Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care - users' cry for help

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) plays an increasingly important role in palliative care. A variety of measures exists and is used in clinical care, audit and research. However, little is known about professionals' views using these measures. The aim of this study is to describe the use and experiences of palliative care professionals with outcome measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A web-based online survey was conducted in Europe and Africa. Professionals working in clinical care, audit and research in palliative care were invited to the survey via national palliative care associations and various databases. Invitation e-mails were sent with a link to the questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Overall participation rate 42% (663/1592), overall completion rate 59% (392/663). The majority of respondents were female (63.4%), mean age 46 years (SD 9). 68.1% respondents from Europe and 73.3% from Africa had experiences with outcome measures in palliative care. Non-users reported time constraints, burden, lack of training and guidance as main reasons. In clinical care/audit, assessment of patients' situation, monitoring changes and evaluation of services were main reasons for use. Choice of OMs for research was influenced by validity of the instrument in palliative care and comparability with international literature. Main problems were related to patient characteristics, staff, and outcome measures. Participants expressed the need for more guidance and training in the use of PROMs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Professionals need more support for the use and implementation of PROMs in clinical practice and research through training and guidance in order to improve patient care.</p

Administration and Probate Act Amendment Act, 1970, No. 4

Context. As the European population ages and the number of cancer deaths annually increases, there is an urgent requirement to provide high-quality, effective care. The measurement of outcomes in advanced disease is complex, and to conduct comparative research and meta-analyses, appropriate tool selection is essential. Objectives. This study aimed to identify the outcome tools currently in use in end-of-life care (both clinically and for research) across Europe and investigate the preferred features of outcome tools from the perspective of those who select and apply them. Methods. A pan-European Internet-based survey of tool users was conducted in research and clinical populations. Respondents were asked to identify the tools they are using and describe ideal features of the measures. The study was conducted in accordance with guidance for best practice in web-based research. Results. Of the 311 participants who completed a survey, 99 tools in clinical care and audit, and 94 in research, were cited by less than 10 participants. Further data revealed that respondents require the number of potential tools to be rationalized and that brief tools are favored. Conclusion. The selection of valid and appropriate tools for palliative care populations requires expert guidance and support to ensure that clinicians and researchers are collecting data that have validity and potential for comparison within and between populations and countries. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011;42:493-500. (C) 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Critical attitudes and beliefs towards guidelines amongst palliative care professionals - results from a national survey

BACKGROUND Little is known about palliative care professionals' attitudes towards guidelines. In 2015, the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) published an evidence based guideline for palliative care in adults with incurable cancer. Before publication we conducted a national survey among members of the DGP to detect possible barriers and facilitators for its implementation. The aim of the present publication was to evaluate critical attitudes and beliefs which could hinder the effective implementation of the new guideline and to evaluate differences within professional groups and medical specialisations. METHODS This web-based online survey was addressed to all members of the DGP in summer 2014. Twenty-one questions concerning attitudes and beliefs towards guidelines were a priori developed to represent the following topics: scepticism regarding the quality of guidelines, doubts about the implementation of guidelines, restrictions in treatment options through guidelines, discrepancy between palliative care values and guidelines. Differences within professions and specialisations were tested using Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS All 4.786 members with known email address were invited, 1.181 followed the link, 1.138 began to answer the questionnaire and 1.031 completed the questionnaire. More than half of participating members were physicians and one third nurses. Scepticism regarding the quality of existing guidelines was high (range 12.8-73.2%). Doubts regarding practical aspects of guidelines were less prevalent but still high (range 21.8-57.6%). About one third (range 5.4-31.4%) think that guidelines restrict their treatment options. In addition, 38.8% believed that guidelines are a kind of cookbook and restrict the flexibility of individual patient care. The majority saw no or little discrepancy between palliative care values and guidelines (range 68.4-82.6%). There were relatively small but significant differences between professions and specialisations. CONCLUSION The person-centred and individual approach of palliative care does not seem to contradict the acceptance of guidelines. Main barriers were related to scepticism regarding the quality of guidelines and the implementation of guidelines in general

Symptoms and quality of life in late stage Parkinson syndromes: a longitudinal community study of predictive factors

BACKGROUND Palliative care is increasingly offered earlier in the cancer trajectory but rarely in Idiopathic Parkinson's Disease(IPD), Progressive Supranuclear Palsy(PSP) or Multiple System Atrophy(MSA). There is little longitudinal data of people with late stage disease to understand levels of need. We aimed to determine how symptoms and quality of life of these patients change over time; and what demographic and clinical factors predicted changes. METHODS We recruited 82 patients into a longitudinal study, consenting patients with a diagnosis of IPD, MSA or PSP, stages 3-5 Hoehn and Yahr(H&Y). At baseline and then on up to 3 occasions over one year, we collected self-reported demographic, clinical, symptom, palliative and quality of life data, using Parkinson's specific and generic validated scales, including the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS). We tested for predictors using multivariable analysis, adjusting for confounders. FINDINGS Over two thirds of patients had severe disability, over one third being wheelchair-bound/bedridden. Symptoms were highly prevalent in all conditions - mean (SD) of 10.6(4.0) symptoms. More than 50% of the MSA and PSP patients died over the year. Over the year, half of the patients showed either an upward (worsening, 24/60) or fluctuant (8/60) trajectory for POS and symptoms. The strongest predictors of higher levels of symptoms at the end of follow-up were initial scores on POS (AOR 1.30; 95%CI:1.05-1.60) and being male (AOR 5.18; 95% CI 1.17 to 22.92), both were more predictive than initial H&Y scores. INTERPRETATION The findings point to profound and complex mix of non-motor and motor symptoms in patients with late stage IPD, MSA and PSP. Symptoms are not resolved and half of the patients deteriorate. Palliative problems are predictive of future symptoms, suggesting that an early palliative assessment might help screen for those in need of earlier intervention

Hospitalized patients dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection—an analysis of patient characteristics and management in ICU and general ward of the LEOSS registry

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a severe disease with a high need for intensive care treatment and a high mortality rate in hospitalized patients. The objective of this study was to describe and compare the clinical characteristics and the management of patients dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the acute medical and intensive care setting. METHODS: Descriptive analysis of dying patients enrolled in the Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 Infected Patients (LEOSS), a non-interventional cohort study, between March 18 and November 18, 2020. Symptoms, comorbidities and management of patients, including palliative care involvement, were compared between general ward and intensive care unit (ICU) by univariate analysis. RESULTS: 580/4310 (13%) SARS-CoV-2 infected patients died. Among 580 patients 67% were treated on ICU and 33% on a general ward. The spectrum of comorbidities and symptoms was broad with more comorbidities (≥ four comorbidities: 52% versus 25%) and a higher age distribution (>65 years: 98% versus 70%) in patients on the general ward. 69% of patients were in an at least complicated phase at diagnosis of the SARS-CoV-2 infection with a higher proportion of patients in a critical phase or dying the day of diagnosis treated on ICU (36% versus 11%). While most patients admitted to ICU came from home (71%), patients treated on the general ward came likewise from home and nursing home (44% respectively) and were more frequently on palliative care before admission (29% versus 7%). A palliative care team was involved in dying patients in 15%. Personal contacts were limited but more often documented in patients treated on ICU (68% versus 47%). CONCLUSION: Patients dying with SARS-CoV-2 infection suffer from high symptom burden and often deteriorate early with a demand for ICU treatment. Therefor a demand for palliative care expertise with early involvement seems to exist

The need to research refractory breathlessness

High-quality research is needed to improve quality of life for people with chronic refractory breathlessness in COP

Standard set of health outcome measures for older persons

Background: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) was founded in 2012 to propose consensus-based measurement tools and documentation for different conditions and populations.This article describes how the ICHOM Older Person Working Group followed a consensus-driven modified Delphi technique to develop multiple global outcome measures in older persons. The standard set of outcome measures developed by this group will support the ability of healthcare systems to improve their care pathways and quality of care. An additional benefit will be the opportunity to compare variations in outcomes which encourages and supports learning between different health care systems that drives quality improvement. These outcome measures were not developed for use in research. They are aimed at non researchers in healthcare provision and those who pay for these services. Methods: A modified Delphi technique utilising a value based healthcare framework was applied by an international panel to arrive at consensus decisions.To inform the panel meetings, information was sought from literature reviews, longitudinal ageing surveys and a focus group. Results: The outcome measures developed and recommended were participation in decision making, autonomy and control, mood and emotional health, loneliness and isolation, pain, activities of daily living, frailty, time spent in hospital, overall survival, carer burden, polypharmacy, falls and place of death mapped to a three tier value based healthcare framework. Conclusions: The first global health standard set of outcome measures in older persons has been developed to enable health care systems improve the quality of care provided to older persons

Priorities for treatment, care and information if faced with serious illness:a comparative population-based survey in seven European countries

Background: Health-care costs are growing, with little population-based data about people's priorities for end-of-life care, to guide service development and aid discussions. Aim: We examined variations in people's priorities for treatment, care and information across seven European countries. Design: Telephone survey of a random sample of households; we asked respondents their priorities if faced with a serious illness, like cancer, with limited time to live' and used multivariable logistic regressions to identify associated factors. Setting/participants: Members of the general public aged 16 years residing in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Results: In total, 9344 individuals were interviewed. Most people chose improve quality of life for the time they had left', ranging from 57% (95% confidence interval: 55%-60%, Italy) to 81% (95% confidence interval: 79%-83%, Spain). Only 2% (95% confidence interval: 1%-3%, England) to 6% (95% confidence interval: 4%-7%, Flanders) said extending life was most important, and 15% (95% confidence interval: 13%-17%, Spain) to 40% (95% confidence interval: 37%-43%, Italy) said quality and extension were equally important. Prioritising quality of life was associated with higher education in all countries (odds ratio = 1.3 (Flanders) to 7.9 (Italy)), experience of caregiving or bereavement (England, Germany, Portugal), prioritising pain/symptom control over having a positive attitude and preferring death in a hospice/palliative care unit. Those prioritising extending life had the highest home death preference of all groups. Health status did not affect priorities. Conclusions: Across all countries, extending life was prioritised by a minority, regardless of health status. Treatment and care needs to be reoriented with patient education and palliative care becoming mainstream for serious conditions such as cancer