Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey.

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.

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.

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.

Implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice for adults (IMPCOM): Protocol for an update systematic review of facilitators and barriers.

Background: Despite the development of patient-centred or patient-reported outcome measures (PCOMs or PROMs) in palliative and end-of-life care over recent years, their routine use in practice faces continuing challenges. Objective: To update a highly cited literature review, identify and synthesise new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, PCOMs used, models of implementation, implementation outcomes, costs, and consequences of implementing PCOMs in palliative care clinical practice. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, SCI-Expanded, SSCI, ESCI, and BNI. The database search will be supplemented by a list of studies from the expert advisory committee, hand-searching of reference lists for included articles, and citations of the original review. We will include primary studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in palliative care settings and extract data on reported models of implementation, PCOMs, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework will be used to assess the robustness and relevance of the studies. We will narratively synthesise and tabulate the findings. This review will follow PRISMA, PRISMA-Abstract, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA-Search as the reporting guidelines. Source of funding: Marie Curie. The funder is not involved in designing or conducting this study. Protocol registration: CRD42023398653 (13/02/2023).

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.

Drug Therapy Safety in Palliative Care-Pharmaceutical Analysis of Medication Processes in Palliative Care.

Pharmacotherapy plays a crucial role in symptom management in palliative care and is associated with risks potentially leading to drug-related problems (DRP). Pharmacists can identify DRPs and advise prescribers on optimizing drug therapy. The aim of this study was to identify DRP in a palliative care unit (PCU) and evaluate corresponding pharmaceutical interventions. A non-randomized before-and-after study in a PCU starts with a control phase, an interphase, and an intervention phase. Primary endpoint: DRP, including pharmaceutical interventions and their acceptance. The medication of all inpatients was recorded at set time points, assessed for potential and manifest DRP, and categorized. In the control phase, the ward pharmacist did not interfere with the clinical team. In the intervention phase, the pharmacist could intervene when a DRP was identified and give recommendations. During the 12-month period, 284 patients were included (control phase n = 138; intervention phase n = 146) and 1079 DRPs were identified (control phase n = 634; intervention phase n = 445). The number of DRPs/patient was significantly reduced by the pharmacist's interventions between the control and intervention phases (4 vs. 3 DRPs, p = 0.001). Overall acceptance of pharmaceutical interventions by prescribers was very high (227/256; 88%). DRPs are hardly preventable. With a clinical pharmacist as a member of the palliative care team, it is possible to reduce the number of DRPs and identify potential problems earlier.

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).

Implementing ePROM in specialist palliative home care: the professionals' perspective - a mixed-methods study.

Background: Over the last decades, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) have been developed for a better understanding of patient needs. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is an internationally recommended PROM in palliative care. The validated electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) was implemented in four German specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams for use in everyday clinical practice. Patients reported symptoms and concerns via eIPOS, which were transmitted directly to the electronic patient record of the respective SPHC team. Objectives: The aim of the study was to describe and explore the health care professionals' (HCPs') experiences regarding acceptance and use of eIPOS in clinical practice in SPHC. Design: The mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comprised an anonymized quantitative online survey followed by qualitative focus groups. Methods: The online survey asked in both closed and open questions for HCP's experience with eIPOS. Ambiguous results from the survey were discussed in two focus groups. Survey data were analysed with descriptive and univariable statistics, and the framework approach was used for qualitative data. In a further step, we conducted integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative results using joint displays. Results: All HCPs of the four SPHC teams (n = 52) were invited to participate. HCPs participating in the survey (n = 32) and the focus groups (n = 7) saw potentials for implementing ePROM in palliative home care - as far as it is technically easy to handle and can be easily integrated into clinical practice. Conclusion: Successful use of ePROMs is affected by the possibility of easy integration into the teams' different structures and processes and the HCPs' perceptions of potentials regarding ePROM use in SPHC. Registration: The study is registered on clinicaltrials.org (NCT03879668).

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in specialist palliative home care: what do professionals think about it? A mixed-methods study Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are short questionnaires developed to assess a patient's health status at a particular point in time. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is such a questionnaire, and eIPOS is an electronic version of IPOS. IPOS asks about patients' symptoms and problems when they suffer from advanced diseases. We conducted this study to understand what health care professionals (HCPs) think about electronic PROMs (ePROMs) in palliative home care. We first asked the HCPs to answer questions in an online survey. Then, HCPs discussed the use of eIPOS in small discussion groups. This study design is called 'Mixed-Methods sequential design'. We found that all HCPs used the information they received through eIPOS ­ some frequently and some less often. Many HCPs see potential in using ePROMs to support care. For example, because ePROMs help them to understand patients' symptoms and problems better. However, they also pointed out that eIPOS needs technical improvement. Also, the procedures of eIPOS need to fit into the work routine of the palliative care team. The findings demonstrate the perspectives of HCPs on ePROM. These are valuable to understand how ePROM can be implemented in palliative home care. We can also learn about how to implement other digital tools in other settings of palliative 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 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.

[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.

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.

[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 DG Palliativmedizin]. / Palliativmedizinische Aspekte in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin : Konsensuspapier der DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA und DG Palliativmedizin.

The 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.

Documentation of Sedation in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review of Requirements, Recommendations, and Templates.

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life.