The role of psychologists in supporting illness-related dying and death: A systematic mixed studies review.

Psychologists remain underrepresented in end-of-life care, and there is limited understanding of their role among healthcare professionals, patients, and caregivers. This systematic mixed-studies review, prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020215775), explored the role of psychologists, and the facilitators and barriers they experience, in supporting clients with illness-related dying and death. A search of six research databases was conducted in October 2023. Fifty-one studies, mainly qualitative and from the perspectives of psychologists, met inclusion criteria. Thematic synthesis highlighted how psychologists provided expertise across various contexts. They supported clients with preparing for death, and adjusting to dying, provided professional consultancy and support, and undertook leadership in enhancing psychological end-of-life care. Results illustrated the sustaining factors and ongoing challenges working in end-of-life care, namely, the unique nature of navigating the death space, recognition and awareness of psychologists' contribution, and the support, training and development required. Given the universality of dying and death, this review is relevant to psychologists working within and beyond more traditional end-of-life care contexts, such as employee assistance programs, private practice, schools, and other psychological services. Policy, clinical and research implications are discussed, including the need for greater engagement and training of psychologists in the dying and death space.

Validating care and treatment scenarios for measuring decisional conflict regarding future care preferences among older adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decisional conflict is used increasingly as an outcome measure in advance care planning (ACP) studies. When the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is used in anticipatory decision-making contexts, the scale is typically tethered to hypothetical scenarios. This study reports preliminary validation data for hypothetical scenarios relating to life-sustaining treatments and care utilisation to inform their broader use in ACP studies. METHODS: Three hypothetical scenarios were developed by a panel of multidisciplinary researchers, clinicians and community representatives. A convenience sample of 262 older adults were surveyed. Analyses investigated comprehensibility, missing data properties, sample norms, structural, convergent and discriminant validity. RESULTS: Response characteristics suggested that two of the scenarios had adequate comprehensibility and response spread. Missing response rates were unrelated to demographic characteristics. Predicted associations between DCS scores and anxiety (r's = .31-.37, p < .001), and ACP engagement (r's = -.41 to -.37, p < .001) indicated convergent validity. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of older adults reported clinically significant levels of decisional conflict when responding to a range of hypothetical scenarios about care or treatment. Two scenarios showed acceptable comprehensibility and response characteristics. A third scenario may be suitable following further refinement. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The scenarios tested here were designed in collaboration with a community representative and were further piloted with two groups of community members with relevant lived experiences; four people with life-limiting conditions and five current or former care partners.

Development of a palliative paramedicine framework to standardise best practice: A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Growing global demand for palliative care services has prompted generalist clinicians to provide adjunct support to specialist teams. Paramedics are uniquely placed to respond to these patients in the community. However, embedding palliative care principles into their core business will require multifactorial interventions at structural, healthcare service and individual clinician and consumer levels. AIM: To develop a palliative paramedicine framework suitable for national implementation, to standardise best practice in Australia. DESIGN: Delphi study utilising questionnaire completion; each round informed the need for, and content of, the next round. Free text comments were also sought in Round 1. Two rounds of Delphi were undertaken. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-eight participants took part in Round 1, representing six countries, and 66 in Round 2. Participants included paramedics, palliative care doctors and nurses, general practitioners, researchers and carers with lived experience and expertise in palliative paramedicine. RESULTS: Seventeen of the original 24 components gained consensus; 6 components were modified; and 9 new components arose from Round 1. All modified and new components gained consensus in Round 2. Only one original component did not gain consensus across both rounds and was excluded from the final 32-component framework. CONCLUSION: This study has developed a comprehensive national framework addressing the macro-, meso- and micro-level interventions required to standardise palliative paramedicine across Australia. Future research ought to engage a multidisciplinary team to create an implementation strategy, addressing any perceived barriers, facilitators and challenges for applying the framework into policy and practice.