Funding models in palliative care: lessons from international experience

Background:Funding models influence provision and development of palliative care services. As palliative care integrates into mainstream health care provision, opportunities to develop funding mechanisms arise. However, little has been reported on what funding models exist or how we can learn from them.Aim:To assess national models and methods for financing and reimbursing palliative care.Design:Initial literature scoping yielded limited evidence on the subject as national policy documents are difficult to identify, access and interpret. We undertook expert consultations to appraise national models of palliative care financing in England, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Wales. These represent different levels of service development and a variety of funding mechanisms.Results:Funding mechanisms reflect country-specific context and local variations in care provision. Patterns emerging include the following:Provider payment is rarely linked to population need and often perpetuates existing inequitable patterns in service provision.Funding is frequently characterised as a mixed system of charitable, public and private payers.The basis on which providers are paid for services rarely reflects individual care input or patient needs.Conclusion:Funding mechanisms need to be well understood and used with caution to ensure best practice and minimise perverse incentives. Before we can conduct cross-national comparisons of costs and impact of palliative care, we need to understand the funding and policy context for palliative care in each country of interest

Funding models in palliative care: Lessons from international experience

Background: Funding models influence provision and development of palliative care services. As palliative care integrates into mainstream health care provision, opportunities to develop funding mechanisms arise. However, little has been reported on what funding models exist or how we can learn from them. Aim: To assess national models and methods for financing and reimbursing palliative care. Design: Initial literature scoping yielded limited evidence on the subject as national policy documents are difficult to identify, access and interpret. We undertook expert consultations to appraise national models of palliative care financing in England, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Wales. These represent different levels of service development and a variety of funding mechanisms. Results: Funding mechanisms reflect country-specific context and local variations in care provision. Patterns emerging include the following: Provider payment is rarely linked to population need and often perpetuates existing inequitable patterns in service provision. Funding is frequently characterised as a mixed system of charitable, public and private payers. The basis on which providers are paid for services rarely reflects individual care input or patient needs. Conclusion: Funding mechanisms need to be well understood and used with caution to ensure best practice and minimise perverse incentives. Before we can conduct cross-national comparisons of costs and impact of palliative care, we need to understand the funding and policy context for palliative care in each country of interest

Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT)

Background: Patients with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic treatment is no longer available may be offered participation in early phase clinical trials. In the decision making process, both medical-technical information and patient values and preferences are important. Since patients report decisional conflict after deciding on participation in these trials, improving the decision making process is essential. We aim to develop and evaluate an Online Value Clarification Tool (OnVaCT) to assist patients in clarifying their values around this end-of-life decision. This improved sharing of values is hypothesized to support medical oncologists in tailoring their information to individual patients’ needs and, consequently, to support patients in taking decisions in line with their values and reduce decisional conflict. Methods: In the first part, patients’ values and preferences and medical oncologists’ views hereupon will be explored in interviews and focus groups to build a first prototype OnVaCT using digital communication (serious gaming). Next, we will test feasibility during think aloud sessions, to deliver a ready-to-implement OnVaCT. In the second part, the OnVaCT, with accompanied training module, will be evaluated in a pre-test (12–18 months before implementation) post-test (12–18 months after implementation) study in three major Dutch cancer centres. We will include 276 patients (> 18 years) with advanced cancer for whom standard systemic therapy is no longer available, and who are referred for participation in early phase clinical trials. The first consultation will be recorded to analyse patient-physician communication regarding the discussion of patients’ values and the decision making process. Three weeks afterwards, decisional conflict will be measured. Discussion: This project aims to support the discussion of patient values when considering participation in early phase clinical trials. By including patients before their first appointment with the medical oncologist and record

Review of European guidelines on palliative sedation: a foundation for the updating of the European Association for Palliative Care framework

in 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to improve the quality of their content and the applicability of their recommendations

Integrated palliative care in the Spanish context: a systematic review of the literature

Abstract Background: Integrated palliative care (IPC) involves bringing together administrative, organisational, clinical and service aspects in order to achieve continuity of care between all actors involved in the care network of patients receiving palliative care (PC) services. The purpose of this study is to identify literature on IPC in the Spanish context, either in cancer or other advanced chronic diseases. Methods: Systematic review of the literature about IPC published in Spain between 1995 and 2013. Sources searched included PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, the national palliative care Journal (Medicina Paliativa), and Google. Evidence on IPC in care models, pathways, guidelines and other relevant documents were searched. Additionally, data were included from expert sources. Elements of IPC were considered based on the definition of IPC and the Emmanuel´s IPC tool. The main inclusion criterion was a comprehensive description of PC integration. Results: Out of a total of 2,416 titles screened, 49 were included. We found two models describing IPC interventions achieving continuity and appropriateness of care as a result, 12 guidelines or pathways (most of them with a general approach including cancer and non-cancer and showing a theoretical IPC inclusion as measured by Emmanuel’s tool) and 35 other significant documents as for their context relevance (17 health strategy documents, 14 analytical studies and 4 descriptive documents). These last documents comprised respectively: regional and national plans with an IPC inclusion evidence, studies focused on IPC into primary care and resource utilisation; and descriptions of fruitful collaboration programmes between PC teams and oncology departments. Conclusions: The results show that explications of IPC in the Spanish literature exist, but that there is insufficient evidence of its impact in clinical practice. This review may be of interest for Spanish-speaking countries and for others seeking to know the status of IPC in the literature in their home nations