Search

Abstract Background The number of palliative care patients with complex needs is increasing in developed countries. In addition to physical aspects and symptom control, psychosocial aspects are of great importance for palliative care patients. The aim of this study was to understand which psychosocial aspects are important to patients, relatives and health professionals within the setting of a palliative care unit in comparison with specialised palliative home-care (SPHC). Methods We used a qualitative design based on semistructured interviews, which were coded via qualitative content analysis. The study took place in the state of Hesse, Germany, and data collection was conducted in 2017 (interviews from the ELSAH study, which was conducted in a SPHC) and 2018 (supplementary interviews conducted in a palliative care unit). The results from both settings were compared. Results In the palliative care unit, 10 health professionals, 11 patients and 8 relatives were interviewed. In the outpatient setting, we interviewed 30 health professionals, 14 patients and 14 relatives. We identified four key psychosocial issues related to palliative care that were relevant in both the inpatient and outpatient settings: care planning, patient-centred care, a protected environment with feelings of safety, and psychological well-being. In addition, immediate availability of medical staff, greater relief of the relatives and better accessibility of psychological care were more important in the inpatient setting than in the specialised palliative home care setting. Conclusions Knowledge and application of the identified key issues may improve patient-centred palliative care. Accessibility of psychological care and immediate availability of medical staff may be important factors for enhancing psychological well-being in the inpatient palliative care setting. Consideration of the identified key issues may help to develop more collaborative transitions between the palliative care unit and the SPHC and may help to provide palliative care patients and their families with care that is appropriate and feasible for them. Trial registration The underlying comparative study of the outpatient setting of specialised palliative home-care (ELSAH) was registered within the German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421, ( https://drks.de/search/de/trial/DRKS00012421 ) on 19th May 2017.

Abstract Background Trials evaluating drug discontinuation (drug discontinuation trials, DDTs) show a broad methodological spectrum. There are several specific methodological aspects in drug discontinuation trials (e.g., determination of research question; configuration of intervention; definition of outcomes). To verify this specifies, we did a scoping review about the study designs of drug discontinuation trials. Methods A systematic literature search in Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was performed. In a two-step selection process, we identified DDTs, which evaluate the discontinuation of one or more long-term medication as the investigated intervention, by two independent reviewers. Besides bibliographic data, we extracted several parameters to describe the used study design of the included DDTs: motivation for DDT, initially treatment aim of the discontinued medication, study design, methods of discontinuation, follow-up times, number of study participants, and outcome parameter. Results Out of 12,132 records, we included 581 DDTs. The most common motivation for doing a DDT were expected side effects (48.8%), the motivation of proving the efficacy of medication (21.6%), or doubts on the expected benefit of the used medication (13.8%). The majority of the discontinued medication was initially prescribed to improve the prognosis of a chronic disease (60.4%) or to relieve symptoms (31%). The study designs of the trials showed a broad methodological spectrum. The minority of the drug discontinuation trials were randomized controlled trials (34%). Conclusion The results of this scoping review illustrates the need for an evidence-based methodological standard for planning and conducting drug discontinuation trials.

Abstract Background Such patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-centered outcome measures as the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), Phase of Illness, and IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC), facilitate patient-centered care and help improve quality. To ensure sustainability, implementation and usage should be adapted according to setting. When settings involve several distinct teams that differ in terms of views and working practices, it is more difficult to integrate outcome measures into daily care. The ELSAH study aimed to learn how health professionals working in specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) viewed the use of these outcome measures in daily care, and what they express is needed for successful sustainable, state-wide application. Methods We used a parallel mixed-methods design involving three focus groups (n = 14) and an online-survey based on normalization process theory (n = 76). Most participants were nurses and physicians from 19 SOPC-teams in Hesse, Germany. We used a triangulation protocol including convergence coding matrices to triangulate findings. Results The majority of health professionals were able to integrate the outcome measures into their working lives and said that it had become a normal part of their day-to-day work. To ensure their sustainable integration into daily care, the motivation and concerns of health professionals should be taken into consideration. Health professionals must clearly recognize how the measures help improve daily care and quality evaluation. Conclusions To implement the outcome measures in a number of teams, it will be necessary to take individual team characteristics into account, because they influence motivation and concerncs. Further, it will be necessary to offer opportunities for them to engage in peer support and share information with other teams. The sustainable use of outcome measures in SOPC will require continuous support within each team as well as across teams. When several distinct teams are working in the same setting, a cross-team coordination unit can help to coordinate their work efficiently. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421; www.germanctr.de/DRKS00012421

Abstract Background The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC. Methods Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures. Results We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording. Conclusions SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be. Trial registration May 19th, 2017, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421 .

Abstract International guidelines recommend to inform men about the benefits and harms of prostate specific antigen (PSA) based early detection of prostate cancer. This study investigates the influence of a transactional decision aid (DA) or cost compensation (CC) for a PSA test on the decisional behaviour of men. Prospective, cluster-randomised trial to compare two interventions in a 2 × 2 factorial design: DA versus counselling as usual, and CC versus noCC for PSA-testing. 90 cluster-randomised physicians in the administrative district of Muenster, Germany recruited 962 participants aged 55–69 yrs. in 2018. Primary endpoint: the influence of the DA and CC on the decisional conflict. Secondary endpoints: factors which altered the involvement of the men regarding their decision to take a PSA-test. The primary endpoint was analysed by a multivariate regression model. The choice to take the PSA test was increased by CC and reduced by the DA, the latter also reduced PSA uptake in men who were offered CC. The DA led to an increase of the median knowledge about early detection, changed willingness to perform a PSA test without increasing the level of shared decision, giving participants a stronger feeling of having made the decision by themselves. The DA did not alter the decisional conflict, as it was very low in all study groups. DA reduced and CC increased the PSA uptake. The DA seemed to have a greater impact on the participants than CC, as it led to fewer PSA tests even if CC was granted. Trial registration: German Clinical Trial Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien DRKS00007687). Registered: 06/05/2015. https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00007687 .

Abstract Background Making decisions about PSA screening tests is challenging, as it requires both knowledge of the possible benefits and harms of screening and an individual assessment of the patient's values. Our research explores how much and what information men perceive to be necessary with regard to screening for prostate cancer. Objective To explore men's information and associated needs for decision making in PSA testing. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting and participants We interviewed 32 men (aged 55‐69) about their decision making on PSA screening following counselling with a Decision Aid at their GP’s or urologist's practice in Germany. Main Outcome Measures Men's expressed needs for decision making in PSA testing. Methods All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed by framework analysis. Results Comprehensive pre‐screening counselling is needed. For the men in our study, information about test (in)accuracy, the benefit‐harm balance and consequences of the test were relevant and surprising. Additional needs were for interpretation support, a take‐home summary and time for deliberation. For several men, their physician's attitude was of interest. After being well‐informed, most men felt empowered to make a preference‐based decision on their own. Discussion Men were surprised by what they learned, especially regarding the accuracy and possible harms of screening. There is large variation in the breadth and depth of information needed, and some controversy regarding the consequences of testing. Conclusion and patient contribution A core set of information should be offered before men make their first PSA screening decision. Information about biopsy and associated side‐effects could follow in a short form, with details only on request. Knowledge about a high rate of false‐positive test results beforehand might help men handle a suspicious test result.

Abstract Background The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) is a screening tool designed to detect symptoms related to Central Sensitization (CS) and Central Sensitivity Syndromes (CSS) by measuring the degree of related phenomena. The objective of this study was to create a German, culturally-adapted version of the CSI and to test its psychometric properties. Methods A German version of the CSI (CSI-GE) was developed, culturally-adapted, and pretested for comprehensibility. The psychometric properties of the resulting version were validated in a clinical study with chronic pain and pain-free control subjects. To assess retest reliability, the CSI-GE was administered twice to a subgroup of patients. Structural validity was tested using factor analyses. To investigate construct validity a hypotheses testing approach was used, including (1) correlations between the CSI-GE and several other well-established questionnaires as well as (2) an investigation of the CSI-GE discriminative power between different subgroups of participants believed to have different degrees of CS. Results The CSI-GE showed excellent reliability, including high test-retest characteristics. Factor analyses confirmed a bi-factor dimensionality as has been determined previously. Analysing construct validity 6 out of 11 hypotheses (55%) were met. CSI-GE scores differentiated between subgroups according to expectations. Correlations between CSI-GE scores and other questionnaires suggested that none of the correlated constructs was identical, but there was overlap with other questionnaires based on symptom load. Several correlations did not fit with our current understanding of CS. Conclusion The CSI-GE appears to be a reliable tool for measuring CS/CSS-related symptomatology. Whether this implies that the CSI-GE measures the degree of CS within an individual subject remains unknown. The resulting score should be interpreted cautiously until further clarification of the construct.

Abstract Background In Germany, patients suffering from life-limiting conditions are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Evaluation of the quality of this service lacks currently integration of patient-relevant outcomes. There is also no scientific consensus how to prove quality of care in the special context of SOPC adequately. Existing quality reports are primarily based on descriptive structural data which do not allow for estimation of process quality or result quality. The ELSAH study (‘Evaluation of Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care in the German state of Hesse’) aims to choose - or, if necessary, to adopt - to evaluate and to implement a suit of measures to assess, evaluate and monitor the quality of specialized, home-based palliative care. Methods All 22 SOPC teams providing their services in the state of Hesse, Germany, participate in the ELSAH study. The study is divided in two phases: a preparation phase and a main study phase. Based on the findings of the preparation phase we have chosen a preliminary set of instruments including the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, Views on Care, Zarit Burden Interview, Phase of Illness, Goal Attainment Scaling, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, Consumer Quality Indices Palliative Care and Sense of Security in Care. During the main study phase, we will use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the instruments’ psychometric properties (reliability, validity, feasibility and practicability), to identify barriers, facilitators and limitations of their routine use and to explore how their use affects the care within the SOPC setting. Discussion At the end of this study, an outcome- and patient-centered, validated measurement approach should be provided, adapted for standardized evaluations in SOPC across patient groups, palliative care services and regions nationwide. The standardized application of instruments should allow for making valid statements and comparisons of health care quality in SOPC based on process- and outcome-evaluation rather than relying on structural data only. Moreover, the instruments might directly influence the care of patients in palliative situations. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421).

Abstract Background In 2007, the European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) provided a comprehensive set of recommendations and standards for the provision of adequate pediatric palliative care. A number of studies have shown deficits in pediatric palliative care compared to EAPC standards. In Germany, pediatric palliative care patients can be referred to specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) services, which are known to enhance quality of life, e.g. by avoiding hospitalization. However, current regulations for the provision of SOPC in Germany do not account for the different circumstances and needs of children and their families compared to adult palliative care patients. The “Evaluation of specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) in the German state of Hesse (ELSAH)” study aims to perform a needs assessment for pediatric patients (children, adolescents and young adults) receiving SOPC. This paper presents the study protocol for this assessment (work package II). Methods/Design The study uses a sequential mixed-methods study design with a focus on qualitative research. Data collection from professional and family caregivers and, as far as possible, pediatric patients, will involve both a written questionnaire based on European recommendations for pediatric palliative care, and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, professional caregivers will take part in focus group discussions and participatory observations. Interviews and focus groups will be tape- or video-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed in accordance with the principles of grounded theory (interviews) and content analysis (focus groups). A structured field note template will be used to record notes taken during the participatory observations. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 22 or higher) will be used for descriptive statistical analyses. The qualitative data analyses will be software-assisted by MAXQDA (version 12 or higher). Discussion This study will provide important information on what matters most to family caregivers and pediatric patients receiving SOPC. The results will add valuable knowledge to the criteria that distinguish SOPC for pediatric from SOPC for adult patients, and will provide an indication of how the German SOPC rule of procedure can be optimized to satisfy the special needs of pediatric patients. Trial registration Internet Portal of the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.germanctr.de , DRKS-ID: DRKS00012431).

Specialization training for physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and sports therapists involved in pediatric pain is scarce and curricula are rarely published. The objectives of this study are twofold: firstly, to perform a scoping review to derive important contents for a pediatric pain education curriculum for specialized pain therapists. Secondly, to conduct a survey on specific contents in curricula currently used by pain experts and to obtain their evaluation regarding the importance of such contents for a specialized curriculum. The review substantiated the importance of a specific curriculum in pediatric pain education, but provided little information on adequate contents. In the survey, 45 experts in pediatric pain education confirmed that specific curricula and specialized contents for pediatric pain education are missing. Their answers give a well-defined picture of the specifics needed in the interaction with a pediatric population. The most important items they classified were e.g., the biopsychosocial framework and the impact of pediatric pain on daily life. Those expert ratings were in line with the recommendations of pediatric pain management guidelines. Further curriculum work in an interdisciplinary, international network is highly recommended.