: Older patients are increasingly showing multi-comorbidities, including advanced chronic diseases. When admitted to the emergency department (ED), the decision to pursue life-prolonging treatments or to initiate a palliative care approach is a challenge for clinicians. We test for the first time the diagnostic accuracy of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) in the ED to identify older patients at risk of deteriorating and dying, and timely address palliative care needs., Methods: We conducted a prospective bicentric cohort study on 352 older patients (≥ 75 years) admitted to two EDs in Belgium between December 2019 and March 2020 and between August and November 2020. SPICT (French version, 2019) variables were collected during the patients' admission to the ED, along with socio-demographic, medical and functional data. The palliative profile was defined as a positive SPICT assessment. Survival, symptoms and health degradation (≥ 1 point in ADL Katz score or institutionalisation and death) were followed at 12 months by phone. Main accuracy measures were sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios (LR) as well as cox regression, survival analysis using the Kaplan Meier method, and ordinal regression., Results: Out of 352 patients included in the study (mean age 83 ± 5.5 years, 43% male), 167 patients (47%) had a positive SPICT profile. At one year follow up, SPICT positive patients presented significantly more health degradation (72%) compared with SPICT negative patients (35%, p < 0.001). SPICT positivity was correlated with 1-year health degradation (OR 4.9; p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of SPICT to predict health degradation were 0.65 (95%CI, 0.57-0.73) and 0.72 (95%CI, 0.64-0.80) respectively, with a negative LR of 0.48 (95%CI, 0.38-0.60) and a positive LR of 2.37 (1.78-3.16). The survival time was shorter in SPICT positive patients than in SPICT negative ones (p < 0.001), the former having a higher 1-year mortality rate (HR = 4.21; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: SPICT successfully identifies older patients at high risk of health degradation and death. It can support emergency clinicians to identify older patients with a palliative profile and subsequently initiate a palliative care approach with a discussion on goals of care., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: A palliative care approach (PCA), including advanced care planning (ACP), should be considered for patients with limited life expectancy. The Belgian Palliative Care Indicators Tool (Be-PICT) has been released to help identify patients who may benefit from such approach. This study aimed at measuring 1-year mortality and describe the quality of life in older inpatients, according to baseline Be-PICT results., Methods: Prospective multicentre cohort study in older patients (≥ 75 years) admitted at geriatrics and cardiology wards of four Belgian hospitals. The palliative profile was defined as a positive Be-PICT.1, defined by the presence of its three criteria, i.e. a negative physician's answer to the surprise question ' would you be surprised if this patient dies in the 6-12 next months? ', ≥ 1 poor health indicator and ≥ 1 life-limiting condition., Results: Of the 379 patients (50% aged ≥85 years; 51% female), 52 (14%) presented a palliative profile and 83 (23%) died within 1 year. Be-PICT.1 showed the following characteristics to predict 1-year mortality: sensitivity 0.54, specificity 0.83, positive and negative predictive values 0.48 and 0.86, positive and negative likelihood ratios 3.22 and 0.55. The patients with a palliative profile were at higher mortality risk (hazard ratio 4.79 p < 0.001) and 1-year mortality rate (45%). Not using the SQ allowed to improve sensitivity to include a larger number of patients who may benefit from ACP and PCA., Conclusions: Be-PICT.1 is a simple case-finding tool to identify older inpatients being at high mortality risk and candidates for ACP and PCA.

Objectives: To determine the prognostic value of the Surprise Question (SQ) in older persons., Methods: A multicenter prospective study, including patients aged 75 years or older admitted to acute geriatric (AGU) or cardiology unit (CU). The SQ was answered by the treating physician. Patients or relatives were contacted after 1 year to determine 1-year survival. Logistic regression was used to explore parameters associated with SQ. Summary ROC curves were constructed to obtain the pooled values of sensitivity and specificity based on a bivariate model., Results: The SQ was positive (death within 1 year is no surprise) in 34.7% AGU and 33.3% CU patients (p = 0.773). Parameters associated with a positive SQ were more severe comorbidity, worse functionality, significant weight loss, refractory symptoms and the request for palliative care by patient or family. One-year mortality was, respectively, 24.9% and 20.2% for patients hospitalized on AGU and CU (p = 0.319). There was no difference in sensitivity or specificity, respectively, 64% and 77% (AUC 0.635) for AGU versus 63% and 76% (AUC 0.758) for CU (p = 0.870). A positive SQ is associated with a significant shorter time until death (HR 5.425 (95% CI 3.332-8.834), p < 0.001) independently from the ward., Conclusion: The Surprise Question is moderately accurate to predict 1-year mortality in older persons hospitalized on acute geriatric and cardiologic units.

Objectives: PACE Steps to Success is a 1-year train-the-trainer program aiming to integrate nonspecialist palliative care into nursing homes via staff education and organizational support. In this study, we aimed to explore whether this program resulted in changes in residents' hospital use and place of death., Design: Secondary analysis of the PACE cluster randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN14741671). Data were collected on deaths over the previous 4 months via questionnaires at baseline and postintervention., Setting and Participants: Questionnaires were completed by the nurse/care-assistant most involved from 78 nursing homes in 7 European Union countries., Measures: We measured number of emergency department visits, hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, and place of death. Baseline and postintervention scores between intervention and control groups were compared, and we conducted exploratory mixed-model analyses. We collected 551 out of 610 questionnaires at baseline and 984 out of 1178 at postintervention in 37 intervention and 36 control homes., Results: We found no statistical significant effects of the program on emergency department visits [odds ratio (OR) = 1.38, P = .32], hospital admissions (OR = 0.98, P = .93), length of hospital stay (geometric mean difference = 0.85, P = .44), or place of death (OR = 1.08, P = .80)., Conclusions and Implications: We found no effect of the PACE program on either hospital use in the last month of life or place of death. Although this may be related to implementation problems in some homes, the program might also require a more specific focus on managing acute end-of-life situations and a closer involvement of general practitioners or specialist palliative care services to influence hospital use or place of death., (Copyright © 2020 AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Importance: High-quality evidence on how to improve palliative care in nursing homes is lacking., Objective: To investigate the effect of the Palliative Care for Older People (PACE) Steps to Success Program on resident and staff outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster-randomized clinical trial (2015-2017) in 78 nursing homes in 7 countries comparing PACE Steps to Success Program (intervention) with usual care (control). Randomization was stratified by country and median number of beds in each country in a 1:1 ratio., Interventions: The PACE Steps to Success Program is a multicomponent intervention to integrate basic nonspecialist palliative care in nursing homes. Using a train-the-trainer approach, an external trainer supports staff in nursing homes to introduce a palliative care approach over the course of 1 year following a 6-steps program. The steps are (1) advance care planning with residents and family, (2) assessment, care planning, and review of needs and problems, (3) coordination of care via monthly multidisciplinary review meetings, (4) delivery of high-quality care focusing on pain and depression, (5) care in the last days of life, and (6) care after death., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary resident outcome was comfort in the last week of life measured after death by staff using the End-of-Life in Dementia Scale Comfort Assessment While Dying (EOLD-CAD; range, 14-42). The primary staff outcome was knowledge of palliative care reported by staff using the Palliative Care Survey (PCS; range, 0-1)., Results: Concerning deceased residents, we collected 551 of 610 questionnaires from staff at baseline and 984 of 1178 postintervention in 37 intervention and 36 control homes. Mean (SD) age at time of death ranged between 85.22 (9.13) and 85.91 (8.57) years, and between 60.6% (160/264) and 70.6% (190/269) of residents were women across the different groups. Residents' comfort in the last week of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (baseline-adjusted mean difference, -0.55; 95% CI, -1.71 to 0.61; P = .35). Concerning staff, we collected 2680 of 3638 questionnaires at baseline and 2437 of 3510 postintervention in 37 intervention and 38 control homes. Mean (SD) age of staff ranged between 42.3 (12.1) and 44.1 (11.7) years, and between 87.2% (1092/1253) and 89% (1224/1375) of staff were women across the different groups. Staff in the intervention group had statistically significantly better knowledge of palliative care than staff in the control group, but the clinical difference was minimal (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001). Data analyses began on April 20, 2018., Conclusions and Relevance: Residents' comfort in the last week of life did not improve after introducing the PACE Steps to Success Program. Improvements in staff knowledge of palliative care were clinically not important., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN14741671.

Background: Opioids, antipsychotics and hypnotics are recommended for comfort care in dying. We studied their prescription during the last 3 days in residents deceased in the long-term care facility (LTCF)., Methods: In a retrospective, cross-sectional survey in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, LTCFs, selected by proportional stratified random sampling, reported all deaths over the previous 3 months. The nurse most involved in the residents' care reviewed the chart for opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic prescription, cause of death and comorbidities. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for resident characteristics., Results: Response rate was 81.6%. We included 1079 deceased residents in 322 LCTFs. Opioid prescription ranged from 18.5% (95% CI: 13.0-25.8) of residents in Poland to 77.9% (95% CI: 69.5-84.5) in the Netherlands, antipsychotic prescription from 4.8% (95% CI: 2.4-9.1) in Finland to 22.4% (95% CI: 14.7-32.4) in Italy, hypnotic prescription from 7.8% (95% CI: 4.6-12.8) in Finland to 47.9% (95% CI: 38.5-57.3) in the Netherlands. Differences in opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic prescription between countries remained significant (P < 0.001) when controlling for age, gender, length of stay, cognitive status, cause of death in multilevel, multivariable analyses. Dying from cancer showed higher odds for receiving opioids (OR 3.51; P < 0.001) and hypnotics (OR 2.10; P = 0.010)., Conclusions: Opioid, antipsychotic and hypnotic prescription in the dying phase differed significantly between six European countries. Further research should determine the appropriateness of their prescription and refine guidelines especially for LTCF residents dying of non-cancer diseases.

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.

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.

Background: Timely identification of patients in need of palliative care is especially challenging in a geriatric population because of prognostic uncertainty. The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT™) aims at facilitating this identification, yet has not been validated in a geriatric population., Objective: This study validates the SPICT in a geriatric patient population admitted to the hospital., Design: This is a retrospective cohort study., Setting: Subject were patients admitted to the acute geriatric ward of a Belgian university hospital between January 1 and June 30, 2014., Measurements: Data including demographics, functional status, comorbidities, treatment limitation decision (TLD), and one-year mortality were collected. SPICT was measured retrospectively by an independent assessor., Results: Out of 435 included patients, 54.7% had a positive SPICT, using a cut-off value of 2 for the general indicators and a cut-off value of 1 for the clinical questions. SPICT-positive patients were older (p = 0.033), more frequently male (p = 0.028), and had more comorbidities (p = 0.015) than SPICT-negative patients. The overall one-year mortality was 32.2%, 48.7% in SPICT-positive patients, and 11.5% in SPICT-negative patients (p < 0.001). SPICT predicted one-year mortality with a sensitivity of 0.841 and a specificity of 0.579. The area under the curve of the general indicators (0.758) and the clinical indicators of SPICT (0.748) did not differ (p = 0.638). In 71.4% of SPICT-positive cases, a TLD was present versus 26.9% in SPICT-negative cases (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: SPICT seems to be valuable for identifying geriatric patients in need of palliative care as it demonstrates significant association with one-year mortality and with clinical survival predictions of experienced geriatricians, as reflected by TLDs given.

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: To be able to provide high-quality palliative care, there need to be a number of organizational structures available in the nursing homes. It is unclear to what extent such structures are actually present in nursing homes in Europe. We aim to examine structural indicators for quality of palliative care in nursing homes in Europe and to evaluate the differences in terms of availability of and access to palliative care, infrastructure for residents and families, multidisciplinary meetings and quality improvement initiatives. Methods: A PACE cross-sectional study (2015) of nursing homes in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. Nursing homes (N = 322) were selected in each country via proportional stratified random sampling. Nursing home administrators (N = 305) filled in structured questionnaires on nursing home characteristics. Organization of palliative care was measured using 13 of the previously defined IMPACT structural indicators for quality of palliative care covering four domains: availability of and access to palliative care, infrastructure for residents and families, multidisciplinary meetings and quality improvement initiatives. We calculated structural indicator scores for each country and computed differences in indicator scores between the six countries. Pearson's Chi-square test was used to compute the p-value of each difference. Results: The availability of specialist palliative care teams in nursing homes was limited (6.1–48.7%). In Finland, Poland and Italy, specialist advice was also less often available (35.6–46.9%). Up to 49% of the nursing homes did not provide a dedicated contact person who maintained regular contact with the resident and relatives. The 24/7 availability of opioids for all nursing home residents was low in Poland (37.5%). Conclusions: This study found a large heterogeneity between countries in the organization of palliative care in nursing homes, although a common challenge is ensuring sufficient structural access to specialist palliative care services. Policymakers and health and palliative care organizations can use these structural indicators to identify areas for improvement in the organization of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most long-term care (LTC) residents are of age >65 years and have multiple chronic health conditions affecting their cognitive and physical functioning. Although some individuals in nursing homes return home after receiving therapy services, most will remain in a LTC facility until their deaths. This article seeks to provide guidance on how to assess and effectively select treatment for delirium, behavioral and psychological symptoms for patients with dementia, and address other common challenges such as advanced care planning, decision-making capacity, and artificial hydration at the end of life. To do so, we draw upon a team of physicians with training in various backgrounds such as geriatrics, palliative medicine, neurology, and psychiatry to shed light on those important topics in the following "Top 10" tips. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of older people dying in long-term care facilities is increasing; however, care at the end of life can be suboptimal. Interventions to improve palliative care delivery within these settings have been shown to be effective in improving care, but little is known about their implementation. Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the nature of implementation strategies and to identify facilitators and/or barriers to implementing palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities. Design: Scoping review with a thematic synthesis, following the ENTREQ guidelines. Data sources: Published literature was identified from electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Controlled, non-controlled and qualitative studies and evaluations of interventions to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities were included. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were sourced and data extracted on the study characteristics, the implementation of the intervention, and facilitators and/or barriers to implementation. Results: The review identified 8902 abstracts, from which 61 studies were included in the review. A matrix of implementation was developed with four implementation strategies (facilitation, education/training, internal engagement and external engagement) and three implementation stages (conditions to introduce the intervention, embedding the intervention within day-to-day practice and sustaining ongoing change). Conclusion: Incorporating an implementation strategy into the development and delivery of an intervention is integral in embedding change in practice. The review has shown that the four implementation strategies identified varied considerably across interventions; however, similar facilitators and barriers were encountered across the studies identified. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which different implementation strategies can facilitate the uptake of palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Timely palliative care in frail older persons remains challenging. Scales to identify older patients at risk of functional decline already exist. However, factors to predict short term mortality in older hospitalized patients are scarce.Methods: In this prospective study, we recruited patients of 75 years and older at the department of cardiology and geriatrics. The usual gait speed measurement closest to discharge was chosen. We used the risk of dying within 1 year as parameter for starting palliative care. ROC curves were used to determine the best cut-off value of usual gait speed to predict one-year mortality. Time to event analyses were assessed by COX regression.Results: On the acute geriatric ward (n = 60), patients were older and more frail (assessed by Katz and iADL) in comparison to patients on the cardiology ward (n = 82); one-year mortality was respectively 27 and 15% (p = 0.069). AUC on the acute geriatric ward was 0.748 (p = 0.006). The best cut-off value was 0.42 m/s with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.857 and 0.643. Slow walkers died earlier than faster walkers (HR 7.456, p = 0.011), after correction for age and sex. On the cardiology ward, AUC was 0.560 (p = 0.563); no significant association was found between usual gait speed and survival time.Conclusions: Usual gait speed may be a valuable prognostic factor to identify patients at risk for one-year mortality on the acute geriatric ward but not on the cardiology ward. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: To provide high-quality palliative care to nursing home residents, staff need to understand the basic principles of palliative care.Objectives: To evaluate the extent of agreement with the basic principles of palliative care of nurses and care assistants working in nursing homes in five European countries and to identify correlates.Methods: This is a cross-sectional study in 214 homes in Belgium, England, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland. Agreement with basic principles of palliative care was measured with the Rotterdam MOVE2PC. We calculated percentages and odds ratios of agreement and an overall score between 0 (no agreement) and 5 (total agreement).Results: Most staff in all countries agreed that palliative care involves more than pain treatment (58% Poland to 82% Belgium) and includes spiritual care (62% Italy to 76% Belgium) and care for family or relatives (56% Italy to 92% Belgium). Between 51% (the Netherlands) and 64% (Belgium) correctly disagreed that palliative care should start in the last week of life and 24% (Belgium) to 53% (Poland) agreed that palliative care and intensive life-prolonging treatment can be combined. The overall agreement score ranged between 1.82 (Italy) and 3.36 (England). Older staff (0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.09-0.43, P = 0.003), nurses (0.59; 95% CI: 0.43-0.75, P < 0.001), and staff who had undertaken palliative care training scored higher (0.21; 95% CI: 0.08-0.34, P = 0.002).Conclusions: The level of agreement of nursing home staff with basic principles of palliative care was only moderate and differed between countries. Efforts to improve the understanding of basic palliative care are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Symptom management is essential in the end-of-life care of long-term care facility residents.Objectives: To study discrepancies and possible associated factors in staff and family carers' symptom assessment scores for residents in the last week of life.Methods: A postmortem survey in Belgium, The Netherlands, and Finland: staff and family carers completed the End-of-Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying scale, rating 14 symptoms on a one-point to three-point scale. Higher scores reflect better comfort. We calculated mean paired differences in symptom, subscale, and total scores at a group level and inter-rater agreement and percentage of perfect agreement at a resident level.Results: Mean staff scores significantly reflected better comfort than those of family carers for the total End-of-Life in Dementia-Comfort Assessment in Dying (31.61 vs. 29.81; P < 0.001) and the physical distress (8.64 vs. 7.62; P < 0.001) and dying symptoms (8.95 vs. 8.25; P < 0.001) subscales. No significant differences were found for emotional distress and well-being. The largest discrepancies were found for gurgling, discomfort, restlessness, and choking for which staff answered not at all, whereas the family carer answered a lot, in respectively, 9.5%, 7.3%, 6.7%, and 6.1% of cases. Inter-rater agreement κ ranged from 0.106 to 0.204, the extent of perfect agreement from 40.8 for lack of serenity to 68.7% for crying.Conclusion: There is a need for improved communication between staff and family and discussion about symptom burden in the dying phase in long-term care facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]