Search

Contains fulltext : 248663.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), BACKGROUND: The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken. METHOD: Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement. RESULTS: Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services. CONCLUSION: Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process.

Purpose: This study aims to explore the prevalence of CRC survivorship issues and their impact on survivors’ quality of life (QoL). Methods: This study utilised a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. Adult CRC survivors between 6- and 60-months post-diagnosis (n = 304) were purposively recruited from three hospitals and twenty-one cancer support centres in Ireland. QoL was evaluated using the EuroQol and FACT-C questionnaires and results compared to population norms. 22 survey participants took part in semi-structured interviews exploring the impact of survivorship issues on their daily lives. Results: While CRC survivors reported QoL outcomes comparable to or better than normative populations, 54% were dissatisfied with their QoL. The most common survivorship issues reported included negative body image (74%), fatigue (68%), sexual dysfunction (66%) and sleep disturbance (59%). Thematic analysis of the qualitative data illustrated survivors’ attempts to live with the impact of cancer and its treatment (loss, fear, impact) and striving to contextualise, reframe and understand the consequences of cancer and its treatment (control, vigilance, benefit). Within these themes, the cross-domain impact of less prevalent symptoms including bowel dysfunction (28–57%) and peripheral neuropathy (47%) were widely discussed. Conclusions: Although cancer survivors report positive QoL outcomes, many experience distressing physical, psychological and social effects. The findings suggest less common and difficult to manage symptoms are the greatest source of distress and unmet need. Support and information must be tailored to address survivors’ individual needs and preferences for support, informed by holistic person-centred assessment.

Item does not contain fulltext, In 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to i

Background: End-of-life care practices in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are the focus of growing attention in Europe, due to rapidly increasing number of older persons living in LTCFs. The knowledge about end-of-life discussions or existence of written advance directives in the European LTCFs is scarce. This study's aim is to investigate the prevalence of written advance directives and their sociodemographic associates, among recently deceased LTCF residents, in six European countries. Methods: Data from the European Union-funded PACE database were collected from 322 LTCFs in six European countries in 2014. The assessments were performed by using two questionnaires designed for LTCF administrative staff and for staff member. LTCFs were selected within each country by using proportional stratified random sampling procedure. Facilities with certain types and sizes were included from each country. Multilevel multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate associations between written advance directives and selected predictors. Results: In total, 32.5 % of the 1384 deceased LTCF residents had a written advance directive with a range from 0% to 77 % between countries. The proportion of the most common advance directive, â € Do not resuscitate in case of cardiac or respiratory arrest (DNR)', varied correspondingly from 0% to 75%. LTCF type (OR 2.86 95% CI 1.59 to 5.23) and capability of expressing at the time of admission (OR 3.26 95% CI 2.26 to 4.71) were the independent predictors for advance directive. Residents living in LTCFs where physician was available were less likely to have advance directive compared with residents from LTCFs where physician was not available. Conclusion: Extensive differences for prevalence of written advance directive exist between countries among older LTCF residents in Europe. Timely and appropriate response to LTCF resident's health needs and preferences efforts advance care planning. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use pe

BACKGROUND: Patients at the end-of-life may experience refractory symptoms of which pain, delirium, vomiting and dyspnea are the most frequent. Palliative sedation can be considered a last resort option to alleviate one or more refractory symptoms. There are only a limited number of (qualitative) studies exploring the experiences of relatives of sedated patients and their health care professionals (HCPs). The aims of this study protocol are: 1) to elicit the experiences of bereaved relatives and health care professionals of patients treated with palliative sedation and 2) to explore the understanding of the decision-making process to start palliative sedation across care settings in 5 European countries. METHODS: This study protocol is part of the larger HORIZON 2020 Palliative Sedation project. Organisational case study methodology will be used to guide the study design. In total, 50 cases will be conducted in five European countries (10 per country). A case involves a semi-structured interview with a relative and an HCP closely involved in the care of a deceased patient who received some type of palliative sedation at the end-of-life. Relatives and health care professionals of deceased patients participating in a linked observational cohort study of sedated patients cared for in hospital wards, palliative care units and hospices will be recruited. The data will be analyzed using a framework analysis approach. The first full case will be analyzed by all researchers after being translated into English using a pre-prepared code book. Afterwards, bimonthly meetings will be organized to coordinate the data analysis. DISCUSSION: The study aims to have a better understanding of the experiences of relatives and professional caregivers regarding palliative sedation and this within different settings and countries. Some limitations are: 1) the sensitivity of the topic may deter some relatives from participation, 2) since the data collection and analysis will be performed by

The Family Perceptions of Physician-Family Caregiver Communication scale (FPPFC) was developed to assess quality of physician-family end-of-life communication in nursing homes. However, its validity has been tested only in the USA and the Netherlands. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the FPPFC construct validity and its reliability, as well as the psychometric characteristics of the items comprising the scale. Data were collected in cross-sectional study in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. The factorial structure was tested in confirmatory factor analysis. Item parameters were obtained using an item response theory model. Participants were 737 relatives of nursing home residents who died up to 3 months prior to the study. In general, the FPPFC scale proved to be a unidimensional and reliable measure of the perceived quality of physician-family communication in nursing home settings in all five countries. Nevertheless, we found unsatisfactory fit to the data with a confirmatory model. An item that referred to advance care planning performed less well in Poland and Italy than in the Northern European countries. In the item analysis, we found that with no loss of reliability and with increased coherency of the item content across countries, the full 7-item version can be shortened to a 4-item version, which may be more appropriate for international studies. Therefore, we recommend use of the brief 4-item FPPFC version by nursing home managers and professionals as an evaluation tool, and by researchers for their studies as these four items confer the same meaning across countries.

Objectives: Facilitated advance care planning (ACP) helps family carers' to be aware of patient preferences. It can improve family carers' involvement in decision making and their overall experiences at the end of life, as well as, reduce psychological stress. We investigated the effects of the ACTION Respecting Choices (RC) ACP intervention on the family carers' involvement in decision making in the last 3 months of the patients' life and on the family carers' psychological distress after 3 months of bereavement. Methods: Over six European countries, a sample of 162 bereaved family carers returned a bereavement questionnaire. Involvement in decision making was measured with a single item of the Views of Informal Carers-Evaluation of Services Short Form questionnaire. Psychological distress was measured with the Impact of Event Scale (IES). Results: No significant effect was found on family carers involvement in decision making in the last 3 months of the patients' life (95% CI 0.449 to 4.097). However, the probability of involvement in decision making was slightly higher in the intervention arm of the study (89.6% vs 86.7%; OR=1.357). Overall, no statistical difference was found between intervention and control group regarding the IES (M=34.1 (1.7) vs 31.8 (1.5); (95% CI -2.2 to 6.8)). Conclusion: The ACTION RC ACP intervention showed no significant effect on family carers' involvement in decision making or on subsequent psychological distress. More research is needed about (1) how family carers can be actively involved in ACP-conversations and (2) how to prepare family carers on their role in decision making. Trial registration number: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN17231.

Cerebral perfusion models were found to be promising research tools to predict the impact of acute ischaemic stroke and related treatments on cerebral blood flow (CBF) linked to patients’ functional outcome. To provide insights relevant to clinical trials, perfusion simulations need to become suitable for group-level investigations, but computational studies to date have been limited to a few patient-specific cases. This study set out to overcome issues related to automated parameter inference, that restrict the sample size of perfusion simulations, by integrating neuroimaging data. Seventy-five brain models were generated using measurements from a cohort of 75 healthy elderly individuals to model resting-state CBF distributions. Computational perfusion model geometries were adjusted using healthy reference subjects’ T1-weighted MRI. Haemodynamic model parameters were determined from CBF measurements corresponding to arterial spin labelling perfusion MRI. Thereafter, perfusion simulations were conducted for 150 acute ischaemic stroke cases by simulating an occlusion and cessation of blood flow in the left and right middle cerebral arteries. The anatomical (geometrical) fitness of the brain models was evaluated by comparing the simulated grey and white matter (GM and WM) volumes to measurements in healthy reference subjects. Statistically significant, strong positive correlations were found in both cases (GM: Pearson’s r 0.74, P-value< 0.001; WM: Pearson’s r 0.84, P-value< 0.001). Haemodynamic parameter tuning was verified by comparing total volumetric blood flow rate to the brain in reference subjects and simulations resulting in Pearson’s r 0.89, and P-value< 0.001. In acute ischaemic stroke cases, the simulated infarct volume using a perfusion-based proxy was 197±25 ml. Computational results showed excellent agreement with anatomical and haemodynamic literature data corresponding to T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and phase-contrast MRI measurements both in healthy scen

Purpose: This study aims to explore the prevalence of CRC survivorship issues and their impact on survivors’ quality of life (QoL). Methods: This study utilised a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. Adult CRC survivors between 6- and 60-months post-diagnosis (n = 304) were purposively recruited from three hospitals and twenty-one cancer support centres in Ireland. QoL was evaluated using the EuroQol and FACT-C questionnaires and results compared to population norms. 22 survey participants took part in semi-structured interviews exploring the impact of survivorship issues on their daily lives. Results: While CRC survivors reported QoL outcomes comparable to or better than normative populations, 54% were dissatisfied with their QoL. The most common survivorship issues reported included negative body image (74%), fatigue (68%), sexual dysfunction (66%) and sleep disturbance (59%). Thematic analysis of the qualitative data illustrated survivors’ attempts to live with the impact of cancer and its treatment (loss, fear, impact) and striving to contextualise, reframe and understand the consequences of cancer and its treatment (control, vigilance, benefit). Within these themes, the cross-domain impact of less prevalent symptoms including bowel dysfunction (28–57%) and peripheral neuropathy (47%) were widely discussed. Conclusions: Although cancer survivors report positive QoL outcomes, many experience distressing physical, psychological and social effects. The findings suggest less common and difficult to manage symptoms are the greatest source of distress and unmet need. Support and information must be tailored to address survivors’ individual needs and preferences for support, informed by holistic person-centred assessment.

Background: End-of-life care practices in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are the focus of growing attention in Europe, due to rapidly increasing number of older persons living in LTCFs. The knowledge about end-of-life discussions or existence of written advance directives in the European LTCFs is scarce. This study's aim is to investigate the prevalence of written advance directives and their sociodemographic associates, among recently deceased LTCF residents, in six European countries. Methods: Data from the European Union-funded PACE database were collected from 322 LTCFs in six European countries in 2014. The assessments were performed by using two questionnaires designed for LTCF administrative staff and for staff member. LTCFs were selected within each country by using proportional stratified random sampling procedure. Facilities with certain types and sizes were included from each country. Multilevel multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate associations between written advance directives and selected predictors. Results: In total, 32.5 % of the 1384 deceased LTCF residents had a written advance directive with a range from 0% to 77 % between countries. The proportion of the most common advance directive, â € Do not resuscitate in case of cardiac or respiratory arrest (DNR)', varied correspondingly from 0% to 75%. LTCF type (OR 2.86 95% CI 1.59 to 5.23) and capability of expressing at the time of admission (OR 3.26 95% CI 2.26 to 4.71) were the independent predictors for advance directive. Residents living in LTCFs where physician was available were less likely to have advance directive compared with residents from LTCFs where physician was not available. Conclusion: Extensive differences for prevalence of written advance directive exist between countries among older LTCF residents in Europe. Timely and appropriate response to LTCF resident's health needs and preferences efforts advance care planning. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use pe