How should we measure emesis in palliative care?

There are many assessment tools available to measure emesis. This Association for Palliative Medicine Science Committee Task Group undertook a review of the validity and suitability of the assessment tools available to measure nausea, vomiting and retching within a palliative care population. Electronic databases were searched from 1970 to 2004. Both specific and global tools were identified and reviewed for their validity, reliability and suitability for our patient population where coexisting cognitive impairment and significant co-morbidities may make accurate assessment of symptoms difficult. Within specific palliative care scenarios namely daily clinical assessment, prevalence surveys and randomized controlled trial settings, the team reached a consensus on which tools had the greatest evidence to recommend them, either for immediate use or for further validation studies. An ideal measurement tool for the assessment of nausea, vomiting and retching has not yet been developed.     

A systematic review of the pain scales in adults: Which to use?

Objective

The study analysed the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to determine: 1. Were the compliance and usability different among scales? 2. Were any of the scales superior over the other(s) for clinical use?

Which depression screening tools should be used in palliative care?

Depression is a significant symptom for many palliative care patients, but is difficult to diagnose and therefore treat. In an effort to improve detection, there has been increasing interest in the use of screening tools. Many tools, however, have been developed for physically well patients and it is important that tools are validated for the populations in which they are used. The present study was carried out on behalf of the Association of Palliative Medicine, Science Committee, to assess the available evidence for using screening tools in palliative care. The single question 'Are you depressed?' was the tool with the highest sensitivity and specificity and positive predictive value. Where the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Edinburgh Depression Scale are used, the validated cut-off thresholds for palliative care patients should be employed. Patients who report thoughts of self-harm or suicide need prompt assessment and evaluation.     

Which public health approach to palliative care? An integrative literature review

Background: Public health and palliative care are both broad disciplines with blurred boundaries. There is growing support for an alignment of palliative care to public health. Given the novel nature of this alignment and the ambiguity of the parent definitions, there is an understandable lack of clarity around this merged model.

Methods: The aim of this study is to describe the theoretical features of the public health approach to palliative care as articulated in the current research literature. An integrative literature review was conducted using systematic methods to identify qualitative and quantitative studies that expressly support such an approach.

Results: The search identified 18 studies. A thematic synthesis of these studies identified three different paradigms of a public health approach to palliative care within the current empirical research. These were defined as a health-promotion approach focussed on empowerment at community level, a World Health Organisation approach which focussed on systems at country level, and a population-based approach which typically viewed palliative care issues from an epidemiological perspective.

Conclusion: This review highlights that the public health approach to palliative care is understood in various ways. It is important that future research studies clarify which public health approach they are referring to.     

How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.     

Quality measurement at intensive care units: which indicators should we use?

OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to develop a set of indicators that measure the quality of care in intensive care units (ICU) in Dutch hospitals and to evaluate the feasibility of the registration of these indicators. METHODS: To define potential indicators for measuring quality, 3 steps were made. First, a literature search was carried out to obtain peer-reviewed articles from 2000 to 2005, describing process or structure indicators in intensive care, which are associated with patient outcome. Additional indicators were suggested by a panel of experts. Second, a selection of indicators was made by a panel of experts using a questionnaire and ranking in a consensus procedure. Third, a study was done for 6 months in 18 ICUs to evaluate the feasibility of using the identified quality indicators. Site visits, interviews, and written questionnaires were used to evaluate the use of indicators. RESULTS: Sixty-two indicators were initially found, either in the literature or suggested by the members of the expert panel. From these, 12 indicators were selected by the expert panel by consensus. After the feasibility study, 11 indicators were eventually selected. "Interclinical transport," referring to a change of hospital, was dropped because of lack of reliability and support for further implementation by the participating hospitals in the study. The following structure indicators were selected: availability of intensivist (hours per day), patient-to-nurse ratio, strategy to prevent medication errors, measurement of patient/family satisfaction. Four process indicators were selected: length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, proportion of days with all ICU beds occupied, and proportion of glucose measurement exceeding 8.0 mmol/L or lower than 2.2 mmol/L. The selected outcome indicators were as follows: standardized mortality (APACHE II), incidence of decubitus, number of unplanned extubations. The time for registration varied from less than 30 minutes to more than 1 hour per day to collect the items. Among other factors, this variation in workload was related to the availability of computerized systems to collect the data. CONCLUSION: In this study, a set of 11 quality indicators for intensive care was defined based on literature research, expert opinion, and testing. The set gives a quick view of the quality of care in individual ICUs. The availability of a computerized data collection system is important for an acceptable workload.     

What do palliative care patients and their relatives think about research in palliative care?—a systematic review

Introduction  

Research in palliative care patients has been controversial and is often challenging. It is important to know the views of potentially eligible patients themselves in order to determine the appropriateness of research in the palliative care population and to develop realistic studies that are practical and achievable in this population. This systematic review aims to identify the views of palliative care patients and their families towards research, the factors that are important when considering participation, and the types of research trial they would support or reject.     

How can occupational therapists measure outcomes in palliative care?

The objective of this paper is to identify an outcome measure for occupational therapy interventions with palliative clients, in particular Home Assessments. Several possibilities beyond traditional functional measures are considered, and the notion of quality of life (QoL) as a potential measure and routine part of assessment is discussed.A systematic literature search resulted in 45 QoL tools that might be suitable for palliative care. The validation or development papers for these tools were closely examined. Twenty-four instruments met the inclusion criteria for further consideration for use by occupational therapists.The research found that it may be feasible for occupational therapists to use a QoL tool as a routine part of assessing each palliative patient, with the objective of focusing interventions to priority areas identified by the patient. Further work in this area will identify a range of established and validated methods of assessing QoL, suitable for different stages within the palliative phase of illness for purposes including assessment, support and targeted interventions.     

Has CONSORT improved the reporting of randomized controlled trials in the palliative care literature? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: In 1996, the CONSORT (CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials) statement for the reporting of clinical trials was produced, based on empirical evidence regarding bias. AIMS: This study assessed the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the palliative care literature. METHODS: Three specialist journals were hand searched for RCTs. A checklist was devised based on CONSORT recommendations. Two investigators independently assessed all the trials against this checklist. The trials were grouped into time cohorts of five years and quality comparisons made. Trials looking at pain were compared with those trials looking at other aspects of palliative care. RESULTS: Ninety-three RCTs were identified. The number of trials has increased over time: nine in the first cohort, 37 in the second and 47 in the last cohort. The number of patients in the individual trials has also increased over time. Generally, the reporting quality was poor, particularly the areas of allocation concealment, randomization technique and intention to treat analysis, where there is empirical evidence, that it leads to trial bias. Although there were more pain papers than non-pain papers, the quality of reporting was only better for blinding and intention to treat analysis. CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting of RCTs in the palliative care literature is generally poor. However, there has been an increase in the number and the size of RCTs being carried out. This shows recognition of the importance of an evidence base in palliative care. However, in order to guide clinical decision making, future trials need to improve the quality of their reporting by adhering to the CONSORT statement.