Support practices by an interdisciplinary team in a palliative-care unit for relatives of patients in agonal phase.

BACKGROUND: In the absence of extant recommendations, the aim of this study was to formalise support practices used by an interdisciplinary team in a palliative-care unit (PCU) for the relatives of patients in the agonal phase preceding death. The secondary objective was to understand the expectations of relatives during this phase in terms of the support provided by professionals and volunteers. METHODS: Thirty-two people took part in this study; all were interviewed through focus groups (FGs). Each FG comprised one category of individuals working in the PCU: nurses, care- assistants, doctors, psychologists, other professionals, palliative-care volunteers, and relatives. Groups were surveyed using an interview guide, and the interviews were recorded and transcribed to enable identification and characterization of all practices. Care practices were classified into four categories: current consensual practices (i.e. performed by all team members), occasional consensual practices, non-consensual practices (performed by one or a few participants), and practices to be developed. RESULTS: In total, 215 practices were mentioned by professionals and palliative-care volunteers: 150 current consensual practices, 48 occasional consensual practices, 1 non-consensual practice, 16 practices yet to be developed, and 29 practices for relatives. Many practices were mentioned by different categories of participants; thus, after cross-checking, the number of practices decreased from 215 to 52. A list of practices deemed desirable by all was drawn up and then validated by the entire interprofessional team. These practices were organised around four themes: providing care and ensuring comfort; communicating, informing, and explaining; interacting; and mobilising interdisciplinary skills. CONCLUSIONS: These results underline the importance of the quality of care provided to patients, the attention given to the relatives themselves, and they highlight the importance of the helping relationship. Following this study, which established a list of varied practices aimed at supporting the relatives of patients in agonal phase, it will be important to set up a broader study seeking to establish a consensus on these practices with an interprofessional group of experts from other PCUs using broad surveys and an adapted methodology. Such studies will make it possible to develop training modules for teams working with relatives.

Validation of the Behavioural Observation Scale 3 for the evaluation of pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Many behavioural scales are available to assess pain but none are suitable for a quick evaluation of non-sedated and non-geriatric adults. The Behavioural Observation Scale 3 (BOS-3) is short, composed of five items. This study examined its feasibility and diagnostic performances. METHODS: Adult patients were included from medical and surgical departments of the University Hospital of Bordeaux. In a cross-sectional study, BOS-3 was compared to Numerical Rate Scale (NRS) with communicating patients (CP) and Behavioural Scale for the Elderly Person (ECPA2) with non-communicating patients (NCP). Each time, BOS-3 and reference scale were performed by an internal caregiver and an external expert. RESULTS: We included 447 patients: 395 communicating and 52 non-communicating. All patients were assessed by the BOS-3 and the reference test. All BOS-3 were carried out in less than one minute with only four missing data. Its reproducibility (ICC = 0.77 [95% CI 0.73-0.81] with CP and 0.93 [95% CI 0.89-0.97] with NCP) and its internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.67 with CP and 0.70 with NCP) were good. In non-communicating patients, ROC analysis set a threshold at 3 on 10. Sensitivity was 0.87 [95% CI 0.77-0.96], specificity 0.97 [95% CI 0.93-1.00], positive predictive value 0.93 [95% CI 0.86-0.99] and negative predictive value 0.95 [95% CI 0.89-1.00]. In communicating patients, sensitivity decreased to 0.34 [95% CI 0.28-0.38] but specificity reached 0.96 [95% CI 0.94-0.98] and positive predictive value 0.75 [95% CI 0.70-0.79]. CONCLUSIONS: BOS-3 had good metrological properties in non-communicating adults. With communicating patients, a positive BOS-3 could be an additional tool to confirm pain, when underestimated on the NRS. SIGNIFICANCE: This study describes the diagnostic performances of a behavioral pain assessment scale designed for non-geriatric and non-sedated adults. The results show its validity in non-communicating patients and suggest its usefulness as an ancillary tool in communicating patients in whom simple numerical scales are often insufficient.

[Discomfort symptoms other than pain at the end of life]. / Symptômes d'inconfort autres que la douleur en fin de vie.

Discomfort symptoms can be intense at the ending life. To relieve the dying conditions, general practitioners and hospital doctors should be able to give attentive bodily cares and prescribe adjusted drugs, always based on clinic evaluation. This article tries to answer to the following questions. How to feed and hydrate the patient? How to administer drugs? Is it possible to prevent scabs, swallowing problems, vesicle eyeballs, fecaloma? How to treat terminal dyspnea, to face emergencies? Which psychotropic drugs can alleviate anxiety, depression, delirium? Which criteria to use to take therapeutic decisions in terminal stage?