European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline on symptom management for adults with serious respiratory illness.

Respiratory symptoms are ubiquitous and impair health-related quality of life in people with respiratory disease. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force aimed to provide recommendations for symptomatic treatment in people with serious respiratory illness. The ERS task force comprised 16 members, including representatives of people with serious respiratory illness and informal caregivers. Seven questions were formulated, six in the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format, which were addressed with full systematic reviews and evidence assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). One question was addressed narratively. An "evidence-to-decision" framework was used to formulate recommendations. To treat symptoms in people with serious respiratory illness, the task force suggests the use of graded exercise therapy (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence); and suggests the use of a multicomponent services, handheld fan and breathing techniques (conditional recommendations, very low certainty of evidence). The task force suggests not to use opioids (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence); and suggests either administering or not administering supplemental oxygen therapy (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The task force suggests that needs assessment tools may be used as part of a comprehensive needs assessment, but do not replace patient-centred care and shared decision making (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The low certainty of evidence, modest impact of interventions on patient-centred outcomes, and absence of effective strategies to ameliorate cough highlight the need for new approaches to reduce symptoms and enhance wellbeing for individuals who live with serious respiratory illness.

More than the sum of its parts-A constructivist grounded-theory study on specialist palliative care during crises like the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID pandemic is an example of a crisis challenging healthcare systems worldwide. The impact of the pandemic on providing high-quality palliative care calls for a deeper understanding of specialist services during crises. This is essential in preparation for further crises. AIM: To develop a conceptual understanding of the impact of the pandemic on specialist palliative care as an example for arising future crises. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study across Germany, following a constructivist grounded theory methodology. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Eleven semi-structured interviews with experts with overarching knowledge of structures and processes in specialist palliative care between 05-07/2020 and between 02-06/2021, 23 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals working in a specialist palliative care setting. RESULTS: The complex system of palliative care provision during crises has properties that cannot be understood as separated parts of the care process. The pandemic led to unique structural and processual challenges characterized by interconnectedness, uncertainty, dynamic, underlying dilemmas, and unclear long-term goal. In response to the pandemic, teams experienced different phases, which enhanced adaption, innovation, and progress within complex care situations. Creative strategy approaches and dynamic responsiveness facilitated innovative development and could lead to long-lasting improvement within services. Availability of information, transparent communication, comprehensible instructions, participation in decision-making, and search for solutions contributed to teams' proactive development throughout the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Addressing the complex problems in specialist palliative care caused by crises requires system thinking and a learning mindset. This can facilitate teams to overcome the crisis and move forward rather than bounce back to normal.

Practice review: Pharmacological management of severe chronic breathlessness in adults with advanced life-limiting diseases.

BACKGROUND: Severe and refractory chronic breathlessness is a common and burdensome symptom in patients with advanced life-limiting disease. Its clinical management is challenging because of the lack of effective interventions. AIM: To provide practice recommendations on the safe use of pharmacological therapies for severe chronic breathlessness. DESIGN: Scoping review of (inter)national guidelines and systematic reviews. We additionally searched for primary studies where no systematic review could be identified. Consensus on the recommendations was reached by 75% approval within an international expert panel. DATA SOURCES: Searches in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library and Guideline International Network until March 2023. Inclusion of publications on the use of antidepressants, benzodiazepines, opioids or corticosteroids for chronic breathlessness in adults with cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease or chronic heart failure. RESULTS: Overall, the evidence from eight guidelines, 14 systematic reviews and 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on antidepressants is limited. There is low quality evidence favouring opioids in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer and interstitial lung disease. For chronic heart failure, evidence is inconclusive. Benzodiazepines should only be considered for anxiety associated with severe breathlessness. Antidepressants and corticosteroids should not be used. CONCLUSION: Management of breathlessness remains challenging with only few pharmacological options with limited and partially conflicting evidence. Therefore, pharmacological treatment should be reserved for patients with advanced disease under monitoring of side effects, after optimisation of the underlying condition and use of evidence-based non-pharmacological interventions as first-line treatment.

Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care-a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Standardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: Although benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs.

[Dealing with assisted suicide-knowledge, attitudes and experiences of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine]. / Umgang mit assistiertem Suizid ­ Kenntnisse, Einstellungen und Erfahrungen von Mitgliedern der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Palliativmedizin.

BACKGROUND: In February 2020, the Federal Constitutional Court declared § 217 of the German Criminal Code void. Ever since, assisted suicide services have been legal in Germany. This study aims to describe the knowledge, attitudes and experiences of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) regarding assisted suicide. METHODS: Online survey with members of the DGP from July to September 2023 using Qualtrics®. The study group developed the questionnaire based on current literature; it was adapted following an initial application among young physicians and an interprofessional panel of experts with consensus voting. Data was analysed using descriptive and explorative statistics. RESULTS: 991 DGP-members (18%) participated, of which physicians made up 57.0% (n = 545/957) and nurses 23.4% (n = 224/957). Of the participants, 197/851 (23.1%) incorrectly stated that assisted suicide is prohibited by professional code, 430/914 (47.1%) rejected a restriction of palliative care teams to suicide prevention measures, and 766/930 (82.4%) rejected personal involvement in assisted suicide regardless of a patient's health status. For patients in palliative situations, 473/926 (51.1%) could imagine participating in assisted suicide, and 71% wanted new legislation regulating assisted suicide. CONCLUSION: There are gaps in the knowledge of the participating members of the DGP regarding the legal and professional status of assisted suicide. Further educational work is needed in this regard. The participants can more easily imagine assisted suicide for people in palliative disease trajectories. As in surveys of members of other medical societies, the attitudes of more experienced staff are reflected. Compared to younger healthcare professionals, they have a more restrictive attitude towards the concept of assisted suicide.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Specialized Breathlessness Service Versus Usual Care for Patients With Advanced Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: The Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS) significantly improved control of breathlessness measured by the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) Mastery in a randomized controlled fast track trial with waitlist group design spanning 8 weeks in Germany. This study aimed to assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of MBS from a societal perspective. METHODS: Data included generic (5-level version of EQ-5D) health-related quality of life and disease-specific CRQ Mastery. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on 5-level version of EQ-5D utilities valued with German time trade-off. Direct medical costs and productivity loss were calculated based on standardized unit costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) and cost-effectiveness-acceptance curves were calculated using adjusted mean differences (AMD) in costs (gamma-distributed model) and both effect parameters (Gaussian-distributed model) and performing 1000 simultaneous bootstrap replications. Potential gender differences were investigated in stratified analyses. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and April 2019, 183 eligible patients were enrolled. MBS intervention demonstrated significantly better effects regarding generic (AMD of QALY gains of 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.0003 to 0.008) and disease-specific health-related quality of life at nonsignificantly higher costs (AMD of €605 [95% CI -1109 to 2550]). At the end of the intervention, the ICER was €152 433/QALY (95% CI -453 545 to 1 625 903) and €1548/CRQ Mastery point (95% CI -3093 to 10 168). Intervention costs were on average €357 (SD = 132). Gender-specific analyses displayed dominance for MBS in males and higher effects coupled with significantly higher costs in females. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show a high ICER for MBS. Considering dominance for MBS in males, implementing MBS on approval within the German health care system should be considered.

Specialized palliative care for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of the LEOSS registry.

PURPOSE: Symptom control for patients who were severely ill or dying from COVID-19 was paramount while resources were strained and infection control measures were in place. We aimed to describe the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who received specialized palliative care (SPC) and the type of SPC provided in a larger cohort. METHODS: From the multi-centre cohort study Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS), data of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection documented between July 2020 and October 2021 were analysed. RESULTS: 273/7292 patients (3.7%) received SPC. Those receiving SPC were older and suffered more often from comorbidities, but 59% presented with an estimated life expectancy > 1 year. Main symptoms were dyspnoea, delirium, and excessive tiredness. 224/273 patients (82%) died during the hospital stay compared to 789/7019 (11%) without SPC. Symptom control was provided most common (223/273; 95%), followed by family and psychological support (50% resp. 43%). Personal contact with friends or relatives before or during the dying phase was more often documented in patients receiving SPC compared to patients without SPC (52% vs. 30%). CONCLUSION: In 3.7% of SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients, the burden of the acute infection triggered palliative care involvement. Besides complex symptom management, SPC professionals also focused on psychosocial and family issues and aimed to enable personal contacts of dying patients with their family. The data underpin the need for further involvement of SPC in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients but also in other severe chronic infectious diseases.

Challenges developing an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement for palliative home care: A qualitative interview and focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures have the potential to improve outcomes, quality, and effectiveness of care. Digital use of patient-reported outcome measures could be an option to foster implementation in palliative care. The Palli-MONITOR study focused on developing and testing an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in specialised palliative home care. As part of this study, we examined setting-specific challenges for the development of the measure. AIM: We aimed to identify and explore challenges for the development of electronic patient-reported outcome measures as standardised assessment in specialised palliative home care. DESIGN: Qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Data were thematically analysed using the framework method. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients and professionals from five German palliative home care teams. RESULTS: Patients described potential problems in using electronic questionnaires due to their deteriorating health. Answering the electronic questionnaire encouraged patients to reflect on their current palliative situation, which was partly perceived as burdensome. Identified concerns and questions regarding the future roll-out of electronic patient-reported outcome measurement addressed the process of receiving and using the provided information in clinical care routine. Challenging factors on organisational and structural level were the potential undermining of the established 24-h emergency call system and the potential use for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a multifaceted picture of challenges developing electronic systems for patient-reported outcome measurement in palliative home care on the individual and organisational level. The study underpins the benefit of stakeholder involvement creating digital health innovations and emphasises the importance to therefore mind setting specific culture.

Measurement equivalence of the paper-based and electronic version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS): A randomised crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) validly and reliably measures symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. AIM: To determine the equivalence of the paper version with an electronic version of the IPOS (eIPOS). DESIGN: Multicentre randomised crossover trial (NCT03879668) with a within-subject comparison of the two modes (washout period 30 min). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of specialist inpatient and palliative home care patients aged over 18 years with cancer and non-cancer conditions was recruited. Scores were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and via a mixed-effects analysis of variance. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomised to complete paper-electronic (n = 24) and electronic-paper (n = 26) IPOS with median age 69 years (range 24-95), 56% male, 16% non-cancer. The ICCs showed very high concordance for the total score (ICC 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.00), lowest ICCs being observed for symptoms 'Appetite loss' and 'Drowsiness' (ICC 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97). Nine of seventeen items had ICCs above 0.98, as did all subscales. No statistically significant mode, order, age, and interaction effects were observed for IPOS total score and subscales, except for 'Communication' (Fmode = 5.9, p = 0.019). Fifty-eight percent preferred the electronic version. In the group 75+ years, 53% preferred the paper version. Only three entries in the free-text main problems differed between the versions. CONCLUSION: The very high equivalence in scores and free text between the IPOS and the eIPOS demonstrates that eIPOS is feasible and reliable in an older palliative population.

"It's pretty much flying blind in the home care setting": A qualitative study on the influence of home care specific circumstances on sedation in specialist palliative home care.

BACKGROUND: Existing data on sedation at the end of life indicate challenges in the home care setting, leading to deviations from guidelines or non-provision of sedation. AIM: As part of the "SedPall" study, we aimed to explore circumstances in specialist palliative home care, which influence the practice of sedation. DESIGN: Semi-structured qualitative interviews (n = 59) and two focus groups (n = 4, n = 5). Recruitment took place via contact persons. We thematically analyzed the transcripts with the Framework Approach, using MAXQDA 2018.2. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurses, and other members of the multiprofessional team from 10 palliative care units and seven home care teams. RESULTS: Participants reported home care specific circumstances that can be categorized into three interrelated topics. (1) Lack of 24/7 on-site availability, (2) active involvement of the family, (3) challenges regarding teamwork and multidisciplinarity. Participants drew different conclusions from the reported circumstances regarding the feasibility of different types of sedation at home: While some reported to generally use all types of sedation, others stated that some types of sedation are not feasible in home care, for example deep sedation until death. Most participants questioned the applicability of existing sedation guidelines in the home care setting. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that sedation practices might currently follow the healthcare professional's attitude or service policy rather than the patient's need. To avoid hospital admission in manageable cases and ensure that home care specific best practice standards are met, existing guideline recommendations have to be adapted and supplemented by additional supporting measures specific for the home care setting.

Accessibility to specialist palliative care services in Germany: a geographical network analysis.

BACKGROUND: The need for palliative care will increase over the next years because of the rise in deaths from chronic illness and demographic changes. The provision of specialist palliative care (SPC) in Germany (palliative care units (PCU), specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams and palliative care advisory (PCA) teams) has been expanded in recent years. Despite the increasing availability, there is still insufficient coverage with long travel times. The aim was to describe the spatial distribution of SPC services in Germany, to calculate the potential accessibility of facilities and to assess potential spatial under-provision. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study with regional analysis of SPC services in Germany. Addresses of SPC services registered online were geocoded, accessibility and network analyses were conducted, and proportion of the population living up to 60 minutes driving time were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 673 facilities were included. Their distribution is heterogeneous with every fourth of the 401 districts (110/401; 27.4%) lacking a SPC service. In half of the area of Germany the existing PCU and SPHC teams are within reach of 30 minutes, with nearly 90% of the population living there. Hospitals providing PCA teams can be reached within 30 minutes in 17% of the total area with provision for 43% of the population. CONCLUSIONS: A high coverage of SPHC teams and PCU indicates a good spatial distribution in Germany but no complete adequate provision of SPC services, especially for PCA teams. There is a persistent need for further implementation of hospital PCA teams.

Symptom and problem clusters in German specialist palliative home care - a factor analysis of non-oncological and oncological patients' symptom burden.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative home care (SPHC) aims to maintain and improve patients' quality of life in the community setting. Symptom burden may differ between oncological and non-oncological patients. However, little is known about diagnosis-related differences of SPHC patients. This study aims to describe the prevalence of physical symptom burden and psychosocial problems of adult patients in SPHC, and to evaluate diagnosis-related symptom clusters. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective, cross-sectional, multi-centre study on complexity of patients, registered at the German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS trial registration number: DRKS00020517, 12/10/2020). Descriptive statistics on physical symptom burden and psychosocial problems at the beginning of care episodes. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to identify symptom and problem clusters. RESULTS: Seven hundred seventy-eight episodes from nine SPHC teams were included, average age was 75 years, mean duration of episode 18.6 days (SD 19.4). 212/778 (27.2%) had a non-oncological diagnosis. Main burden in non-oncological episodes was due to poor mobility (194/211; 91.9%) with significant diagnosis-related differences (χ² = 8.145, df = 1, p = .004; oncological: 472/562; 84.0%), and due to weakness (522/565; 92.4%) in oncological episodes. Two symptom clusters (psychosocial and physical) for non-oncological and three clusters (psychosocial, physical and communicational/practical) for oncological groups were identified. More patients in the non-oncological group compared to the oncological group showed at least one symptom cluster (83/212; 39.2% vs. 172/566; 30.4%). CONCLUSION: Patients with non-oncological diseases had shorter episode durations and were more affected by symptom clusters, whereas patients with oncological diseases showed an additional communicational/practical cluster. Our findings indicate the high relevance of care planning as an important part of SPHC to facilitate anticipatory symptom control in both groups.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on processes, resource use and cost in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacts on working routines and workload of palliative care (PC) teams but information is lacking how resource use and associated hospital costs for PC changed at patient-level during the pandemic. We aim to describe differences in patient characteristics, care processes and resource use in specialist PC (PC unit and PC advisory team) in a university hospital before and during the first pandemic year. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study using routine data of all patients cared for in a PC unit and a PC advisory team during 10-12/2019 and 10-12/2020. Data included patient characteristics (age, sex, cancer/non-cancer, symptom/problem burden using Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS)), information on care episode, and labour time calculated in care minutes. Cost calculation with combined top-down bottom-up approach with hospital's cost data from 2019. Descriptive statistics and comparisons between groups using parametric and non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Inclusion of 55/76 patient episodes in 2019/2020 from the PC unit and 135/120 episodes from the PC advisory team, respectively. IPOS scores were lower in 2020 (PCU: 2.0 points; PC advisory team: 3.0 points). The number of completed assessments differed considerably between years (PCU: episode beginning 30.9%/54.0% in 2019/2020; PC advisory team: 47.4%/40.0%). Care episodes were by one day shorter in 2020 in the PC advisory team. Only slight non-significant differences were observed regarding total minutes/day and patient (PCU: 150.0/141.1 min., PC advisory team: 54.2/66.9 min.). Staff minutes showed a significant decrease in minutes spent in direct contact with relatives (PCU: 13.9/7.3 min/day in 2019/2020, PC advisory team: 5.0/3.5 min/day). Costs per patient/day decreased significantly in 2020 compared to 2019 on the PCU (1075 Euro/944 Euro for 2019/2020) and increased significantly for the PC advisory team (161 Euro/200 Euro for 2019/2020). Overhead costs accounted for more than two thirds of total costs. Direct patient cost differed only slightly (PCU: 134.7 Euro/131.1 Euro in 2019/2020, PC advisory team: 54.4 Euro/57.3 Euro). CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic partially impacted on daily work routines, especially on time spent with relatives and palliative care problem assessments. Care processes and quality of care might vary and have different outcomes during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Direct costs per patient/day were comparable, regardless of the pandemic.

Expert-approved best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care (SedPall).

BACKGROUND: The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue's great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall ("From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation - Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care") with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area. DESIGN: Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%. RESULTS: Ten experts commented on the recommendations' first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics "indications", "intent/purpose [of sedation]", "decision-making", "information and consent", "medication and type of sedation", "monitoring", "management of fluids and nutrition", "continuing other measures", "support for relatives", and "team support". The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues. CONCLUSION: Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations' implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register).

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine: consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DGPalliativmedizin]. / Palliativmedizinische Aspekte in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin: Konsensuspapier der DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA und DGPalliativmedizin.

The timely integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S-3-guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients being treated in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine : Consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DGPalliativmedizin]. / Palliativmedizinische Aspekte in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin : Konsensuspapier der DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA und DGPalliativmedizin.

The timely integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S­3-guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients presenting in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

Development of a national strategy with recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics: A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a constant challenge for health care systems, also in Germany. Care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives is often neglected and suffering increased due to sub-optimal symptom management, visiting restrictions and lonely dying. The project "Palliative Care in Pandemics (PallPan)" intended to develop a national strategy including evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives during pandemic times in Germany. AIM: To reach consensus on evidence-based recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics. METHODS: Three-step consensus process comprising two online Delphi rounds and an expert workshop conducted from April to June 2021. One hundred twenty experts from various areas of healthcare, administration, and politics in Germany were included. RESULTS: During the consensus-process, pre-formulated evidence-based recommendations were refined step-by-step. This resulted in consensus on 33 recommendations on the topics of "supporting patients and their relatives," "supporting staff," and "supporting and maintaining structures and provision of palliative care." The recommendations address professional carers and various responsibilities on a governmental, federal state and municipal level, and in healthcare facilities. CONCLUSION: We provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics in Germany. This is an important step towards a pandemic preparedness and hopefully improves the future palliative care response to pandemics.

Implementation of an acute palliative care unit for COVID-19 patients in a tertiary hospital: Qualitative data on clinician perspectives.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become apparent that palliative care has dynamically adapted to the care of dying patients with and without COVID-19 and has developed new forms of collaboration. Evaluation is needed to assess which innovations should be integrated into future pandemic management. AIM: To explore the experiences of stakeholders and staff in implementing and operating an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care. What lessons were learned? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study (German Clinical Trials Register; identifier 22,473) with qualitative content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, the University Medical Center Freiburg (Germany) established an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care for COVID-19 patients likely to die. Nurses from non-palliative areas and the specialist palliative care team formed a new team working together there. Twenty-nine individuals from management and staff of this unit were interviewed. RESULTS: Patient care and teamwork were rated positively. Joint familiarization, bedside teaching, and team/management support were evaluated as core elements for success. Challenges for the nurses from non-palliative settings included adapting to palliative care routines and culture of care. The palliative care team had to adjust the high standards of palliative care to pandemic conditions. Due to sufficient hospital-wide capacity, only three COVID-19 patients were treated, significantly fewer than anticipated at planning. CONCLUSIONS: Results show the feasibility of an ad hoc COVID-19 acute palliative care unit. In the event of capacity constraints, such a unit can be a viable part of future pandemic management.

It's like standing in front of a prison fence - Dying during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic: A qualitative study of bereaved relatives' experiences.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the SARS CoV2 pandemic, protective and isolation measures had a strong impact on the care and support provided to seriously ill and dying people at the end-of-life. AIM: Exploring bereaved relatives' experiences of end-of-life care during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with bereaved relatives. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two relatives of patients who died during the pandemic, regardless of infection with SARS-CoV2. RESULTS: Three core categories were identified: needs, burden and best practice. Relatives wished for a contact person responsible for providing information on the medical and mental condition of their family members. The lack of information, of support by others and physical closeness due to the visiting restrictions, as well as not being able to say goodbye, were felt as burdens and led to emotional distress. However, case-by-case decisions were made and creative ways of staying in touch were experienced positively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the strong need for closeness when a family member was dying could not be met due to the pandemic. This led to suffering that can be prevented. Visits need to be facilitated by making considered decisions on a case-by-case basis. For easy communication with relatives, approaches should be made by healthcare professionals and support for virtual communication should be offered. Furthermore, the results of the study can help to implement or develop ideas to enable dignified farewells even during pandemics.

COMPANION: development of a patient-centred complexity and casemix classification for adult palliative care patients based on needs and resource use - a protocol for a cross-sectional multi-centre study.

BACKGROUND: A casemix classification based on patients' needs can serve to better describe the patient group in palliative care and thus help to develop adequate future care structures and enable national benchmarking and quality control. However, in Germany, there is no such an evidence-based system to differentiate the complexity of patients' needs in palliative care. Therefore, the study aims to develop a patient-oriented, nationally applicable complexity and casemix classification for adult palliative care patients in Germany. METHODS: COMPANION is a mixed-methods study with data derived from three subprojects. Subproject 1: Prospective, cross-sectional multi-centre study collecting data on patients' needs which reflect the complexity of the respective patient situation, as well as data on resources that are required to meet these needs in specialist palliative care units, palliative care advisory teams, and specialist palliative home care. Subproject 2: Qualitative study including the development of a literature-based preliminary list of characteristics, expert interviews, and a focus group to develop a taxonomy for specialist palliative care models. Subproject 3: Multi-centre costing study based on resource data from subproject 1 and data of study centres. Data and results from the three subprojects will inform each other and form the basis for the development of the casemix classification. Ultimately, the casemix classification will be developed by applying Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analyses using patient and complexity data from subproject 1 and patient-related cost data from subproject 3. DISCUSSION: This is the first multi-centre costing study that integrates the structure and process characteristics of different palliative care settings in Germany with individual patient care. The mixed methods design and variety of included data allow for the development of a casemix classification that reflect on the complexity of the research subject. The consecutive inclusion of all patients cared for in participating study centres within the time of data collection allows for a comprehensive description of palliative care patients and their needs. A limiting factor is that data will be collected at least partly during the COVID-19 pandemic and potential impact of the pandemic on health care and the research topic cannot be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Register for Clinical Studies trial registration number: DRKS00020517 .