Search

Objective In Europe, volunteers have an important role in the delivery of palliative care. As part of the EU co-funded Europall project, 4 aspects of volunteering in palliative care were studied for 7 European countries (Belgium, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Spain). These included (1) involvement of volunteers in palliative care, (2) organization of palliative care volunteering, (3) legal regulations concerning volunteering, and (4) education and training of palliative care volunteering. Design/Setting/Methods A literature search combined with an interview study. Information from the scientific literature, and country-specific policy documents were obtained and completed, along with data of consecutive semi-structured interviews with experts in the field of palliative care in the participating countries. Results In all countries, volunteers appeared to be involved in palliative care, yet their involvement across health care settings differed per country. England, for example, has the highest number of volunteers whereas Spain has the lowest number. Volunteering is embedded in law and regulations in all participating countries except for England and the Netherlands. In all participating countries, training programs are available and volunteers are organized, both on a national and a regional level. Conclusion This study provides a descriptive overview of volunteer work in palliative care in 7 European countries, with a focus on the organizational aspects. Further research should concentrate on the roles and responsibilities of volunteers in the care for the terminally ill in different European health systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There is a growing consensus worldwide that palliative care needs to be both more inclusive of conditions other than cancer and to improve. This paper explores some common challenges currently faced by professionals providing palliative care for patients with either cancer or dementia across five countries. Method: One focus group (n = 7) and 67 interviews were conducted in 2012 across five countries: England, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Norway, with professionals from dementia, cancer and palliative care settings. Results: The interviews revealed five common challenges faced across the five countries: communication difficulties (between services; and between professionals, and patients and their families); the variable extent of structural/functional integration of services; the difficulties in funding of palliative care services; problematic processes of care (boundaries, definitions, knowledge, skills and inclusiveness) and, finally, time constraints. Conclusion: These are not problems distinct to palliative care, but they may have different origins and explanations compared to other areas of health care. This paper explored deeper themes hidden behind a discourse about barriers and facilitators to improving care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Validated quality indicators can help health-care professionals to evaluate their medical practices in a comparativemanner to deliver optimal clinical care. No international set of quality indicators to measure the organizational aspects of palliativecare settings exists.Aim: To develop and validate a set of structure and process indicators for palliative care settings in Europe.Design: A two-round modified RAND Delphi process was conducted to rate clarity and usefulness of a previously developed set of110 quality indicators.Setting/participants: In total, 20 multi-professional palliative care teams of centers of excellence from seven European countries.Results: In total, 56 quality indicators were rated as useful. These valid quality indicators concerned the following domains: thedefinition of a palliative care service (2 quality indicators), accessibility to palliative care (16 quality indicators), specific infrastructureto deliver palliative care (8 quality indicators), symptom assessment tools (1 quality indicator), specific personnel in palliative careservices (9 quality indicators), documentation methodology of clinical data (14 quality indicators), evaluation of quality and safetyprocedures (1 quality indicator), reporting of clinical activities (1 quality indicator), and education in palliative care (4 quality indicator).Conclusion: The modified RAND Delphi process resulted in 56 international face-validated quality indicators to measure andcompare organizational aspects of palliative care. These quality indicators, aimed to assess and improve the organization of palliativecare, will be pilot tested in palliative care settings all over Europe and be used in the EU FP7 funded IMPACT project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative care for people with dementia is often sub-optimal. This is partly because of the challenging nature of dementia itself, and partly because of system failings that are particularly salient in primary care and community services. There is a need to systematize palliative care for people with dementia, to clarify where changes in practice could be made. To develop a model of palliative care for people with dementia that captures commonalities and differences across Europe, a technology development approach was adopted, using mixed methods including 1) critical synthesis of the research literature and policy documents, 2) interviews with national experts in policy, service organisation, service delivery, patient and carer interests, and research in palliative care, and 3) nominal groups of researchers tasked with synthesising data and modelling palliative care. Discussion: A generic model of palliative care, into which quality indicators can be embedded. The proposed model includes features deemed important for the systematisation of palliative care for people with dementia. These are: the division of labour amongst practitioners of different disciplines; the structure and function of care planning; the management of rising risk and increasing complexity; boundaries between disease-modifying treatment and palliative care and between palliative and end-of-life care; and the process of bereavement. Summary: The co-design approach to developing a generic model of palliative care for people with dementia has placed the person needing palliative care within a landscape of services and professional disciplines. This model will be explored further in the intervention phase of the IMPACT project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the practice of palliative sedation (PS) in Germany. This paper presents an analysis of sedation-related data obtained from the German standardized core documentation system (HOPE) for palliative care patients. Methods: HOPE was complemented by an optional module on ethical decision making (EDM) which was pretested in 2004, data was collected in 2005-6 during the annual 3-month census. Data was analyzed descriptively from palliative care units (PCU - representative) and inpatient hospice (H - non-representative control group). Chi2 test was used to test for differences between the reported data per item and year within one kind of setting (significance level p ≤ 0.05). Free-text entries were categorized inductively. Results: Datasets were obtained for 1,944 patients (P) with EDM. PS was performed in 13.0/11.8% (2005/2006) P in palliative care units (PCU) and 25.5/22.9% in hospices (H). Main reasons for PS in PCU were dyspnea, pain, fear or anxiety, in H reasons were inconsistent, high prevalence of psychosocial reasons. Most PS in PCU and about half of the PS in H were intermittent. Sedated P were younger than non-sedated. Only 7 P received PS after asking for euthanasia. The most used medication was midazolam. Conclusions: This study reveals a first insight into the use and practice of PS in German PCU and H. For a more detailed systematic survey into the course of decision-making and procedures, a new complementary optional module on PS is being developed by the HOPE group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family carers manage a wide range of responsibilities in the lives and care of patients receiving palliative care. They fulfil multiple roles and perform activities within different settings. This has immediate consequences on family carers’ every-day lives. According to literature, family carers in palliative care are both part of the formal and informal care network, but also persons in need of support. This article aims to investigate 1) burdens and rewards associated with family caregiving and 2) what family carers find helpful in their contact with professionals from integrated palliative care initiatives (IPC-i) and other services. Methods: Family carers looking after patients with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic heart failure were purposefully recruited at 22 IPC-i in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom in the course of the project “Patient-centred palliative care pathways in advanced cancer and chronic disease” (InSup-C). Semi-structured interviews (n = 156) and 87 quantitative questionnaires (CRA, POS, CANHELP Lite) were conducted with family carers. Interviews were analysed with transnationally agreed thematic codes (MAXQDA or NVivo). Statistical tests (SPSS) were carried out in accordance with the characteristic value of the items and distributions. Results: On average, quantitative data showed moderate burden, but the qualitative findings indicated that this burden might be underrated. There is some evidence that IPC-i with well-developed professional care networks and communication systems relieved family carers’ burden by direct and indirect interventions; e.g. provision of night shift nurses or psychological support. Needs of family carers were similar in all participating countries. However, in all countries IPC-i mostly offered one-off events for family carers, lacking systematic or institutionalised support structures. Conclusions: Data suggest that, most IPC-i did not pay enough attention to the needs of most family carers, and did not offer proactive care and access to supportive resources to them (e.g. training, respite care, access to resources). We recommend recognizing family carers as part of the ‘unit of care’ and partner in caregiving, to improve their knowledge about, and access to, and the support available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]