Search

Background Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to deprescribe fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). Lack of knowledge and skills form a significant barrier and furthermore, there is no consensus on which medications are considered as FRIDs despite several systematic reviews. To support clinicians in the management of FRIDs and to facilitate the deprescribing process, STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk) and a deprescribing tool were developed by a European expert group. Methods STOPPFall was created by two facilitators based on evidence from recent meta-analyses and national fall prevention guidelines in Europe. Twenty-four panellists chose their level of agreement on a Likert scale with the items in the STOPPFall in three Delphi panel rounds. A threshold of 70% was selected for consensus a priori. The panellists were asked whether some agents are more fall-risk-increasing than others within the same pharmacological class. In an additional questionnaire, panellists were asked in which cases deprescribing of FRIDs should be considered and how it should be performed. Results The panellists agreed on 14 medication classes to be included in the STOPPFall. They were mostly psychotropic medications. The panellists indicated 18 differences between pharmacological subclasses with regard to fall-risk-increasing properties. Practical deprescribing guidance was developed for STOPPFall medication classes. Conclusion STOPPFall was created using an expert Delphi consensus process and combined with a practical deprescribing tool designed to optimise medication review. The effectiveness of these tools in falls prevention should be further evaluated in intervention studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: 'PACE Steps to Success' is a multicomponent training program aiming to integrate generalist and non-disease-specific palliative care in nursing homes. This program did not improve residents' comfort in the last week of life, but it appeared to improve quality of care and dying in their last month of life. Because this program included only three dementia-specific elements, its effects might differ depending on the presence or stage of dementia. We aimed to investigate whether the program effects differ between residents with advanced, non-advanced, and no dementia. Methods: Pre-planned subgroup analysis of the PACE cluster-randomized controlled trial in 78 nursing homes in seven European countries. Participants included residents who died in the previous 4 months. The nursing home staff or general practitioner assessed the presence of dementia; severity was determined using two highly-discriminatory staff-reported instruments. Using after-death questionnaires, staff assessed comfort in the last week of life (Comfort Assessment in Dying–End-of-Life in Dementia-scale; primary outcome) and quality of care and dying in the last month of life (Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care scale; secondary outcome). Results: At baseline, we included 177 residents with advanced dementia, 126 with non-advanced dementia and 156 without dementia. Post-intervention, respectively in the control and the intervention group, we included 136 and 104 residents with advanced dementia, 167 and 110 with non-advanced dementia and 157 and 137 without dementia. We found no subgroup differences on comfort in the last week of life, comparing advanced versus without dementia (baseline-adjusted mean sub-group difference 2.1; p-value = 0.177), non-advanced versus without dementia (2.7; p = 0.092), and advanced versus non-advanced dementia (− 0.6; p = 0.698); or on quality of care and dying in the last month of life, comparing advanced and without dementia (− 0.6; p = 0.741), non-advanced and without dementia (− 1.5; p = 0.428), and advanced and non-advanced dementia (0.9; p = 0.632). Conclusions: The lack of subgroup difference suggests that while the program did not improve comfort in dying residents with or without dementia, it appeared to equally improve quality of care and dying in the last month of life for residents with dementia (regardless of the stage) and those without dementia. A generalist and non-disease-specific palliative care program, such as PACE Steps to Success, is a useful starting point for future palliative care improvement in nursing homes, but to effectively improve residents' comfort, this program needs further development. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14741671. Registered 8 July 2015 – Retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PACE Steps to Success programme is a complex educational and development intervention to improve palliative care in nursing homes. Little research has investigated processes in the cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of interventions in palliative care across countries, taking account of differences in health and social care systems, legal and regulatory policies, and cultural norms. This paper describes a framework for the cross-cultural development and support necessary to implement such an intervention, taking the PACE Steps to Success programme as an exemplar.Methods: The PACE Steps to Success programme was implemented as part of the PACE cluster randomised control trial in seven European countries. A three stage approach was used, a) preparation of resources; b) training in the intervention using a train-the-trainers model; and c) cascading support throughout the implementation. All stages were underpinned by cross-cultural adaptation, including recognising legal and cultural norms, sensitivities and languages. This paper draws upon collated evidence from minutes of international meetings, evaluations of training delivered, interviews with those delivering the intervention in nursing homes and providing and/or receiving support.Results: Seventy eight nursing homes participated in the trial, with half randomized to receive the intervention, 3638 nurses/care assistants were identified at baseline. In each country, 1-3 trainers were selected (total n = 16) to deliver the intervention. A framework was used to guide the cross-cultural adaptation and implementation. Adaptation of three English training resources for different groups of staff consisted of simplification of content, identification of validated implementation tools, a review in 2 nursing homes in each country, and translation into local languages. The same training was provided to all country trainers who cascaded it into intervention nursing homes in local languages, and facilitated it via in-house PACE coordinators. Support was cascaded from country trainers to staff implementing the intervention.Conclusions: There is little guidance on how to adapt complex interventions developed in one country and language to international contexts. This framework for cross-cultural adaptation and implementation of a complex educational and development intervention may be useful to others seeking to transfer quality improvement initiatives in other contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives The objectives of this study were to describe the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in European nursing homes (NHs), and the health and functional characteristics of diabetic residents (DMR) aged 60 years and older. Design Between 2009 and 2011, the Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) project, a 12-month prospective cohort study, was conducted to assess NH residents across different health care systems in 7 European countries and Israel. Methods The study included 59 NHs in 8 countries with a total of 4037 residents living in or admitted to a NH during the 3-month enrollment period. The multidimensional InterRAI instrument for Long-Term Care Facilities (InterRAI-LTCF) was used to assess health and functional status among residents. Descriptive statistics and linear, ordinal, and logistic regression were used to perform the analyses. Results We found a 21.8% prevalence of DM among NH residents. Residents with DM (DMRs) were significantly younger compared with non-DMRs (82.3, SD ± 7.7; 84.6, SD ± 8.4; P < .001). DMRs were more frequently overweight or obese, and presented more often with ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension, and stroke than residents without DM. DMRs also took more drugs, had pressure ulcers (PU) or other wounds more often, and more frequently had urinary incontinence (UI); they also reported worse self-perceived health. DM independently of other factors increased risk of PU occurrence (odds ratio 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–1.86; P = .036) and decreased probability of higher pain scores (B = −0.28; 95% CI −0.41 to −0.14; P < .001). DM was not associated with ADL dependency, cognitive impairment, and depression in NH residents. Conclusion Prevalence of DM in European NH residents is comparable to US national NH surveys, and to UK and German NH data based on glucose-level testing. DMRs compared with non-DMRs have more comorbid conditions, and a particularly higher incidence of cardiovascular diseases and obesity, PU, and severe UI. DMRs should be regarded as a specific group of residents who require an interdisciplinary approach in medical and nursing care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: By 2030, 30% of the European population will be aged 60 or over and those aged 80 and above will be the fastest growing cohort. An increasing number of people will die at an advanced age with multiple chronic diseases. In Europe at present, between 12 and 38% of the oldest people die in a long-term care facility. The lack of nationally representative empirical data, either demographic or clinical, about people who die in long-term care facilities makes appropriate policy responses more difficult. Additionally, there is a lack of comparable cross-country data; the opportunity to compare and contrast data internationally would allow for a better understanding of both common issues and country-specific challenges and could help generate hypotheses about different options regarding policy, health care organization and provision. The objectives of this study are to describe the demographic, facility stay and clinical characteristics of residents dying in long-term care facilities and the differences between countries.Methods: Epidemiological study (2015) in a proportionally stratified random sample of 322 facilities in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and England. The final sample included 1384 deceased residents. The sampled facilities received a letter introducing the project and asking for voluntary participation. Facility manager, nursing staff member and treating physician completed structured questionnaires for all deaths in the preceding 3 months.Results: Of 1384 residents the average age at death ranged from 81 (Poland) to 87 (Belgium, England) (p < 0.001) and length of stay from 6 months (Poland, Italy) to 2 years (Belgium) (p < 0.05); 47% (the Netherlands) to 74% (Italy) had more than two morbidities and 60% (England) to 83% (Finland) dementia, with a significant difference between countries (p < 0.001). Italy and Poland had the highest percentages with poor functional and cognitive status 1 month before death (BANS-S score of 21.8 and 21.9 respectively). Clinical complications occurred often during the final month (51.9% England, 66.4% Finland and Poland).Conclusions: The population dying in long-term care facilities is complex, displaying multiple diseases with cognitive and functional impairment and high levels of dementia. We recommend future policy should include integration of high-quality palliative and dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To examine how relatives evaluate the quality of communication with the treating physician of a dying resident in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and to assess its differences between countries. A cross-sectional retrospective study in a representative sample of LTCFs conducted in 2015. Relatives of residents who died during the previous 3 months were sent a questionnaire. 761 relatives of deceased residents in 241 LTCFs in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland. The Family Perception of Physician-Family Communication (FPPFC) scale (ratings from 0 to 3, where 3 means the highest quality) was used to retrospectively assess how the quality of end-of-life communication with treating physicians was perceived by relatives. We applied multilevel linear and logistic regression models to assess differences between countries and LTCF types. The FPPFC score was the lowest in Finland (1.4 ± 0.8) and the highest in Italy (2.2 ± 0.7). In LTCFs served by general practitioners, the FPPFC score differed between countries, but did not in LTCFs with on-site physicians. Most relatives reported that they were well informed about a resident's general condition (from 50.8% in Finland to 90.6% in Italy) and felt listened to (from 53.1% in Finland to 84.9% in Italy) and understood by the physician (from 56.7% in Finland to 85.8% in Italy). In most countries, relatives assessed the worst communication as being about the resident's wishes for medical treatment at the end of life, with the lowest rate of satisfied relatives in Finland (37.6%). The relatives' perception of the quality of end-of-life communication with physicians differs between countries. However, in all countries, physicians' communication needs to be improved, especially regarding resident's wishes for medical care at the end of life. Training in end-of-life communication to physicians providing care for LTCF residents is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives interRAI launched this study to introduce a set of standardized self-report measures through which residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) could describe their quality of life and services. This article reports on the international development effort, describing measures relative to privacy, food, security, comfort, autonomy, respect, staff responsiveness, relationships with staff, friendships, and activities. First, we evaluated these items individually and then combined them in summary scales. Second, we examined how the summary scales related to whether the residents did or did not say that the LTCFs in which they lived felt like home. Design Cross-sectional self-report surveys by residents of LTCFs regarding their quality of life and services. Setting/Participants Resident self-report data came from 16,017 individuals who resided in 355 LTCFs. Of this total, 7113 were from the Flanders region of Belgium, 5143 residents were from Canada, and 3358 residents were from the eastern and mid-western United States. Smaller data sets were collected from facilities in Australia (20), the Czech Republic (72), Estonia (103), Poland (118), and South Africa (87). Measurements The interRAI Self-Report Quality of Life Survey for LTCFs was used to assess residents' quality of life and services. It includes 49 items. Each area of inquiry (eg, autonomy) is represented by multiple items; the item sets have been designed to elicit resident responses that could range from highly positive to highly negative. Each item has a 5-item response set that ranges from “never” to “always.” Results Typically, we scored individual items scored based on the 2 most positive categories: “sometimes” and “always.” When these 2 categories were aggregated, among the more positive items were: being alone when wished (83%); decide what clothes to wear (85%); get needed services (87%); and treated with dignity by staff (88%). Areas with a less positive response included: staff knows resident's life story (30%); resident has enjoyable things to do on weekends (32%); resident has people to do things with (33%); and resident has friendly conversation with staff (45%). We identified 5 reliable scales; these scales were positively associated with the resident statement that the LTCF felt like home. Finally, international score standards were established for the items and scales. Conclusions This study establishes a set of standardized, self-report items and scales with which to assess the quality of life and services for residents in LTCFs. The study also demonstrates that these scales are significantly related to resident perception of the home-like quality of the facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

End-of-life care in nursing homes holds several risk factors for the use of physical restraints on residents, a practice shown to be neither safe nor effective. To determine the frequency of physical limb and/or trunk restraint use in the last week of life of nursing home residents in six European countries and its association with country, resident and nursing home characteristics. Epidemiological survey study. Proportionally stratified random sample of nursing homes in Belgium (BE), England (ENG), Finland (FI), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (NL), and Poland (PL). Nursing home staff (nurses or care assistants). In all participating nursing homes, we identified all residents who died during the three months prior to measurements. The staff member most involved in each resident's care indicated in a structured questionnaire whether trunk and/or limb restraints were used on that resident during the last week of life 'daily', 'less frequently than daily' or 'not used'. In 322 nursing homes, staff returned questionnaires regarding 1384 deceased residents (response rate 81%). Limb and/or trunk restraints were used "daily" in the last week of life in 8% (BE), 1% (ENG), 4% (FI), 12% (IT), 0% (NL), and 0.4% (PL) of residents; and "less frequently than daily" in 4% (BE), 0% (ENG), 0.4% (FI), 6% (IT), 0% (NL), and 3.5% (PL) of residents. Restraint use was associated with country (p = 0.020) and inversely associated with residents' age (p = 0.017; odds ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 0.99). Restraint use was not significantly associated with resident's gender, dementia, functional status, staffing level, or the level of dependency of residents within the nursing home. In all but one of the six countries studied, staff reported that nursing home residents were restrained through limb and/or trunk restraints in the last week of life. The proportion of restrained residents was highest in Italy and Belgium. Organizational and resident characteristics may not be relevant predictors of restraint use at the end of life in this setting. National policy that explicitly discourages physical restraints in nursing home care and suggests alternative practices may be an important component of strategies to prevent their use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The provision of institutional long-term care for older people varies across Europe reflecting different models of health care delivery. Care for dying residents requires integration of palliative care into current care work, but little is known internationally of the different ways in which palliative care is being implemented in the care home setting. Objectives To identify and classify, using a new typology, the variety of different strategic, operational, and organizational activities related to palliative care implementation in care homes across Europe. Design and methods We undertook a mapping exercise in 29 European countries, using 2 methods of data collection: (1) a survey of country informants, and (2) a review of data from publically available secondary data sources and published research. Through a descriptive and thematic analysis of the survey data, we identified factors that contribute to the development and implementation of palliative care into care homes at different structural levels. From these data, a typology of palliative care implementation for the care home sector was developed and applied to the countries surveyed. Results We identified 3 levels of palliative care implementation in care homes: macro (national/regional policy, legislation, financial and regulatory drivers), meso (implementation activities, such as education, tools/frameworks, service models, and research), and micro (palliative care service delivery). This typology was applied to data collected from 29 European countries and demonstrates the diversity of palliative care implementation activity across Europe with respect to the scope, type of development, and means of provision. We found that macro and meso factors at 2 levels shape palliative care implementation and provision in care homes at the micro organizational level. Conclusions Implementation at the meso and micro levels is supported by macro-level engagement, but can happen with limited macro strategic drivers. Ensuring the delivery of consistent and high-quality palliative care in care homes is supported by implementation activity at these 3 levels. Understanding where each country is in terms of activity at these 3 levels (macro, meso, and micro) will allow strategic focus on future implementation work in each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) play an important role in the management of older people receiving homecare. However, little is known about how often specific NPIs are being used and to what extent usage varies between countries. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prevalence of NPIs in older homecare recipients in six European countries., Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of older homecare recipients (65+) using baseline data from the longitudinal cohort study 'Identifying best practices for care-dependent elderly by Benchmarking Costs and outcomes of community care' (IBenC). The analyzed NPIs are based on the interRAI Home Care instrument, a comprehensive geriatric assessment instrument. The prevalence of 24 NPIs was analyzed in Belgium, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Italy and the Netherlands. NPIs from seven groups were considered: psychosocial interventions, physical activity, regular care interventions, special therapies, preventive measures, special aids and environmental interventions., Results: A total of 2884 homecare recipients were included. The mean age at baseline was 82.9 years and of all participants, 66.9% were female. The intervention with the highest prevalence in the study sample was 'emergency assistance available' (74%). Two other highly prevalent interventions were 'physical activity' (69%) and 'home nurse' (62%). Large differences between countries in the use of NPIs were observed and included, for example, 'going outside' (range 7-82%), 'home health aids' (range 12-93%), and 'physician visit' (range 24-94%)., Conclusions: The use of NPIs varied considerably between homecare users in different European countries. It is important to better understand the barriers and facilitators of use of these potentially beneficial interventions in order to design successful uptake strategies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Context: Certain treatments are potentially inappropriate when administered to nursing homes residents at the end of life and should be carefully considered. An international comparison of potentially inappropriate treatments allows insight into common issues and country-specific challenges of end-of-life care in nursing homes and helps direct health-care policy in this area., Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate treatments in the last week of life in nursing home residents and analyze the differences in prevalence between countries., Methods: A cross-sectional study of deceased residents in nursing homes (2015) in six European countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, The Netherlands, and Poland. Potentially inappropriate treatments included enteral administration of nutrition, parental administration of nutrition, artificial fluids, resuscitation, artificial ventilation, blood transfusion, chemotherapy/radiotherapy, dialysis, surgery, antibiotics, statins, antidiabetics, new oral anticoagulants. Nurses were questioned about whether these treatments were administered in the last week of life., Results: We included 1384 deceased residents from 322 nursing homes. In most countries, potentially inappropriate treatments were rarely used, with a maximum of 18.3% of residents receiving at least one treatment in Poland. Exceptions were antibiotics in all countries (between 11.3% in Belgium and 45% in Poland), artificial nutrition and hydration in Poland (54.3%) and Italy (41%) and antidiabetics in Poland (19.7%)., Conclusion: Although the prevalence of potentially inappropriate treatments in the last week of life was generally low, antibiotics were frequently prescribed in all countries. In Poland and Italy, the prevalence of artificial administration of food/fluids in the last week of life was high, possibly reflecting country differences in legislation, care organization and culture, and the palliative care competences of staff., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background/objectives: Opioids relieve symptoms in terminal care. We studied opioid underuse in long-term care facilities, defined as residents without opioid prescription despite pain and/or dyspnoea, 3 days prior to death., Design and Setting: In a proportionally stratified randomly selected sample of long-term care facilities in six European Union countries, nurses and long-term care facility management completed structured after-death questionnaires within 3 months of residents' death., Measurements: Nurses assessed pain/dyspnoea with Comfort Assessment in Dying with Dementia scale and checked opioid prescription by chart review. We estimated opioid underuse per country and per symptom and calculated associations of opioid underuse by multilevel, multivariable analysis., Results: Nurses' response rate was 81.6%, 95.7% for managers. Of 901 deceased residents with pain/dyspnoea reported in the last week, 10.6% had dyspnoea, 34.4% had pain and 55.0% had both symptoms. Opioid underuse per country was 19.2% (95% confidence interval: 12.9-27.2) in the Netherlands, 25.2% (18.3-33.6) in Belgium, 29.3% (16.9-45.8) in England, 33.7% (26.2-42.2) in Finland, 64.6% (52.0-75.4) in Italy and 79.1% (71.2-85.3) in Poland ( p  < 0.001). Opioid underuse was 57.2% (33.0-78.4) for dyspnoea, 41.2% (95% confidence interval: 21.9-63.8) for pain and 37.4% (19.4-59.6) for both symptoms ( p  = 0.013). Odds of opioid underuse were lower (odds ratio: 0.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.20-0.54) when pain was assessed., Conclusion: Opioid underuse differs between countries. Pain and dyspnoea should be formally assessed at the end-of-life and taken into account in physicians orders.

Background: The PACE 'Steps to Success' programme is a complex educational and development intervention for staff to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this programme has been implemented in 37 LTCFs in 7 European countries. Alongside an effectiveness study, a process evaluation study was conducted. This paper reports on the results of this process evaluation, of which the aim was to provide a more detailed understanding of the implementation of the PACE Programme across and within countries., Methods: The process evaluation followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and involved various measures and tools, including diaries for country trainers, evaluation questionnaires for care staff, attendance lists and interviews (online and face-to-face, individual and in groups) with country trainers, managers, PACE coordinators and other staff members. Based on key elements of the PACE Programme, a priori criteria for a high, medium and low level of the RE-AIM components Reach, Adoption, Implementation and intention to Maintenance were defined. Qualitative data on factors affecting each RE-AIM component gathered in the online discussion groups and interviews were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis., Results: The performance of the PACE Programme on the RE-AIM components was highly variable within and across countries, with a high or medium score for in total 28 (out of 37) LTCFs on Reach, for 26 LTCFs on Adoption, for 35 LTCFs on Implementation and for 34 LTCFs on intention to Maintenance. The factors affecting performance on the different RE-AIM components could be classified into three major categories: (1) the PACE Programme itself and its way of delivery, (2) people working with the PACE Programme and (3) contextual factors. Several country-specific challenges in implementing the PACE Programme were identified., Conclusions: The implementation of the PACE Programme was feasible but leaves room for improvement. Our analysis helps to better understand the optimal levels of training and facilitation and provides recommendations to improve implementation in the LTC setting. The results of the process evaluation will be used to further adapt and improve the PACE Programme prior to its further dissemination., Trial Registration: The PACE study was registered at www.isrctn.com-ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) July 30, 2015.

Background: While the need for palliative care in long-term care facilities is growing, it is unknown whether palliative care in this setting is sufficiently developed., Aim: To describe and compare in six European countries palliative care provision in long-term care facilities and to assess associations between patient, facility and advance care planning factors and receipt and timing of palliative care., Design: Cross-sectional after-death survey regarding care provided to long-term care residents in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. Generalized estimating equations were used for analyses., Setting/participants: Nurses or care assistants who are most involved in care for the resident., Results: We included 1298 residents in 300 facilities, of whom a majority received palliative care in most countries (England: 72.6%-Belgium: 77.9%), except in Poland (14.0%) and Italy (32.1%). Palliative care typically started within 2 weeks before death and was often provided by the treating physician (England: 75%-the Netherlands: 98.8%). A palliative care specialist was frequently involved in Belgium and Poland (57.1% and 86.7%). Residents with cancer, dementia or a contact person in their record more often received palliative care, and it started earlier for residents with whom the nurse had spoken about treatments or the preferred course of care at the end of life., Conclusion: The late initiation of palliative care (especially when advance care planning is lacking) and palliative care for residents without cancer, dementia or closely involved relatives deserve attention in all countries. Diversity in palliative care organization might be related to different levels of its development.

Objective: Care homes are a common place of death for older adults, especially those with complex health needs or dementia. Representative, internationally comparable data on care home facilities and their residents is needed to monitor health and wellbeing in this population. Identification and collection of data from care homes can be challenging and often underreported. This paper draws on the experiences of the PACE study, a cross sectional mortality follow back study conducted in six European countries., Results: Multiple challenges were encountered in creating a sampling framework and contacting, recruiting and retaining care homes in the PACE study. Recruiting a randomly identified, representative cohort from a stratified sampling framework was problematic, as was engaging with care homes to ensure high response rates. Variation in the funding of care homes across the six countries involved in the study may explain the additional challenges encountered in England. Awareness of the challenges encountered in England in implementing an international study in care homes can inform the design and implementation of future studies within care homes. Further discussion is needed to determine the barriers and facilitators to conducting research in care homes, and how this is shaped by the focus of the study.

Background: Nursing homes are among the most common places of death in many countries., Aim: To determine the quality of dying and end-of-life care of nursing home residents in six European countries., Design: Epidemiological survey in a proportionally stratified random sample of nursing homes. We identified all deaths of residents of the preceding 3-month period. Main outcomes: quality of dying in the last week of life (measured using End-of-Life in Dementia Scales - Comfort Assessment while Dying (EOLD-CAD)); quality of end-of-life care in the last month of life (measured using Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care (QoD-LTC) scale). Higher scores indicate better quality., Setting/participants: Three hundred and twenty-two nursing homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and England. Participants were staff (nurses or care assistants) most involved in each resident's care., Results: Staff returned questionnaires regarding 1384 (81.6%) of 1696 deceased residents. The End-of-Life in Dementia Scales - Comfort Assessment while Dying mean score (95% confidence interval) (theoretical 14-42) ranged from 29.9 (27.6; 32.2) in Italy to 33.9 (31.5; 36.3) in England. The Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care mean score (95% confidence interval) (theoretical 11-55) ranged from 35.0 (31.8; 38.3) in Italy to 44.1 (40.7; 47.4) in England. A higher End-of-Life in Dementia Scales - Comfort Assessment while Dying score was associated with country ( p = 0.027), older age ( p = 0.012), length of stay ⩾1 year ( p = 0.034), higher functional status ( p < 0.001). A higher Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care score was associated with country ( p < 0.001), older age ( p < 0.001), length of stay ⩾1 year ( p < 0.001), higher functional status ( p = 0.002), absence of dementia ( p = 0.001), death in nursing home ( p = 0.033)., Conclusion: The quality of dying and quality of end-of-life care in nursing homes in the countries studied are not optimal. This includes countries with high levels of palliative care development in nursing homes such as Belgium, the Netherlands and England.

Background: An ageing population in the EU leads to a higher need of long-term institutional care at the end of life. At the same time, healthcare costs rise while resources remain limited. Consequently, an urgency to extend our knowledge on factors affecting efficiency of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) arises. This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In this study, technical efficiency reflects the LTCFs' ability to obtain maximal quality of life (QoL) and quality of dying (QoD) for residents from a given set of resource inputs (personnel and capacity)., Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected by means of questionnaires on deceased residents identified by LTCFs over a three-month period. An output-oriented data-envelopment analysis (DEA) was performed, producing efficiency scores, incorporating personnel and capacity as input and QoL and QoD as output. Scenario analysis was conducted. Regression analysis was performed on explanatory (country, LTCF type, ownership, availability of palliative care and opioids) and case mix (disease severity) variables., Results: 133 LTCFs of only one type (onsite nurses and offsite GPs) were considered in order to reduce heterogeneity. Variation in LTCF efficiency was found across as well as within countries. This variation was not explained by country, ownership, availability of palliative care or opioids. However, in the 'hands-on care at the bedside' scenario, i.e. only taking into account nursing and care assistants as input, Poland (p = 0.00) and Finland (p = 0.04) seemed to be most efficient., Conclusions: Efficiency of LTCFs differed extensively across as well as within countries, indicating room for considerable efficiency improvement. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously, as comprehensive comparative EU-wide research is challenging as it is influenced by many factors., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

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: There has been concern about under-representation of older people in clinical trials. The PREDICT study reported that older people and those with co-morbidity continue to be excluded unjustifiably from clinical trials. However, there is no information about differences of opinion on these issues between EU countries. The results of a survey of health-related professionals from nine EU countries that participated in the PREDICT study are presented in this study., Objective: The aim of the study was to identify and examine any differences of opinion between EU countries on the inclusion of older patients in clinical trials., Methods: A questionnaire using a Likert scale and free text was completed by 521 general practitioners, geriatricians, clinical researchers, ethicists, nurses and industry pharmacologists/pharmacists. The questions explored the impact of the present situation, possible reasons for under-representation and potential methods of improving participation. Countries participating were the Czech Republic, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and the UK., Results: There was agreement that exclusion from clinical trials on age grounds alone was unjustified (87%) and that under-representation of older people in trials caused difficulties for prescribers (79%) and patients (73%). There were national differences between professionals. All but the Lithuanians believed that older people were disadvantaged because of under-representation. The Czech, Lithuanian and Romanian professionals felt that it was justified to have age limits based on co-morbidity (61-83%) and polypharmacy (63-85%). Romanians also thought that having age limits on trial participation was justified because of reduced life expectancy (62%) and physical disability (58%) in older people. All but the Romanian professionals felt that the present arrangements for clinical trials were satisfactory (62%). All but the Israelis (56%) and Lithuanians (70%) agreed that regulation of clinical trials needed alteration., Conclusions: Although respondent selection bias cannot be excluded, the differences that emerged between countries may be the result of the political and healthcare-system differences between older and newer members of the EU. These differences may influence decision making about clinical trial regulations and practice in older people.

Knowledge of the most frequent circumstances of falls is crucial from a doctor's, nurse's or caregiver's point of view, as it allows them to anticipate the threat of a fall and to take appropriate precautionary measures. It is for this reason that a fall registration system has been developed within the EUNESE (EUropean NEtwork for Safety among Elderly) international project, and then introduced in 4 nursing homes (NH) for older and chronically ill people and for chronic psychiatric patients. The article presents the results of a year's registration of falls in these facilities, also describing the typical features of the falls, considering the type of NH. The study revealed that the falls occured most frequently in a resident's room, while walking or getting up from a bed, chair, wheelchair or toilet seat, as a result of tripping or slipping on slippery, wet or insufficiently illuminated floor, in connection with gait or balance disorder, dizziness, agitation or taking particular medicines. The most frequent results of falls were head injuries, hematomas, skin abrasions and lacerations. Less than 10% of falls required intervention of a family doctor, ambulance or hospitalization. In NHs for psychiatric patients the falls more often resulted in injuries, took place outside the facility building, and were connected to psychomotor agitation, taking psychotropic and anticonvulsant medicines. In NHs for elderly and chronically ill people, on the other hand, falls during sitting down and connected to taking cardiological medicines were recorded more frequently. The fall registration chart, developed within the EUNESE project, is a tool that allows to provide a detailed description of the incident: the cause of the fall, its course and consequences. It may also be used as a starting point for elaborating internal systems of fall registration in long term care facilities, as well as preventive measures against the falls.