Proceed with Caution: Transition from Paper to Computerized Pain Body Maps

AbstractPatients with advanced-stage cancer often have a high symptom burden and reduced functional status, implying that the patients themselves should be involved in development and testing of interactive assessment tools. This paper reports on an assessment of use of a pain tool, which led to changes in both medium and program in order to adapt to the patients’ needs and abilities. Our study shows how a change in medium for pain assessment from paper via laptop to iPad affects the interaction with the tool on important aspects of use. We also show how changes of medium affect the readability of the output for health care workers. We achieved better results with an iPad-based pain assessment tool developed through user-centered design compared to both a paper-based and conventional laptop-based tool

Assessing quality of care for the dying from the bereaved relatives’ perspective: using pre-testing survey methods across seven countries to develop an international outcome measure

Background: The provision of care for dying cancer patients varies on a global basis. In order to improve care, we need to be able to evaluate the current level of care. One method of assessment is to use the views from the bereaved relatives. Aim: The aim of this study is to translate and pre-test the ‘Care Of the Dying Evaluation’ (CODETM) questionnaire across seven participating countries prior to conducting an evaluation of current quality of care. Design: The three stages were as follows: (1) translation of CODE in keeping with standardised international principles; (2) pre-testing using patient and public involvement and cognitive interviews with bereaved relatives; and (3) utilising a modified nominal group technique to establish a common, core international version of CODE. Setting/participants: Hospital settings: for each country, at least five patient and public involvement representatives, selected by purposive sampling, fed back on CODETM questionnaire; and at least five bereaved relatives to cancer patients undertook cognitive interviews. Feedback was collated and categorised into themes relating to clarity, recall, sensitivity and response options. Structured consensus meeting held to determine content of international CODE (i-CODE) questionnaire. Results: In total, 48 patient and public involvement representatives and 35 bereaved relatives contributed to the pre-testing stages. No specific question item was recommended for exclusion from CODETM. Revisions to the demographic section were needed to be culturally appropriate. Conclusion: Patient and public involvement and bereaved relatives’ perceptions helped enhance the face and content validity of i-CODE. A common, core international questionnaire is now developed with key questions relating to quality of care for the dying

Integration of oncology and palliative care : a Lancet Oncology Commission

Full integration of oncology and palliative care relies on the specific knowledge and skills of two modes of care: the tumour-directed approach, the main focus of which is on treating the disease; and the host-directed approach, which focuses on the patient with the disease. This Commission addresses how to combine these two paradigms to achieve the best outcome of patient care. Randomised clinical trials on integration of oncology and palliative care point to health gains: improved survival and symptom control, less anxiety and depression, reduced use of futile chemotherapy at the end of life, improved family satisfaction and quality of life, and improved use of health-care resources. Early delivery of patient-directed care by specialist palliative care teams alongside tumour-directed treatment promotes patient-centred care. Systematic assessment and use of patient-reported outcomes and active patient involvement in the decisions about cancer care result in better symptom control, improved physical and mental health, and better use of health-care resources. The absence of international agreements on the content and standards of the organisation, education, and research of palliative care in oncology are major barriers to successful integration. Other barriers include the common misconception that palliative care is end-of-life care only, stigmatisation of death and dying, and insufficient infrastructure and funding. The absence of established priorities might also hinder integration more widely. This Commission proposes the use of standardised care pathways and multidisciplinary teams to promote integration of oncology and palliative care, and calls for changes at the system level to coordinate the activities of professionals, and for the development and implementation of new and improved education programmes, with the overall goal of improving patient care. Integration raises new research questions, all of which contribute to improved clinical care. When and how should palliative care be delivered? What is the optimal model for integrated care? What is the biological and clinical effect of living with advanced cancer for years after diagnosis? Successful integration must challenge the dualistic perspective of either the tumour or the host, and instead focus on a merged approach that places the patient's perspective at the centre. To succeed, integration must be anchored by management and policy makers at all levels of health care, followed by adequate resource allocation, a willingness to prioritise goals and needs, and sustained enthusiasm to help generate support for better integration. This integrated model must be reflected in international and national cancer plans, and be followed by developments of new care models, education and research programmes, all of which should be adapted to the specific cultural contexts within which they are situated. Patient-centred care should be an integrated part of oncology care independent of patient prognosis and treatment intention. To achieve this goal it must be based on changes in professional cultures and priorities in health care

Advance care planning in life-threatening pulmonary disease: a focus group study

Advance care planning (ACP) is a communication process for mapping a patient's wishes and priorities for end-of-life care. In preparation for the introduction of ACP in Norway, we wanted to explore the views of Norwegian pulmonary patients on ACP. We conducted four focus group interviews in a Norwegian teaching hospital, with a sample of 13 patients suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer or lung fibrosis. Analysis was by systematic text condensation. Participants' primary need facing end-of-life communication was “the comforting safety”, implying support, information and transparency, with four underlying themes: 1) provide good team players; 2) offer conversations with basic information; 3) seize the turning point; and 4) balance transparency. Good team players were skilled communicators knowledgeable about treatment and the last phase of life. Patients preferred dialogues at the time of diagnosis and at different “turning points” in the disease trajectory and being asked carefully about their needs for communication and planning. Transparency was important, but difficult to balance. ACP for patients with life-threatening pulmonary disease should rest upon an established patient–doctor/nurse relationship and awareness of turning points in the patient's disease progression. Individually requested and tailored information can support and empower patients and their relatives

Safety and Effectiveness of Palliative Drug Treatment in the Last Days of Life—A Systematic Literature Review

Context Dying patients commonly experience potentially distressing symptoms. Palliative care guidelines recommend opioids, anticholinergics, antipsychotics, and benzodiazepines for symptom relief. Objectives The objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness and safety of palliative drug treatment in the last days of life of adult patients, focusing on the management of pain, dyspnea, anxiety, restlessness, and death rattle. Methods A systematic search of the literature was published before December 2016 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and SveMed+. Studies on safety or effectiveness of drug therapy in dying adults with at least one outcome on symptom control, adverse effects, or survival were included. Data for included studies were extracted. Study quality was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Results Of the 5940 unique titles identified, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies assessed anticholinergics for death rattle, providing no evidence that scopolamine hydrobromide and atropine were superior to placebo. Five studies examined drugs for dyspnea, anxiety, or terminal restlessness, providing some evidence supporting the use of morphine and midazolam. Two studies examined opioids for pain, providing some support for morphine, diamorphine, and fentanyl. Eight studies included safety outcomes, revealing no important differences in adverse effects between the interventions and no evidence for midazolam shortening survival. Conclusion There is a lack of evidence concerning the effectiveness and safety of palliative drug treatment in dying patients, and the reviewed evidence provides limited guidance for clinicians to assist in a distinct and significant phase of life

The European Association for Palliative Care basic dataset to describe a palliative care cancer population:Results from an international Delphi process

Background: One of the barriers identified in palliative care research is the lack of common criteria to describe the population. Aim: The aim of this Delphi process was to obtain consensus on a basic set of core variables to describe or classify a palliative care cancer population. Design and setting: This was a five-step international Delphi exercise. A total of 117 experts were invited to participate. Based on a literature review and analyses of existing minimum datasets for national databases, a list of 18 proposed variables was presented in the first Delphi round. The two first rounds focused on which variables to include, and several new variables were proposed. The three last Delphi rounds focused on how the agreed variables should be recorded. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. Results: A total of 64 experts from 30 countries participated. High consensus was reached on 31 variables, divided between a ‘patient form’ – date of birth, gender, living situation, education, ethnicity and 12 symptoms – and a ‘health-care personnel form’ – patient’s date of birth, principal diagnosis, date of the principal diagnosis, stage of the cancer disease, site of metastases, present anticancer treatment, main additional diagnoses, stage of the additional diagnoses, medication, weight loss, performance status, cognitive impairment, place of care and provision of care. It was more difficult to agree upon how to record the variables, but consensus was reached on all except ethnicity, vomiting and weight loss. Conclusion: Consensus was reached on a set of core variables and how they should be recorde

To be involved or not to be involved:A survey of public preferences for self-involvement in decision-making involving mental capacity (competency) within Europe

Background: The Council of Europe has recommended that member states of European Union encourage their citizens to make decisions about their healthcare before they lose capacity to do so. However, it is unclear whether the public wants to make such decisions beforehand.Aim: To examine public preferences for self-involvement in end-of-life care decision-making and identify associated factors.Design: A population-based survey with 9344 adults in England, Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.Results: Across countries, 74% preferred self-involvement when capable; 44% preferred self-involvement when incapable through, for example, a living will. Four factors were associated with a preference for self-involvement across capacity and incapacity scenarios, respectively: higher educational attainment ((odds ratio = 1.93–2.77), (odds ratio = 1.33–1.80)); female gender ((odds ratio = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 1.14–1.41), (odds ratio = 1.30, 95% confidence interval = 1.20–1.42)); younger-middle age ((30–59 years: odds ratio = 1.24–1.40), (50–59 years: odds ratio = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.04–1.46)) and valuing quality over quantity of life or valuing both equally ((odds ratio = 1.49–1.58), (odds ratio = 1.35–1.53)). Those with increased financial hardship (odds ratio = 0.64–0.83) and a preference to die in hospital (not a palliative care unit) (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.60–0.88), a nursing home or residential care (odds ratio = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.54–0.99) were less likely to prefer self-involvement when capable. For the incapacity scenario, single people were more likely to prefer self-involvement (odds ratio = 1.34, 95% confidence interval = 1.18–1.53).Conclusions: Self-involvement in decision-making is important to the European public. However, a large proportion of the public prefer to not make decisions about their care in advance of incapacity. Financial hardship, educational attainment, age, and preferences regarding quality and quantity of life require further examination; these factors should be considered in relation to policy