Search

Background: In cost-effectiveness analyses in healthcare, Quality-Adjusted Life Years are often used as outcome measure of effectiveness. However, there is an ongoing debate concerning the appropriateness of its use for decision-making in palliative care. Aim: To systematically map pros and cons of using the Quality-Adjusted Life Year to inform decisions on resource allocation among palliative care interventions, as brought forward in the debate, and to discuss the Quality-Adjusted Life Year's value for palliative care. Design: The integrative review method of Whittemore and Knafl was followed. Theoretical arguments and empirical findings were mapped. Data sources: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL, in which MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms were Palliative Care, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Quality of Life, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Findings: Three themes regarding the pros and cons were identified: (1) restrictions in life years gained, (2) conceptualization of quality of life and its measurement, including suggestions to adapt this, and (3) valuation and additivity of time, referring to changing valuation of time. The debate is recognized in empirical studies, but alternatives not yet applied. Conclusion: The Quality-Adjusted Life Year might be more valuable for palliative care if specific issues are taken into account. Despite restrictions in life years gained, Quality-Adjusted Life Years can be achieved in palliative care. However, in measuring quality of life, we recommend to--in addition to the EQ-5D--make use of quality of life or capability instruments specifically for palliative care. Also, we suggest exploring the possibility of integrating valuation of time in a non-linear way in the Quality-Adjusted Life Year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In order to facilitate GPs in their work and increase the possibilities for patients to remain at home, it is important to identify the obstacles which hinder the delivery of primary palliative care. From previous research we learned about some of the problems experienced by GPs. In this survey we aimed to identify the prevalence of such problems in providing palliative care and its determinants. Methods: The prevalence of obstacles and its determinants were identified by a questionnaire to 320 GPs in three regions of the Netherlands. Obstacles were grouped as follows: communication, organisation & co-ordination of care, knowledge & expertise, integrated care, time for relatives. The potential determinants were GP characteristics and expertise development activities. Results: The response rate was 62.3%. GPs experienced considerable obstacles in all aspects of palliative care. The most prevalent were: problems with bureaucratic procedures (83.9%), the time necessary to arrange home care technology (61.1%) and the difficulties accompanied with the wish or necessity to obtain extra care (56.3%). In general, more years of GP experience and the participation in (multidisciplinary) case discussions were associated with less perceived obstacles. Discussion: Based on the results of our survey policymakers and practitioners can plan and set priorities in handling the obstacles. There is a high necessity of firstly overcoming the barriers within organisation and coordination of care. Furthermore, our study can help in choosing the (additional) expertise needed in the future and in the realisation of the preferred expertise advancement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Short and convenient checklists are necessary tools to support and structure needs assessments in daily palliative practice. This study aims to develop a short version of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire (PNPC-sv); a self-report questionnaire for patients covering all dimensions of palliative care, to investigate their problems and (unmet) needs. Methods: The original Problems and Needs in Palliative Care questionnaire (PNPC) instrument is a comprehensive checklist of problems and needs for palliative care, and has shown validity and reliability. With its 90 items, however, it is not always practical. Thus it was abridged to a short version with 33 items. The validity and reliability are established with its item response, its internal consistency, and with its correlations with the original PNPC and with European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 and COOP/WONCA quality-of-life measures. A secondary analysis was done with data from 94 patients with metastatic cancer who had completed the long version. Results: Each item in the PNPC represents a problem relevant to 25% of the patients or more. High correlations of PNPC-sv and PNPC domains demonstrate construct validity. The dimension reliability was satisfactory (Cronbach's α > 0.70), while two problem-aspect domains were less coherent. The PNPC-sv domains show convergent validity with corresponding health-related quality-of-life domains. Conclusion: The PNPC-sv is a concise, patient-centred tool that helps to identify the problems affecting the patient's quality of life and needs for care. It identifies prevalent needs for care and appears reliable. Further research should study the clinical effects of integrating the questionnaire into daily palliative-care practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the Netherlands, healthcare professionals are able to consult Palliative Care Consultation (PCC) teams about individual patients, for information, support and advice. This study aims to understand which spiritual issues are discussed in these consultations and to determine which factors influence whether they are raised or not. Methods: The national register of the consultations of the PCC teams was analysed for a two-year period. Results: Spiritual issues played a role in 8.4% of palliative care consultations, of which 4.1% were by phone and 18.3% were bedside consultations. Often spiritual issues were raised by the consultant during the exploration of the request from the caregiver; the discipline of the consultant rather than the discipline of the requesting professional or the patient characteristics determined whether or not such issues were raised. The main support given by the consultant was in coaching the professional caregiver on how to address these issues. Discussion: This study demonstrates the important role of PCC team consultants in exploring and identifying the spiritual needs of patients about whom they are consulted. Although continued education in spiritual care for palliative care professionals is essential, PCC team consultants will play an important role in drawing the attention of healthcare professionals to the need to recognize and address the spiritual needs of their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in need of palliative care is growing in the Western world. Therefore, it is foreseen that significantly higher percentages of budgets will be spent on palliative care. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of palliative care interventions in these settings are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention. PACE (Palliative Care for Older People) is a 1-year palliative care programme aiming at integrating general palliative care into day-to-day routines in LTCFs, throughout seven EU countries.Methods: A cluster RCT was conducted. LTCFs were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care. LTCFs reported deaths of residents, about whom questionnaires were filled in retrospectively about resource use and quality of the last month of life. A health care perspective was adopted. Direct medical costs, QALYs based on the EQ-5D-5L and costs per quality increase measured with the QOD-LTC were outcome measures.Results: Although outcomes on the EQ-5D-5L remained the same, a significant increase on the QOD-LTC (3.19 points, p value 0.00) and significant cost-savings were achieved in the intervention group (€983.28, p value 0.020). The cost reduction mainly resulted from decreased hospitalization-related costs (€919.51, p value 0.018).Conclusions: Costs decreased and QoL was retained due to the PACE Steps to Success intervention. Significant cost savings and improvement in quality of end of life (care) as measured with the QOD-LTC were achieved. A clinically relevant difference of almost 3 nights shorter hospitalizations in favour of the intervention group was found. This indicates that timely palliative care in the LTCF setting can prevent lengthy hospitalizations while retaining QoL. In line with earlier findings, we conclude that integrating general palliative care into daily routine in LTCFs can be cost-effective.Trial Registration: ISRCTN14741671 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]