Search

The aim of this exploratory survey was to provide an overview of physiotherapeutic and occupational therapeutic techniques and outcome measures applied in practice within palliative care. An anonymous web-based questionnaire was distributed to physiotherapists and occupational therapists in Flanders, Belgium between December 2017 and February 2018. A total of 91 respondents were included. Frequently applied interventions were: massage (51%), mobilization (49%), exercise therapy (46%), manual lymphatic drainage (42%), walking rehabilitation (40%) and breathing therapy (32%). Additional therapeutic aspects such as 'comfort care' and 'creating a therapeutic alliance' were mentioned by 34% of all therapists and cannot be ignored as an important part of treatment. Outcome measures were not always used to evaluate treatment because of time constraints and because progress was considered difficult to conceptualize in a palliative care context. The most frequently used outcome measures were a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the 6-minute walk test. In this study, the most frequently applied physiotherapeutic and occupational therapeutic interventions within palliative care were massage, mobilization and exercise therapy. However, therapists stress that these techniques are not mandatory, since care is always informed by the individual comfort and daily functioning of patients. Other than a VAS, outcome measures were used minimally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (SQ) "would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?" has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?") alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions. Methods: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance – 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A "surprise threshold" for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance. Discussion: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]