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

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

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

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

Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research. METHODS: A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

Regulations on palliative sedation: an international survey across eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation is a commonly accepted medical practice. This study aims to clarify how palliative sedation is regulated in various countries and whether this may impact its practice. METHODS: An online survey requesting regulations on palliative sedation was conducted in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the UK. Purposive sampling strategy was used to identify clinicians from different medical fields and legal experts for each country. Regulations were analyzed using the principles of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework on palliative sedation. Country reports describing how palliative sedation is regulated were elaborated. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine out of 223 (62%) participants identified 31 laws and other regulations affecting palliative sedation. In Spain, 12 regional laws recognize palliative sedation as a right of the patient at the end of life when there are refractory symptoms. In Italy, the law of informed consent and advance directives specifically recognizes the doctor can use deep sedation when there are refractory symptoms. There are also general medical laws that, while not explicitly referring to palliative sedation, regulate sedation-related principles: the obligation of doctors to honour advance directives, informed consent, the decision-making process and the obligation to document the whole process. In Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, palliative sedation is also regulated through professional guidelines that are binding as good practice with legal significance. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative sedation is considered in the general law of medical practice, in laws regarding the patient's autonomy, and through professional guidelines.

Monitoring the clinical practice of palliative sedation (PALSED) in patients with advanced cancer: an international, multicentre, non-experimental prospective observational study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness at the end of life. It can be initiated to relieve a patient's burden caused by refractory symptoms at the end of life. The impact of palliative sedation needs to be clinically monitored to adjust the proper dose and regimen of sedative medication to ensure that patients are at ease and comfortable at the end of their lives. Although there is consensus among health care professionals and within guidelines that efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be closely monitored, there is no agreement about how, when, and by whom, this monitoring should be performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of palliative sedation by measuring the discomfort levels and sedation/agitation levels of the patients at regular timepoints. In addition, the clinical trajectories of those patients receiving palliative sedation will be monitored and recorded. METHODS: The study is an international prospective non-experimental observational multicentre study. Patients are recruited from in-patient palliative care settings in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Adult patients with advanced cancer are monitored by using proxy observations of discomfort (DS-DAT) and depth of sedation/agitation levels (RASS-PAL) during palliative sedation. After the palliative sedation period, the care for the specific participant case is evaluated by one of the attending health care professionals and one relative via a questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first international prospective multicenter study evaluating the clinical practice of palliative sedation including observations of discomfort levels and levels of sedation. It will provide valuable information about the practice of palliative sedation in European countries in terminally ill cancer patients. Results from this study will facilitate the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice on how to improve monitoring and comfort in patients receiving palliative sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

Prevalence vs impact: a mixed methods study of survivorship issues in colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This study aims to explore the prevalence of CRC survivorship issues and their impact on survivors' quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This study utilised a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. Adult CRC survivors between 6- and 60-months post-diagnosis (n = 304) were purposively recruited from three hospitals and twenty-one cancer support centres in Ireland. QoL was evaluated using the EuroQol and FACT-C questionnaires and results compared to population norms. 22 survey participants took part in semi-structured interviews exploring the impact of survivorship issues on their daily lives. RESULTS: While CRC survivors reported QoL outcomes comparable to or better than normative populations, 54% were dissatisfied with their QoL. The most common survivorship issues reported included negative body image (74%), fatigue (68%), sexual dysfunction (66%) and sleep disturbance (59%). Thematic analysis of the qualitative data illustrated survivors' attempts to live with the impact of cancer and its treatment (loss, fear, impact) and striving to contextualise, reframe and understand the consequences of cancer and its treatment (control, vigilance, benefit). Within these themes, the cross-domain impact of less prevalent symptoms including bowel dysfunction (28-57%) and peripheral neuropathy (47%) were widely discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Although cancer survivors report positive QoL outcomes, many experience distressing physical, psychological and social effects. The findings suggest less common and difficult to manage symptoms are the greatest source of distress and unmet need. Support and information must be tailored to address survivors' individual needs and preferences for support, informed by holistic person-centred assessment.

Revised recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC): A Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. AIM: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. DESIGN: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board (n = 13) approved final recommendations. RESULTS: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 (n = 40), Round 3 (n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. CONCLUSIONS: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.

The impact of covid-19 on out-of-hours adult hospice care: an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Globally COVID-19 has had a profound impact on the provision of healthcare, including palliative care. However, there is little evidence about the impact of COVID-19 on delivery of out-of-hours specialist palliative care services in the United Kingdom. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the delivery of out-of-hours community-based palliative care services. METHODS: A national online census survey of managers of adult hospices in the United Kingdom was undertaken. Survey were emailed to managers of adult hospices (n = 150) who provided out-of-hours community palliative care services. Fifteen questions related specifically to the impact of COVID-19. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analysed using descriptive content analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-one responses to the survey were returned (54% response rate); 59 were complete of which 47 contained COVID-19 data. Findings indicated that COVID-19 impacted on out-of-hours community-based palliative care. To meet increased patient need, hospices reconfigured services; redeployed staff; and introduced new policies and procedures to minimize virus transmission. Lack of integration between charitably and state funded palliative care providers was reported. The interconnected issues of the use and availability of Personal Protective Equipment (n = 21) and infection control screening (n = 12) resulted in changes in nursing practices due to fear of contagion for patients, carers and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Survey findings suggest that due to increased demand for community palliative care services, hospices had to rapidly adapt and reconfigure services. Even though this response to the pandemic led to some service improvements, in the main, out-of-hours service reconfiguration resulted in challenges for hospices, including workforce issues, and availability of resources such as Personal Protective Equipment. These challenges were exacerbated by lack of integration with wider healthcare services. More research is required to fully understand the implications of such changes on the quality of care provided.

Functional impairment, symptom severity, and overall quality of life in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer in six European countries: baseline findings from the ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: People with advanced cancer often suffer from various symptoms, which can arise from the cancer itself and its treatment, the illness experience, and/or co-morbid conditions. Important patient-reported outcomes such as functional status, symptom severity, and quality of life (QoL) might differ between countries, as countries vary with regard to contextual factors such as their healthcare system. PURPOSE: To assess self-reported emotional functioning, physical functioning, symptoms, and overall QoL in patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from six European countries, particularly in relation to their country of residence. METHODS: We used baseline patient data from the ACTION trial, including socio-demographic and clinical data as well as patient-reported data regarding functioning, symptoms, and overall QoL (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL). RESULTS: Data from 1117 patients (55% lung cancer stage III/IV, 45% colorectal cancer stage IV) were used. The highest (worst) average symptom score was found for fatigue. We found similarities but also important differences in the outcomes across countries. The best scores (the highest for emotional functioning and QoL, the lowest for symptoms) were reported by Dutch and Danish patients. Belgian patients reported relatively low emotional functioning. CONCLUSION: The optimization of functioning, symptom relief, and overall QoL should be important objectives of healthcare professionals who take care of patients with advanced cancer. There are similarities, but also substantial differences across countries in functional status, symptoms, and overall QoL. Policymakers should take these differences into account and invest in offering health care catered to the needs of their population.

How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed. AIM: To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured. DESIGN: Integrative review of most recent empirical research. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010-2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness. RESULTS: Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement. CONCLUSIONS: There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials. METHODS: The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures. RESULTS: The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

No difference in effects of 'PACE steps to success' palliative care program for nursing home residents with and without dementia: a pre-planned subgroup analysis of the seven-country PACE trial.

BACKGROUND: 'PACE Steps to Success' is a multicomponent training program aiming to integrate generalist and non-disease-specific palliative care in nursing homes. This program did not improve residents' comfort in the last week of life, but it appeared to improve quality of care and dying in their last month of life. Because this program included only three dementia-specific elements, its effects might differ depending on the presence or stage of dementia. We aimed to investigate whether the program effects differ between residents with advanced, non-advanced, and no dementia. METHODS: Pre-planned subgroup analysis of the PACE cluster-randomized controlled trial in 78 nursing homes in seven European countries. Participants included residents who died in the previous 4 months. The nursing home staff or general practitioner assessed the presence of dementia; severity was determined using two highly-discriminatory staff-reported instruments. Using after-death questionnaires, staff assessed comfort in the last week of life (Comfort Assessment in Dying-End-of-Life in Dementia-scale; primary outcome) and quality of care and dying in the last month of life (Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care scale; secondary outcome). RESULTS: At baseline, we included 177 residents with advanced dementia, 126 with non-advanced dementia and 156 without dementia. Post-intervention, respectively in the control and the intervention group, we included 136 and 104 residents with advanced dementia, 167 and 110 with non-advanced dementia and 157 and 137 without dementia. We found no subgroup differences on comfort in the last week of life, comparing advanced versus without dementia (baseline-adjusted mean sub-group difference 2.1; p-value = 0.177), non-advanced versus without dementia (2.7; p = 0.092), and advanced versus non-advanced dementia (- 0.6; p = 0.698); or on quality of care and dying in the last month of life, comparing advanced and without dementia (- 0.6; p = 0.741), non-advanced and without dementia (- 1.5; p = 0.428), and advanced and non-advanced dementia (0.9; p = 0.632). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of subgroup difference suggests that while the program did not improve comfort in dying residents with or without dementia, it appeared to equally improve quality of care and dying in the last month of life for residents with dementia (regardless of the stage) and those without dementia. A generalist and non-disease-specific palliative care program, such as PACE Steps to Success, is a useful starting point for future palliative care improvement in nursing homes, but to effectively improve residents' comfort, this program needs further development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14741671 . Registered 8 July 2015 - Retrospectively registered.

What it means to be a palliative care volunteer in eight European countries: a qualitative analysis of accounts of volunteering.

This paper addresses the stories of volunteers in hospice and palliative care (HPC) from eight European countries. The aims of the paper are to explore the experiences of volunteers in HPC from their insider perspective, to understand why volunteers choose to work in this field and to understand what it means to them to be involved in palliative care in this way. Stories were collected by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Task Force for Volunteering contacts in each of the eight countries. The majority of stories (n = 32) came from volunteers involved in different settings including adult patient's homes, hospices, hospitals and care homes. Twenty volunteers were female, six were male, and ten did not give their gender. Stories were translated into English, and a qualitative framework analysis was performed. Volunteers were asked two questions: 'What do you do as a volunteer?' 'What does volunteering mean to you?' Three themes were identified from the data: (i) What volunteers do (ii) How volunteers approach their work and (iii) What working in HPC means to volunteers. The analysis revealed that common approaches to addressing and describing HPC volunteering in terms of tasks and roles could be expanded. To volunteers, it is not about tasks, but about a part of their life, the impact upon which can be significant. The results of this paper, therefore, add to the understanding of volunteers, in the sense of giving attention, being with, and of compassion as a community resource to patients and families in difficult situations. Theories about presence and presencing might have value in further underpinning this contribution to palliative care. Understanding the extent and depth of the volunteers' experience will help to prevent the undervaluing of their contribution and increase the impact of their involvement.

Protocol for a mixed methods exploratory investigation into the role and contribution of the healthcare assistant in out-of-hours palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Most people spend their last year of life at home, with many wishing to die there, but patients may need access to care after hours. Out-of-hours palliative care is delivered by multi-disciplinary teams including Health Care Assistants (HCA). However, little is known about the role, contribution and impact Health Care Assistants have on out-of-hours palliative care services. The aim of this study is to examine the Health Care Assistant role, contribution and impact on service delivery and patient care in out-of-hours community palliative care provided by hospice organisations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods exploratory study consisting of four phases. Phase one involves a scoping review to systematically map and identify gaps in policy and literature on the HCA role in out-of-hours palliative care. In phase two, all United Kingdom hospices will be invited to participate in an online census to enable the development of a typology of out-of-hours services and the contribution of the Health Care Assistant. During phase three organisational case studies representing different service types will collect information from Health Care Assistants, patients, caregivers and service managers to gather qualitative and quantitative data about out-of-hours service provision and the Health Care Assistant role. Finally, phase four will synthesize and refine results through online focus groups. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained for phase two through Ulster University Research Governance Filter Committee, Nursing and Health Research. Findings will be disseminated through practitioner and/or research journals, conferences, and social media.

Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

Decreased costs and retained QoL due to the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention in LTCFs: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The number of residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in need of palliative care is growing in the Western world. Therefore, it is foreseen that significantly higher percentages of budgets will be spent on palliative care. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of palliative care interventions in these settings are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention. PACE (Palliative Care for Older People) is a 1-year palliative care programme aiming at integrating general palliative care into day-to-day routines in LTCFs, throughout seven EU countries. METHODS: A cluster RCT was conducted. LTCFs were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care. LTCFs reported deaths of residents, about whom questionnaires were filled in retrospectively about resource use and quality of the last month of life. A health care perspective was adopted. Direct medical costs, QALYs based on the EQ-5D-5L and costs per quality increase measured with the QOD-LTC were outcome measures. RESULTS: Although outcomes on the EQ-5D-5L remained the same, a significant increase on the QOD-LTC (3.19 points, p value 0.00) and significant cost-savings were achieved in the intervention group (€983.28, p value 0.020). The cost reduction mainly resulted from decreased hospitalization-related costs (€919.51, p value 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Costs decreased and QoL was retained due to the PACE Steps to Success intervention. Significant cost savings and improvement in quality of end of life (care) as measured with the QOD-LTC were achieved. A clinically relevant difference of almost 3 nights shorter hospitalizations in favour of the intervention group was found. This indicates that timely palliative care in the LTCF setting can prevent lengthy hospitalizations while retaining QoL. In line with earlier findings, we conclude that integrating general palliative care into daily routine in LTCFs can be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14741671 .

Coping strategies of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer in six European countries: Insights from the ACTION Study.

OBJECTIVE: Even when medical treatments are limited, supporting patients' coping strategies could improve their quality of life. Greater understanding of patients' coping strategies, and influencing factors, can aid developing such support. We examined the prevalence of coping strategies and associated variables. METHODS: We used sociodemographic and baseline data from the ACTION trial, including measures of Denial, Acceptance, and Problem-focused coping (COPE; Brief COPE inventory), of patients with advanced cancer from six European countries. Clinicians provided clinical information. Linear mixed models with clustering at hospital level were used. RESULTS: Data from 675 patients with stage III/IV lung (342, 51%) or stage IV colorectal (333, 49%) cancer were used; mean age 66 (10 SD) years. Overall, patients scored low on Denial and high on Acceptance and Problem-focused coping. Older age was associated with higher scores on Denial than younger age (ß = 0.05; CI[0.023; 0.074]), and patients from Italy (ß = 1.57 CI[0.760; 2.388]) and Denmark (ß = 1.82 CI[0.881; 2.750]) scored higher on Denial than patients in other countries. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer predominantly used Acceptance and Problem-focused coping, and Denial to a lesser extent. Since the studied coping strategies of patients with advanced cancer vary between subpopulations, we recommend taking these factors into account when developing tailored interventions to support patients' coping strategies.

Comfort and clinical events at the end of life of nursing home residents with and without dementia: The six-country epidemiological PACE study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate the occurrence rates of clinical events and their associations with comfort in dying nursing home residents with and without dementia. METHODS: Epidemiological after-death survey was performed in nationwide representative samples of 322 nursing homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and England. Nursing staff reported clinical events and assessed comfort. The nursing staff or physician assessed the presence of dementia; severity was determined using two highly discriminatory staff-reported instruments. RESULTS: The sample comprised 401 residents with advanced dementia, 377 with other stages of dementia, and 419 without dementia (N = 1197). Across the three groups, pneumonia occurred in 24 to 27% of residents. Febrile episodes (unrelated to pneumonia) occurred in 39% of residents with advanced dementia, 34% in residents with other stages of dementia and 28% in residents without dementia (P = .03). Intake problems occurred in 74% of residents with advanced dementia, 55% in residents with other stages of dementia, and 48% in residents without dementia (P < .001). Overall, these three clinical events were inversely associated with comfort. Less comfort was observed in all resident groups who had pneumonia (advanced dementia, P = .04; other stages of dementia, P = .04; without dementia, P < .001). Among residents with intake problems, less comfort was observed only in those with other stages of dementia (P < .001) and without dementia (P = .003), while the presence and severity of dementia moderated this association (P = .03). Developing "other clinical events" was not associated with comfort. CONCLUSIONS: Discomfort was observed in dying residents who developed major clinical events, especially pneumonia, which was not specific to advanced dementia. It is crucial to identify and address the clinical events potentially associated with discomfort in dying residents with and without dementia.

Strategies for the implementation of palliative care education and organizational interventions in long-term care facilities: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The number of older people dying in long-term care facilities is increasing; however, care at the end of life can be suboptimal. Interventions to improve palliative care delivery within these settings have been shown to be effective in improving care, but little is known about their implementation. AIM: The aim of this study was to describe the nature of implementation strategies and to identify facilitators and/or barriers to implementing palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities. DESIGN: Scoping review with a thematic synthesis, following the ENTREQ guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Published literature was identified from electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Controlled, non-controlled and qualitative studies and evaluations of interventions to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities were included. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were sourced and data extracted on the study characteristics, the implementation of the intervention, and facilitators and/or barriers to implementation. RESULTS: The review identified 8902 abstracts, from which 61 studies were included in the review. A matrix of implementation was developed with four implementation strategies (facilitation, education/training, internal engagement and external engagement) and three implementation stages (conditions to introduce the intervention, embedding the intervention within day-to-day practice and sustaining ongoing change). CONCLUSION: Incorporating an implementation strategy into the development and delivery of an intervention is integral in embedding change in practice. The review has shown that the four implementation strategies identified varied considerably across interventions; however, similar facilitators and barriers were encountered across the studies identified. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which different implementation strategies can facilitate the uptake of palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities.

The roles, responsibilities and practices of healthcare assistants in out-of-hours community palliative care: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Access to community palliative care 'out-of-hours' - defined as care provided after the normal hours of work - is advocated globally. Healthcare assistants, who provide care under the direction of a qualified professional, are increasingly employed to help deliver such care, yet there is a little understanding regarding their role, responsibilities or contribution. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify the roles, responsibilities and contributions of healthcare assistants in out-of-hours community palliative care. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Five bibliographic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and grey literature were searched using a predefined search strategy. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. RESULTS: The search yielded six papers using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Results highlighted a lack of recognition of the role and contribution of healthcare assistants. A concurrent theme was that healthcare assistants continually monitored and responded to patient's and family's physical and emotional needs; there was also self-reported evidence indicating patient and family benefit, such as maintaining a sense of normality and support to remain at home. DISCUSSION: This review highlighted a dearth of evidence relating to the healthcare assistant role in out-of-hours palliative care. Limited evidence suggests they play a role, but that it is hidden and undervalued. Such invisibility will have a significant impact on the planning and delivery of out-of-hours palliative care. Future research is needed on role development for the benefit of patients and caregivers.