Collaboration, coordination and communication as facilitators of transitions for patients with advanced cancer: a scoping review linked to the Pal-Cycles project.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care is becoming increasingly recognised as an important element of palliative care. The current review syntheses evidence in relation to transitions in advanced cancer patients with palliative care needs. The review focuses on specific elements which will inform the Pal-Cycles programme, for patients with advanced cancer transitioning from hospital care to community care. Elements of transitional models for cancer patients may include, identification of palliative care needs, compassionate communication with the patient and family members, collaborative effort to establish a multi-dimensional treatment plan, review and evaluation of the treatment plan and identification of the end of life phase. METHODS: A scoping review of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies published from January 2013 to October, 2022. A further hand-search of references to locate additional relevant studies was also undertaken. Inclusion criteria involved cancer patients transitions of care with a minimum of two of components from those listed above. Studies were excluded if they were literature reviews, if transition of care was related to cancer survivors, involved non-cancer patients, had paediatric population, if the transition implied a change of therapy and or a lack of physical transit to a non-hospital place of care. This review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: Out of 5695 records found, 14 records were selected. Transition models identified: increases in palliative care consultations, hospice referrals, reduction in readmission rates and the ability to provide end of life care at home. Transition models highlight emotional and spiritual support for patients and families. No uniform model of transition was apparent, this depends on the healthcare system where it is implemented. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of collaboration, coordination and communication as central mechanisms for transitional model for patients with advanced cancer. This may require careful planning and will need to be tailored to the contexts of each healthcare system.

Potentially Inappropriate End of Life Care and Healthcare Costs in the Last 30 Days of Life in Regions Providing Integrated Palliative Care in the Netherlands: A Registration-based Study.

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effect of integrated palliative care (IPC) on potentially inappropriate end- of-life care and healthcare-costs in the last 30 days of life in the Netherlands. Methods: Nationwide health-insurance claims data were used to assess potentially inappropriate end-of-life care (≥2 emergency room visits; ≥2 hospital admissions; >14 days hospitalization; chemotherapy; ICU admission; hospital death) and healthcare-costs in all deceased adults in IPC regions pre- and post- implementation and in those receiving IPC compared to a 1:2 matched control group. Results: In regions providing IPC deceased adults (n = 37,468) received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care post-implementation compared to pre-implementation (26.5% vs 27.9%; p < 0.05). Deceased adults who received IPC (n = 210) also received significantly less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care compared to a matched control group (14.8% vs 28.3%; p < 0.05). Mean hospital costs significantly decreased for deceased adults who received IPC (€2,817), while mean costs increased for general practitioner services (€311) and home care (€1,632). Discussion: These results highlight the importance of implementation of integrated palliative care and suitable payment. Further research in a larger sample is needed. Conclusion: This study shows less potentially inappropriate end-of-life care and a shift in healthcare costs from hospital to general practitioner and home care with IPC.

Report on palliative sedation medication usage: a survey of palliative care experts in Eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania). METHODS: A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data. RESULTS: Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary.

Challenges to Exploring the Patient Perspective in Palliative Care Conversations: A Qualitative Study Among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Chronic Heart Failure Patients and Their Health Care Professionals.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to reveal the challenges faced in exploring the patient's perspective as experienced by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic heart failure and their health care professionals (HCPs), including the circumstances under which these challenges are experienced during palliative care conversations. Methods: This is a qualitative, explorative study in the Netherlands using purposive sampling to create diversity in demographic variables of both patients and HCPs. Semistructured interviews with 12 patients and 7 HCPs were carried out with the use of topic lists. All interviews were audiorecorded, verbatim transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Results: Patients find it challenging to express their wishes, preferences, and boundaries and say what is really preoccupying them, especially when they do not feel a good connection with their HCP. HCPs find it challenging to get to know the patient and discuss the patient's perspective particularly when patients are not proactive, open or realistic, or unable to understand or recall information. Conclusions: Patients and HCPs seem to share the same aim: patients want to be known and understood and HCPs want to know and understand the patient as a unique individual. At the same time, they seem unable to personalize their conversations. To move beyond this impasse patients and HCPs need to take steps and be empowered to do so.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials: a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients' decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. METHODS: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients' initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one's fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients' values, but generally only gave 'contrasting' examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. CONCLUSIONS: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.