Palliative care in the Eastern Mediterranean: comparative analysis using specific indicators.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring the development of palliative care (PC) illustrates the capacity of health systems to respond to the needs of people experiencing serious health-related suffering. AIM: To analyse comparatively the situation of PC in the countries of the Easter Mediterranean region using context-specific indicators. METHOD: An online questionnaire with 15 context-specific PC indicators investigating service provision, use of medicines, policy, education, and vitality was designed. Authors Institution 1 nominated in-country experts to complete the survey. Data were analysed using a comparative description of indicators per domain and a multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In-country experts were identified in 17/22 countries. 12/17 contributed to the survey. In total, 117 specialized PC services were identified. Specialized services per population ranges from 0.09 per 100,000 inhabitants in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait; to zero services in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. On average, opioid consumption was 2.40 mg/capita/year. National PC strategies were reported in nine countries. In six countries, PC is officially accredited either as a specialty or sub-specialty, and PC mandatory courses are implemented in 36% of medical schools and 46% of nursing schools. National PC associations were documented in six countries. A higher pattern of development was identified in Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Lebanon, Qatar. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher development in the Arabian Peninsula, the region is characterised by a very low provision of specialized PC services and opioid consumption. Policy improvements represent an opportunity to improve access to PC.

Region-specific macro-indicators for palliative care development in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: a Delphi study.

Background: The World Health Organization Office for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (WHO/EMRO), and the recently created palliative care experts network for the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), decided to develop region-specific indicators for monitoring national palliative care development in the Region. Aims: To identify relevant and feasible macro-indicators for palliative care development for the EMR. Methods: Palliative care experts from the EMR were nominated and invited to complete a 2-round Delphi study to rate macro-indicators from previous studies and propose new ones based on the EMR regional characteristics. All indicators were assessed according to regional relevance (R) and feasibility (F). A content validity index (CVI) was calculated. Indicators with CVI ≥ 0.7/1, and scoring ≥ 7/9 for the R and F averages were selected. Results: Twelve of the 22 countries in the Region were represented in the study. In the first round, 11 indicators were selected and 13 new ones proposed. In the second round, 15 indicators matched R, F and CVI criteria. Top-scored indicators were: existence of a current national palliative care strategy (R = 8, F = 8, CVI = 1); ratio of specialized services (for adults and children) in the country per population (R = 8, F = 7, CVI = 1); allocation of funds for palliative care in the national health budget by the Ministry of Health or equivalent government agency (R = 8, F = 6, CVI = 1); education for prequalification of doctors/nurses (R = 8, F = 8, CVI = 0.9); and availability of morphine and other strong opioids (R =8, F = 8, CVI= 0.9). Conclusion: A baseline set of 15 region-specific indicators for measuring the development of palliative care were validated by experts in the EMR.

Development of an atlas of palliative care in the Eastern Mediterranean Region through a stakeholder participative process.

Background: The increasing number of people experiencing serious health-related suffering due to severe illness is an urgent issue in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR). Although palliative care can mitigate much of this suffering, its current development and indicators to measure progress remain unknown. Aims: To describe the development of the Atlas of palliative care in the Eastern Mediterranean Region 2021. Methods: Recently, the WHO Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean, together with a network of palliative care experts, identified the best indicators and collected data across the Region. These indicators include national palliative care strategies, number of specialized palliative care services per population, inclusion of palliative care in the health benefits package and national health budget, and the use of pain medication. These and other useful information form the Atlas of palliative care in the Eastern Mediterranean Region 2021. Results: The Atlas shows that provision of specialized palliative care services and pain medication in the Region is low. Several of the indicators suitable to the region are new and include the level of public awareness of palliative care, inclusion of palliative care in health insurance plans, availability of centres of excellence for palliative clinical care, and availability of grants to finance palliative care research. Conclusion: Adoption of favourable policies, educational initiatives, and the involvement of stakeholders, represent an opportunity for future development of palliative care in the EMR.

Design and Evaluation of a Novel Mobile Phone Application to Improve Palliative Home-Care in Resource-Limited Settings.

CONTEXT: Mobile health (mHealth) provides an opportunity to use internet coverage in low- and middle-income countries to improve palliative care access and quality. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to design a mobile phone application (app) to enable or improve communication between family caregivers, community caregivers, and palliative care teams; to evaluate its acceptability, processes, and mechanisms of action; and to propose refinements. METHODS: A codesign process entailed collaboration between a Project Advisory Group and collaborators in India, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. We then trained community and family caregivers to use an app to communicate patient-reported outcomes to their palliative care providers each week on a data dashboard. App activity was monitored, and qualitative in-depth interviews explored experience with the app and its mechanisms and impact. RESULTS: N = 149 caregivers participated and uploaded n = 837 assessments of patient-reported outcomes. These data were displayed to the palliative care team on an outcomes dashboard on n = 355 occasions. Qualitative data identified: 1) high acceptability and data usage; 2) improved understanding by team members of patient symptoms and concerns; 3) a need for better feedback to caregivers, for better prioritisation of patients according to need, for enhanced training and support to use the app, and for user-led recommendations for ongoing improvement. CONCLUSION: An outcomes-focused app and data dashboard are acceptable to caregivers and health-care professionals. They are beneficial in identifying, monitoring, and communicating patient outcomes and in allocating staff resource to those most in need.

A scoping review of palliative care for children in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Ninety-eight percent of children needing palliative care live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and almost half of them live in Africa. In contrast to the abundance of data on populations in high income countries, the current data on populations in LMICs is woefully inadequate. This study aims to identify and summarize the published literature on the need, accessibility, quality, and models for palliative care for children in LMICs. METHODS: A scoping review was performed following the method of Arksey and O'Malley. Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar using the main keywords, 'children AND palliative care OR terminal care OR hospice OR end of life AND developing countries OR LMICs.' Additional publications were obtained by handsearching. Papers were only included if they reported on the need, accessibility, quality, and models for palliative care for children in LMICs. RESULTS: Fifteen papers met the inclusion criteria for review. Of these, 10 assessed need, seven examined availability and/or accessibility, one assessed quality, and one examined the models. We found an urgent need for palliative care, particularly in the training for health workers and improving poor availability and/or accessibility to palliative care in terms of factors such as medication and bereavement support. The best practice models demonstrated feasibility and sustainability through cooperation with governments and community organizations. The quality of pain management and emotional support was lower in LMICs compared to HICs. CONCLUSION: Although we found limited evidence in this review, we identified common challenges such as the need for further training for health workers and greater availability of opioid analgesics. While efforts to change the current systems and laws applying to children in LMICs are important, we should also tackle underlying factors including the need to raise awareness about palliative care in public health and improve the accuracy of data collection.

Placebo use in vaccine trials: recommendations of a WHO expert panel.

Vaccines are among the most cost-effective interventions against infectious diseases. Many candidate vaccines targeting neglected diseases in low- and middle-income countries are now progressing to large-scale clinical testing. However, controversy surrounds the appropriate design of vaccine trials and, in particular, the use of unvaccinated controls (with or without placebo) when an efficacious vaccine already exists. This paper specifies four situations in which placebo use may be acceptable, provided that the study question cannot be answered in an active-controlled trial design; the risks of delaying or foregoing an efficacious vaccine are mitigated; the risks of using a placebo control are justified by the social and public health value of the research; and the research is responsive to local health needs. The four situations are: (1) developing a locally affordable vaccine, (2) evaluating the local safety and efficacy of an existing vaccine, (3) testing a new vaccine when an existing vaccine is considered inappropriate for local use (e.g. based on epidemiologic or demographic factors), and (4) determining the local burden of disease.

WHO Efforts to Promote Reporting of Adverse Events and Global Learning.

Despite the importance of reporting systems to learn about the casual chain and consequences of patient safety incidents, this is an area that requires of further conceptual and technical developments to conduce reporting to effective learning. The World Health Organization, through its Patient Safety Programme, adopted as a priority the objective to facilitate and stimulate global learning through enhanced reporting of patient safety incidents. Landmark developments were the WHO Draft Guidelines for Adverse Event Reporting and Learning Systems, and the Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety, as well as the Global Community of Practice for Reporting and Learning Systems. WHO is currently working with a range of scientists, medical informatics specialists and healthcare officials from various countries around the world, to arrive at a Minimal Information Model that could serve as a basis to structure the core of reporting systems in a comparable manner across the world. Undoubtedly, there is much need for additional scientific developments in this challenging and innovative area. For effective reporting systems and enhanced global learning, other key contextual factors are essential for reporting to serve to the needs of clinicians, patients and the healthcare system at large. Moreover, the new data challenges and needs of organizations must be assessed as the era of big data comes to heath care. These considerations delineate a broad agenda for action, which offer an ambitious challenge for WHO and their partners interested in strengthening learning for improving through reporting and communicating about patient safety incidents. Significance for public healthUnderstanding the causes and consequences of incidents is cornerstone for patient safety improvement. Likewise, setting up systems to facilitate such understanding and communicate the learning across all healthcare actors is crucial. Over the past decade, the World Health Organization has convened an area of work, with the support of a growing number of collaborating agencies, institutions and experts worldwide to facilitate the identification of global directions aiming to facilitate the development and management of patient safety incident reporting systems as well as the extraction and communication of useful learning. Exchange and sharing of best practices and experiences has been at the essence of this work. This paper describes such efforts and also reflects on other areas of work which are essential to enhance patient safety by learning from the failures of the health care.

Global summit of national ethics committees: an essential tool for international dialogue and consensus-building.

July 2010, important decisions were taken to ensure the continuity Held for the first time in 1996, the Global Summit of National of activities between the Summits. This article intends to briefly Ethics Committees (NECs) is a key platform for dialogue and retrace the history and analyse the role and functioning of the fostering consensus on ethical issues at a global level. At the Global Summit. It also discusses future challenges for international Eighth Global Summit meeting, which took place in Singapore in collaboration of NECs.

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review.

BACKGROUND: Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants. DISCUSSION: Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices. The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals. CONCLUSION: Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?