Perspectives of nursing home executives on collaboration with GPs and specialist palliative care teams.

Background: Nursing home (NH) staff, general practitioners (GPs) and specialist outpatient palliative care teams are expected to cooperate to ensure adequate palliative care for NH residents in Germany. Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the perspective of NH executives concerning collaboration with GPs and specialist outpatient palliative care teams. Methods: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with executives of NHs in the federal state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany. Interviews were analysed by means of structured content analyses. Results: Executives of 20 NHs participated in the study, eight NHs cooperate with specialist outpatient palliative care teams. Content analysis resulted in two main categories: 'general palliative care by primary carers' and 'collaboration with SAPV in NHs', each with three first-order subcategories. The main barriers to adequate palliative care were reported to be lack of palliative care knowledge in GPs and NH staff, refusal of some GPs to cooperate with specialist outpatient palliative care teams and staff shortage in NHs. Specialist palliative care involvement was described to result in improved palliative care. Conclusion: Solutions seem obvious, e.g., further education in palliative care or round tables to discuss collaboration. However, studies show that even comprehensive educational and management interventions to implement palliative care do not always result in long-term effects and further research is needed.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: This is the second update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (issue 6), which was updated in 2016 (issue 11). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is a burdening symptom. It can cause considerable discomfort and negatively affect patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments compared with active control or placebo for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OVID) and Embase (OVID) up to 6 July 2022. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 13 summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 91 studies and 4652 participants in the review. We added 42 studies with 2839 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 51 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups. The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. The main reason for giving a high risk of bias rating was a small sample size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Seventy-nine of 91 studies (87%) had fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm. Eight (9%) studies had low risk of bias in the specified key domains; the remaining studies had an unclear risk of bias (70 studies, 77%) or a high risk of bias (13 studies, 14%). Using GRADE criteria, we judged that the certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (i.e. pruritus) was high for kappa-opioid agonists compared to placebo and moderate for GABA-analogues compared to placebo. Certainty of evidence was low for naltrexone, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids, topical capsaicin, ondansetron and zinc sulphate compared to placebo and gabapentin compared to pregabalin, and very low for cromolyn sodium, paroxetine, montelukast, flumecinol, and rifampicin compared to placebo. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence mainly due to serious study limitations regarding risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP; also known as chronic kidney disease (CKD)-associated pruritus (CKD-aP)), treatment with GABA-analogues compared to placebo likely resulted in a large reduction of pruritus (visual analogue scale (VAS) 0 to 10 cm): mean difference (MD) -5.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.56 to -4.55; five RCTs, N = 297, certainty of evidence: moderate. Treatment with kappa-opioid receptor agonists (difelikefalin, nalbuphine, nalfurafine) compared to placebo reduced pruritus slightly (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -0.96, 95% CI -1.22 to -0.71; six RCTs, N = 1292, certainty of evidence: high); thus, this treatment was less effective than GABA-analogues. Treatment with montelukast compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (two studies, 87 participants): SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.87 to -0.92; certainty of evidence: very low. Treatment with fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (four studies, 160 observations): SMD -1.60, 95% CI -1.97 to -1.22; certainty of evidence: low. Treatment with cromolyn sodium compared to placebo may result in a reduction of pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS 0 to 10 cm, MD -3.27, 95% CI -5.91 to -0.63; two RCTs, N = 100, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with topical capsaicin compared with placebo may result in a large reduction of pruritus (two studies; 112 participants): SMD -1.06, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.57; certainty of evidence: low. Ondansetron, zinc sulphate and several other treatments may not reduce pruritus in participants suffering from UP. In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), treatment with rifampicin compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -42.00, 95% CI -87.31 to 3.31; two RCTs, N = 42, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with flumecinol compared to placebo may reduce pruritus, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 2.32, 95% CI 0.54 to 10.1; two RCTs, N = 69, certainty of evidence: very low). Treatment with the opioid antagonist naltrexone compared to placebo may reduce pruritus (VAS: 0 to 10 cm, MD -2.42, 95% CI -3.90 to -0.94; two RCTs, N = 52, certainty of evidence: low). However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage of difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). In palliative care participants with pruritus of a different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine (one study), a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, compared to placebo may reduce pruritus slightly by 0.78 (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10 points; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, certainty of evidence: low). Most adverse events were mild or moderate. Two interventions showed multiple major adverse events (naltrexone and nalfurafine). AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Different interventions (GABA-analogues, kappa-opioid receptor agonists, cromolyn sodium, montelukast, fish-oil/omega-3 fatty acids and topical capsaicin compared to placebo) were effective for uraemic pruritus. GABA-analogues had the largest effect on pruritus. Rifampin, naltrexone and flumecinol tended to be effective for cholestatic pruritus. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard. METHODS: Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards. METHOD: A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'. CONCLUSIONS: While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).

Implementation of an acute palliative care unit for COVID-19 patients in a tertiary hospital: Qualitative data on clinician perspectives.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become apparent that palliative care has dynamically adapted to the care of dying patients with and without COVID-19 and has developed new forms of collaboration. Evaluation is needed to assess which innovations should be integrated into future pandemic management. AIM: To explore the experiences of stakeholders and staff in implementing and operating an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care. What lessons were learned? DESIGN: Qualitative interview study (German Clinical Trials Register; identifier 22,473) with qualitative content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: During the first wave of the pandemic, the University Medical Center Freiburg (Germany) established an ad hoc unit delivering acute palliative care for COVID-19 patients likely to die. Nurses from non-palliative areas and the specialist palliative care team formed a new team working together there. Twenty-nine individuals from management and staff of this unit were interviewed. RESULTS: Patient care and teamwork were rated positively. Joint familiarization, bedside teaching, and team/management support were evaluated as core elements for success. Challenges for the nurses from non-palliative settings included adapting to palliative care routines and culture of care. The palliative care team had to adjust the high standards of palliative care to pandemic conditions. Due to sufficient hospital-wide capacity, only three COVID-19 patients were treated, significantly fewer than anticipated at planning. CONCLUSIONS: Results show the feasibility of an ad hoc COVID-19 acute palliative care unit. In the event of capacity constraints, such a unit can be a viable part of future pandemic management.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Whole-brain irradiation with hippocampal sparing and dose escalation on metastases: neurocognitive testing and biological imaging (HIPPORAD) - a phase II prospective randomized multicenter trial (NOA-14, ARO 2015-3, DKTK-ROG).

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT) is the standard therapy for multiple brain metastases. However, WBRT has a poor local tumor control and is associated with a decline in neurocognitive function (NCF). Aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy and safety of a new treatment method, the WBRT with hippocampus avoidance (HA) combined with the simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) on metastases/resection cavities (HA-WBRT+SIB). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, two-arm phase II multicenter trial comparing the impact of HA on NCF after HA-WBRT+SIB versus WBRT+SIB in patients with multiple brain metastases. The study design is double-blinded. One hundred thirty two patients are to be randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio. Patients between 18 and 80 years old are recruited, with at least 4 brain metastases of solid tumors and at least one, but not exceeding 10 metastases ≥5 mm. Patients must be in good physical condition and have no metastases/resection cavities in or within 7 mm of the hippocampus. Patients with dementia, meningeal disease, cerebral lymphomas, germ cell tumors, or small cell carcinomas are excluded. Previous irradiation and resection of metastases, as well as the number and size of metastases to be boosted have to comply with certain restrictions. Patients are randomized between the two treatment arms: HA-WBRT+SIB and WBRT+SIB. WBRT is to be performed with 30 Gy in 12 daily fractions and the SIB with 51 Gy/42 Gy in 12 daily fractions on 95% of volume for metastases/resection cavities. In the experimental arm, the dose to the hippocampi is restricted to 9 Gy in 98% of the volume and 17Gy in 2% of the volume. NCF testing is scheduled before WBRT, after 3 (primary endpoint), 9, 18 months and yearly thereafter. Clinical and imaging follow-ups are performed 6 and 12 weeks after WBRT, after 3, 9, 18 months and yearly thereafter. DISCUSSION: This is a protocol of a randomized phase II trial designed to test a new strategy of WBRT for preventing cognitive decline and increasing tumor control in patients with multiple brain metastases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The HIPPORAD trial is registered with the German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00004598, registered 2 June 2016).

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS. METHODS: A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain ≥ 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a "slight improvement." RESULTS: Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: - 0.2, 95% confidence interval - 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS. CONCLUSION: TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least "slight pain relief" from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.

Severe symptoms and very low quality-of-life among outpatients newly diagnosed with advanced cancer: data from a multicenter cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify symptoms of severe intensity or very low scores for quality of life (QoL) domains in newly diagnosed outpatients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This multicenter cohort study from a state-wide palliative care network included adult outpatients with advanced cancer diagnosed within the preceding 8 weeks from four comprehensive cancer centers (DRKS00006162, registered on 19 May 2014). We used the Palliative Outcome Scale (POS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire-C30. For each questionnaire, cut-off scores defined symptoms and QoL domains that were considered "severe" or "very low." RESULTS: Of 3155 patients screened, 481/592 (81.3%) were analyzed (mean age 62.4; women n = 245, 50.9%). We identified 324/481 (67.4%) patients experiencing at least one severe symptom or a very low QoL domain (median 2; range 0 to 16). Role functioning (n = 180, 37.4%), fatigue (n = 162, 33.7%), and social functioning (n = 126, 26.2%) were most commonly affected. QoL was very low in 89 patients (18.5%). Women experienced more anxiety symptoms, fatigue, and had lower POS scores. Patients often mentioned physical symptoms and fears of adverse events resulting from disease-modifying therapies (e.g., chemotherapy) as most relevant problems. CONCLUSIONS: Already within the first 8 weeks after diagnosis, the majority of patients reported at least one severe symptom or a very low QoL domain. Gender differences were evident. The findings illustrate the value of early routine assessment of patient burden and the development of multi-professional and interdisciplinary palliative care.

The views of physicians and nurses on the potentials of an electronic assessment system for recognizing the needs of patients in palliative care.

OBJECTIVES: Patients in oncological and palliative care (PC) often have complex needs, which require a comprehensive treatment approach. The assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve identification of patient needs and foster adjustment of treatment. This study explores occupational routines, attitudes and expectations of physicians and nurses with regards to a planned electronic assessment system of PROs. METHODS: Ten physicians and nine nurses from various PC settings in Southern Germany were interviewed. The interviews were analysed with qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The interviewees were sceptical about the quality of data generated through a patient self-assessment system. They criticised the rigidity of the electronic assessment questionnaire, which the interviewees noted may not fit the profile of all palliative patients. They feared the loss of personal contact between medical staff and patients and favoured in-person conversation and on-site observations on site over the potential system. Interviewees saw potential in being able to discover unseen needs from some patients. Interviewees evaluated the system positively in the case that the system served to broadly orient care plans without affecting or reducing the patient-caregiver relationship. CONCLUSIONS: A significant portion of the results touch upon the symbolic acceptance of the suggested system, which stands for an increasing standardisation and technisation of medicine where interpersonal contact and the professional expertise are marginalized. The study results can provide insight for processes and communication in the run-up to and during the implementation of electronic assessment systems.

[Quality of life and Potential Incriminating Factors Among Palliative Care Givers: A German Survey of the KOMPACT Working Group]. / Belastungen im Berufsalltag von Palliativpflegekräften ­ eine Befragung in Kooperation mit dem KompetenzZentrum Palliative Care Baden-Württemberg (KOMPACT).

AIM OF THE STUDY: Due to the aging population in Germany, the need for palliative care institutions will increase. Considering the lack of resources, work stress of palliative care nurses could increase significantly. It was the aim of this study to identify risk factors for job overload and work stress of palliative care nurses in the inpatient and outpatient setting. METHODS: In cooperation with the KOMPACT Working Group, we conducted an anonymous survey of palliative care givers in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. We used a paper questionnaire to inquire about job stress and workload, self-assessment of health condition and aspects about mental and emotional well-being. 167 palliative care nurses from 34 different institutions participated in the survey. RESULTS: The results showed a significant difference between inpatient and outpatient palliative care workers regarding the type and intensity of work stress. The overall stress level was significantly higher for the nurses in inpatient palliative care units (p<0.001). A high weekly working time combined with missing work experience in the field of palliative care led to a poorer compatibility of job and family. Higher stress levels resulted in a lower satisfaction with the work. Dissatisfaction with the working conditions was associated with a worse health status defined by self-assessment. Mental and emotional condition of palliative care nurses was significantly worse in comparison with the norm sample, many nurses showed "strikingly" or even "seriously" high values. The survey also showed that the structural conditions in inpatient palliative care units were not optimal. CONCLUSION: Compared to outpatient palliative care services, working conditions seem to be worse in inpatient palliative care setting, which could result in higher stress for the nurses. Interventions to reduce work-related stress appear not to be well implemented in the daily work of palliative care nurses. Standards for care as well as advanced training programs for palliative care nurses should be reevaluated.

[Measures for Overcoming Barriers to Palliative Care of Patients with Chronic Heart Failure: A Delphi Method]. / Entwicklung von Maßnahmen zur Überwindung von Barrieren bezüglich einer palliativmedizinischen Versorgung von Patienten mit chronischer Herzinsuffizienz: Eine Delphi-Studie.

Patients with chronic heart failure receive less palliative care than those suffering from malignant diseases, even though they experience a similar disease burden. Studies found that this might be caused by the cyclic course of disease, which makes determination of the appropriate time difficult, lack of knowledge regarding content and structure of palliative care, and insufficient interprofessional communication. However, research suggests that patients with chronic heart failure benefit from palliative care. In this study, academic experts and experienced clinical practitioners developed measures in order to overcome the previously identified barriers. Furthermore, measures were evaluated regarding their relevance and practicability. In a next step, measures rated as both relevant and practical were ranked regarding their importance. Those perceived as important and practical mainly focused on better education for and better cooperation between professionals.

Tidying rooms and tending hearts: An explorative, mixed-methods study of hospital cleaning staff's experiences with seriously ill and dying patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Palliative care is based on multi-professional team work. In this study, we investigated how cleaning staff communicate and interact with seriously ill and dying patients as well as how cleaning staff cope with the situation of death and dying. DESIGN: Sequential mixed methods, consisting of semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and a questionnaire. Interviews and focus group discussions were content analyzed and results were used to create a questionnaire. Quantitative data were submitted to descriptive analysis. SETTING: Large university clinic in southern Germany. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 10 cleaning staff participated in the interviews and 6 cleaning staff took part in the focus group discussion. In addition, three managerial cleaning staff participated in a separate focus group. Questionnaires were given to all cleaning staff ( n = 240) working at the clinic in September 2008, and response rate was 52% (125/240). RESULTS: Cleaning staff described interactions with patients as an important and fulfilling aspect of their work. About half of participants indicated that patients talk with them every day, on average for 1-3 min. Conversations often revolved around casual topics such as weather and family, but patients also discussed their illness and, occasionally, thoughts regarding death with cleaning staff. When patients addressed illness and death, cleaning staff often felt uncomfortable and helpless. CONCLUSION: Cleaning staff perceive that they have an important role in the clinic-not only cleaning but also supporting patients. Likewise, patients appreciate being able to speak openly with cleaning staff. Still, it appears that cleaning staff may benefit from additional training in communication about sensitive issues such as illness and death.

Pharmacological interventions for pruritus in adult palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in 2013 (Issue 6). Pruritus occurs in patients with disparate underlying diseases and is caused by different pathologic mechanisms. In palliative care patients, pruritus is not the most prevalent but is one of the most puzzling symptoms. It can cause considerable discomfort and affects patients' quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of different pharmacological treatments for preventing or treating pruritus in adult palliative care patients. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), and MEDLINE (OVID) up to 9 June 2016 and Embase (OVID) up to 7 June 2016. In addition, we searched trial registries and checked the reference lists of all relevant studies, key textbooks, reviews and websites, and we contacted investigators and specialists in pruritus and palliative care regarding unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different pharmacological treatments, compared with a placebo, no treatment, or an alternative treatment, for preventing or treating pruritus in palliative care patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the identified titles and abstracts, performed data extraction and assessed the risk of bias and methodological quality. We summarised the results descriptively and quantitatively (meta-analyses) according to the different pharmacological interventions and the diseases associated with pruritus. We assessed the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and created 10 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: In total, we included 50 studies and 1916 participants in the review. We added 10 studies with 627 participants for this update. Altogether, we included 39 different treatments for pruritus in four different patient groups.The overall risk of bias profile was heterogeneous and ranged from high to low risk. However, 48 studies (96%) had a high risk of bias due to low sample size (i.e. fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Using GRADE criteria, we downgraded our judgement on the quality of evidence to moderate in seven and to low in three comparisons for our primary outcome (pruritus), mainly due to imprecision and risk of bias.In palliative care participants with pruritus of different nature, the treatment with the drug paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, reduced pruritus by 0.78 points (numerical analogue scale from 0 to 10; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.19 to -0.37; one RCT, N = 48, quality of evidence: moderate) compared to placebo.For participants suffering from uraemic pruritus (UP), gabapentin was more effective than placebo (visual analogue scale (VAS): 0 to 10), mean difference (MD) -5.91, 95% CI -6.87 to -4.96; two RCTs, N = 118, quality of evidence: moderate). The κ-opioid receptor agonist nalfurafine showed amelioration of UP (VAS 0 to 10, MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.58; three RCTs, N = 422, quality of evidence: moderate) and only few adverse events. Moreover, cromolyn sodium relieved UP participants from pruritus by 2.94 points on the VAS (0 to 10) (95% CI -4.04 to -1.83; two RCTs, N = 100, quality of evidence: moderate) compared to placebo.In participants with cholestatic pruritus (CP), data favoured rifampin (VAS: 0 to 100, MD -24.64, 95% CI -31.08 to -18.21; two RCTs, N = 42, quality of evidence: low) and flumecinol (RR > 1 favours treatment group; RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.39; two RCTs, N = 69, quality of evidence: low) and showed a low incidence of adverse events in comparison with placebo. The opioid antagonist naltrexone reduced pruritus for participants with CP (VAS: 0 to 10, MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.19 to -1.33; two RCTs, N = 52, quality of evidence: moderate) compared to placebo. However, effects in participants with UP were inconclusive (percentage difference -12.30%, 95% CI -25.82% to 1.22%, one RCT, N = 32). Furthermore, large doses of opioid antagonists (e.g. naltrexone) could be inappropriate in palliative care patients because of the risk of reducing analgesia.For participants with HIV-associated pruritus, it is uncertain whether drug treatment with hydroxyzine hydrochloride, pentoxifylline, triamcinolone or indomethacin reduces pruritus because the evidence was of very low quality (e.g. small sample size, lack of blinding). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Different interventions tended to be effective for CP and UP. However, therapies for patients with malignancies are still lacking. Due to the small sample sizes in most meta-analyses and the heterogeneous methodological quality of the included trials, the results should be interpreted cautiously in terms of generalisability.

Palliative care for patients with heart failure: facilitators and barriers - a cross sectional survey of German health care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Compared to patients with cancer, heart failure patients are seldom candidates for palliative care. Numerous studies have investigated reasons why heart failure patients do not receive palliative care; however, none of these studies have ever evaluated the situation in the German health care setting. This study aims to identify German healthcare providers' (HCP) perception of barriers and facilitators to palliative care of patients with chronic heart failure. METHODS: We conducted an online-survey with 315 nurses and physicians of different medical disciplines. RESULTS: Even though heart failure patients' need of palliative care and its advantages has been recognized, HCP see potential for development and improvement. A lack of knowledge about the content and measures of palliative care, poor communication and unclear responsibilities between medical disciplines, difficulties to determine the right time to initiate palliative care, and the feeling not to be prepared to discuss end-of-life issues with the patient has been identified as barriers. Further, HCP believe that patients and relatives do not possess adequate knowledge about the disease and its progression and are therefore unprepared in asking questions regarding palliative care. They rather tend to demand everything possible to be done in order prolong life, and are reluctant to accept that life is limited. Overall, HCP perceive that dying is a taboo subject within our society placing palliative care on the same level as assisted dying. In addition, results indicate that HCP have an inappropriate notion of ideal medicine fearing to lose patient and are worried about the appropriateness of PC remuneration. CONCLUSIONS: In order to overcome the described barriers, HCP, patients, and relatives need to be educated in palliative care. Information and education encompassing the aim, content and measures of palliative care needs to be provided for all parties in order to optimize patient care, to foster communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and relatives, and to overcome perceived barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00007119.

Identification of hospital patients in need of palliative care--a predictive score.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care was initially developed for patients with advanced cancer. Over the past years, however, palliative care has broadened its focus from terminal cancer patients to patients with other serious, life-limiting illnesses. Nevertheless, the identification of palliative care needs (PCNs) among hospital patients remains an insufficiently investigated topic of research. The aim of our study was to describe the characteristics of hospital patients with palliative care needs and to develop a score for their identification. METHODS: We conducted an epidemiological study. Data were collected prospectively from inpatients at the University Medical Center Freiburg, Germany. For each patient discharged from a hospital ward, the treating physician had to report whether the patient had PCNs or not. The response rate was 96%, and data from 39,849 patients could be analyzed. A binary logistic regression analysis was performed in order to identify risk factors for developing PCNs and to develop a predictive score for the identification of patients with PCNs upon their admission to the hospital. In order to validate the risk prediction model, we used a bootstrap analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 6.9% (2757) of all patients had palliative care needs. Only 56 of them (2%) received palliative treatment. Binary logistic regression analysis showed that older patients without relatives who suffered from metastatic cancer and/or liver cirrhosis had the highest risk of developing palliative care needs (PCN-score; sensitivity: 0.815; specificity: 0.640). CONCLUSIONS: Given the aging population and associated increase in the number of patients requiring palliative care, it is crucial to detect palliative care needs in hospital patients with both cancerous and non-cancerous life-limiting diseases. Our predictive score contributes to the identification of palliative care needs in patients with life-limiting diseases, which allows physicians to take the appropriate therapeutic steps.

Health care professionals' attitudes regarding palliative care for patients with chronic heart failure: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Even though struggling with similar symptom burden, patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) receive less palliative care than patients suffering from malignant diseases. Researchers have found that this might be related to lack of knowledge about palliative care, insufficient interprofessional communication as well as the cyclic course of disease which makes accurate prognosis difficult. However, research findings have shown that patients with CHF benefit from palliative care. As there are no studies for the German health care system this study aimed to assess health care professionals' attitudes regarding palliative care of CHF patients in order to identify barriers and facilitators for this patient group and hence to develop recommendations for improvement of CHF patients' access to palliative care in Germany. METHOD: Problem-centered interviews with 23 health care professionals involved in care of CHF patients (nurses: hospital, outpatient, heart failure, PC; physicians: hospital and resident cardiologists, general practitioners) were conducted and analysed according to Mayring's qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Most interviewees perceived a need for palliative care for CHF patients. Regarding barriers patients', public's, and professionals' lack of knowledge of palliative care and CHF; shortcomings in communication and cooperation of different professional groups; inability of cardiology to accept medical limits; difficult prognosis of course of disease; and patients' concerns regarding palliative care were described. Different attitudes regarding appropriate time of initiation of palliative care for CHF patients (late vs. early) were found. Furthermore, better communication and closer cooperation between different professional groups and medical disciplines as well as better education about palliative care and CHF for professionals, patients, and public were cited. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care for CHF patients is a neglected topic in both practice and research and should receive more attention. Barriers to palliative care for CHF patients might be overcome by: better education for the public, patients, and professionals, closer cooperation between the different professional groups involved as well as development of a joint agreement regarding the appropriate time to administer palliative care to CHF patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00007119 .

Of apples and oranges: Lessons learned from the preparation of research protocols for systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of Specialist Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Agreed terminology used in systematic reviews of the effectiveness of specialist palliative care ((S)PC)) is required to ensure consistency and usability and to help guide future similar reviews and the design of clinical trials. During the preparation of protocols for two separate systematic reviews that aimed to assess the effectiveness of SPC, two international research groups collaborated to ensure a high degree of methodological consensus and clarity between reviews. During the collaboration, it became evident that close attention is needed to (i) avoid ambiguity in the definition of advanced illness, (ii) capture the specialist expertise and prerequisites for SPC interventions, and (iii) the multi-professional and multi-dimensional nature of PC. Also, (iv) the exclusion of relevant studies or (v) impracticality of meta-analyses of the obtained data must be avoided. The aim of this article is to present the core issues of the discussion to help future research groups to easily identify potential pitfalls and methodologic necessities. CORE ISSUE DISCUSSION: Core issues that arose from the discussion are presented along the research questions according to the PICO process: Population (P): Authors should refer to existing definitions of PC to ensure that, even if the review aims to investigate specific patients (e.g. cancer patients), it is important to make clear that PC is applicable for all life-limiting diseases and not limited to end-of-life or cancer. Intervention (I): PC is a core responsibility of all disciplines (general PC). In contrast, SPC demands further training and expertise. Therefore, core tenets of SPC interventions are that they are (i) multi-professional and (ii) aim at the multi-dimensional nature of suffering. Outcome (O): The main goal of PC is multi-dimensional (quality of life, suffering or distress). Yet, meta-analysis may be complex to conduct due to the heterogeneity of the multi-dimensional outcomes. Therefore, the assessment of uni-dimensional measures such as pain can also provide clinically relevant information that is easier to obtain. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Recommendations for future systematic reviews and clinical trials include: (i) Appraise the experience of other research groups who have produced similar systematic reviews or clinical trials. (ii) Include studies that meet the multi-professional and multi-dimensional nature of PC and the specialization requirements for SPC. (iii) Thoroughly weigh relevance and practicability of the primary outcome. Multi-dimensional tools such as quality-of-life questionnaires assess the different dimensions of suffering (the true scope of PC), but uni-dimensional measures such as pain are easier to assess in meta-analyses.

Education in End-of-Life Care: What Do Experienced Professionals Find Important?

End-of-life care is an essential element of quality cancer care. Nevertheless, a majority of physicians and nurses working at cancer centers feel unprepared for this task. As part of a larger survey study, we investigated what suggestions experienced physicians and nurses have to improve education/training on end-of-life care. In an open question, participants were requested to suggest changes to the end-of-life curriculum for physicians and nurses. Answers to this question were content analyzed using the qualitative data analysis software MAXQDA. Physicians and nurses at 10 cancer centers throughout Baden-Wuerttemberg were surveyed. From the total 1131 survey participants, 675 (483 nurses, 167 physicians, 25 unknown) responded to the open question regarding suggestions for education/training in end-of-life care. Two main categories were inductively developed: (1) format (i.e., structure and method of teaching) and (2) content (i.e., knowledge and know-how required for care of the dying). Regarding format, both professional groups most often wished for more practical experiences with dying patients (e.g., internships at hospices). Regarding content, physicians and nurses most frequently requested (1) more basic information on palliative care, (2) increased skills training in communication, and (3) knowledge of how to appropriately care for patients' caregivers. The results of our analysis reflect already trained physicians' and nurses' interest in furthering their knowledge and skills to care for dying patients. The suggestions of experienced physicians and nurses should be integrated into the further development of palliative care curricula.

Palliative care needs in COPD patients with or without cancer: an epidemiological study.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a growing cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. However, many patients with severe COPD do not receive adequate palliative care. The main goals of our study were to identify the percentage of hospital patients with palliative care needs, particularly those who suffer from COPD.Data were collected prospectively from inpatients at the University Medical Centre Freiburg (Freiburg, Germany). Based on the World Health Organization definition of palliative care, the treating physician reported for each patient discharged whether the patient had palliative care needs or not. Data from 39 849 patients could be analysed, of which 1455 were suffering from COPD.Of all COPD patients, 9.1% had palliative care needs. In COPD patients with palliative care needs, hospital stay was significantly longer (13.7 versus 10.3 days) than in the group without palliative care needs, and significantly more patients died during their hospital stay (8.3% versus 3.7%). The presence of metastases was the highest risk factor for developing palliative care needs (OR 4.18). Furthermore, a main diagnosis of COPD implied an increased probability of palliative care needs (OR 1.87).Our results show that COPD patients have a high risk of developing palliative care needs. Further efforts are required to provide palliative care to COPD patients.