Mapping Levels of Palliative Care Development in 198 Countries: The Situation in 2017

ContextPalliative care is gaining ground globally and is endorsed in high-level policy commitments, but service provision, supporting policies, education, and funding are incommensurate with rapidly growing needs.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to describe current levels of global palliative care development and report on changes since 2006.MethodsAn online survey of experts in 198 countries generated 2017 data on 10 indicators of palliative care provision, fitted to six categories of development. Factor analysis and discriminant analysis showed the validity of the categorization. Spearman correlation analyses assessed the relationship with World Bank Income Level (WBIL), Human Development Index (HDI), and Universal Health Coverage (UHC).ResultsNumbers (percentages) of countries in each development category were as follows: 1) no known palliative care activity, 47 (24%); 2) capacity-building, 13 (7%); 3a) isolated provision, 65 (33%); 3b) generalized provision, 22 (11%); 4a) preliminary integration into mainstream provision, 21 (11%); 4b) advanced integration, 30 (15%). Development levels were significantly associated with WBIL (r_S = 0.4785), UHC (r_S = 0.5558), and HDI (r_S = 0.5426) with P < 0.001. Net improvement between 2006 and 2017 saw 32 fewer countries in Categories 1/2, 16 more countries in 3a/3b, and 17 more countries in 4a/4b.ConclusionPalliative care at the highest level of provision is available for only 14% of the global population and is concentrated in European countries. An 87% global increase in serious health-related suffering amenable to palliative care interventions is predicted by 2060. With an increasing need, palliative care is not reaching the levels required by at least half of the global population.     

Perception of the Quality of Communication With Physicians Among Relatives of Dying Residents of Long-term Care Facilities in 6 European Countries: PACE Cross-Sectional Study

ObjectiveTo examine how relatives evaluate the quality of communication with the treating physician of a dying resident in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and to assess its differences between countries.DesignA cross-sectional retrospective study in a representative sample of LTCFs conducted in 2015. Relatives of residents who died during the previous 3 months were sent a questionnaire.Settings and participants761 relatives of deceased residents in 241 LTCFs in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland.MethodsThe Family Perception of Physician-Family Communication (FPPFC) scale (ratings from 0 to 3, where 3 means the highest quality) was used to retrospectively assess how the quality of end-of-life communication with treating physicians was perceived by relatives. We applied multilevel linear and logistic regression models to assess differences between countries and LTCF types.ResultsThe FPPFC score was the lowest in Finland (1.4 ± 0.8) and the highest in Italy (2.2 ± 0.7). In LTCFs served by general practitioners, the FPPFC score differed between countries, but did not in LTCFs with on-site physicians. Most relatives reported that they were well informed about a resident's general condition (from 50.8% in Finland to 90.6% in Italy) and felt listened to (from 53.1% in Finland to 84.9% in Italy) and understood by the physician (from 56.7% in Finland to 85.8% in Italy). In most countries, relatives assessed the worst communication as being about the resident's wishes for medical treatment at the end of life, with the lowest rate of satisfied relatives in Finland (37.6%).ConclusionThe relatives' perception of the quality of end-of-life communication with physicians differs between countries. However, in all countries, physicians' communication needs to be improved, especially regarding resident's wishes for medical care at the end of life.ImplicationsTraining in end-of-life communication to physicians providing care for LTCF residents is recommended.     

PBL教学法在临床心肺复苏术教学中的应用分析

目的 分析重症医学科PBL教学法在临床心肺复苏术教学中的应用效果.方法 本次实验的开展基础数据选择2016年9月—2018年7月进入医院重症医学科实习学生64例,按照学生自身意愿以及学校安排将参与实验学生分为均数相同的两个小组(对照组、观察组),每组实验人数均为32例,其中对照组(n=32)采用传统教学方法 ,观察组(n=32)则应用PBL教学法教学,对比两组学生在学期结束后整体的学习质量情况和教学满意率.结果 观察组学生经过测试后理论知识和专业技能得分均对比对照组更高,教学效果更加理想,观察组学生对于教学的满意率评价更高,P<0.05.结论 重症医学科临床心肺复苏术教学中应用PBL教学法,将理论与实践进行结合,对教学方法 进行改进,全面提升学生的思维理解能力,培养良好的动手能力,促进理论教学与实践的结合,为学生以后的职业生涯提供更加理想的条件.     

延续护理干预对慢性乙型肝炎患者抗病毒治疗依从性的影响观察

目的:分析延续护理干预对慢性乙型肝炎患者抗病毒治疗依从性的影响。方法:研究选取2017年1月~2017年12月某院肝二病区收治的112例乙型肝炎患者和2018年1月~2018年12月收治的98例乙型肝炎病毒患者作为研究对象,所有患者均进行抗病毒治疗,回顾性分析患者的病历资料。将2017年收治的112例患者作为常规组实施常规护理,将2018年收治的98例患者的作为研究组实施延续性护理,比较两组的护理效果。结果:研究组的治疗依从率为93.88%(92例),远高于常规组的77.68%(87例),两组数据比较存在统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:延续性护理措施可以有效提高慢性乙型肝炎抗病毒治疗的依从性,可以在临床中推广使用。     

Medical masks’ and respirators’ pattern of use,adverse effects and errors among Portuguese health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

BackgroundDuring COVID-19 pandemic, a shortage of surgical masks (Mask) and respirators (Resp) was experienced worldwide. We aimed to assess its pattern of use, adverse effects and user errors by Portuguese health care professionals (HCP).MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted through snowball convenience sample, collected by email/ social media to health care organizations. Participants answered an online anonymous survey in March 2021.ResultsMean age of 3052 respondents was 42.1 years old, 83.6% were female and 77.8% provided direct health care to COVID-19 patients. Mean time of use per shift was 6-8 hours in 40.8% of the participants. 28.0% reported never changing it during their shift. Resp use (vs Mask) was more associated with discomfort (58.2% vs 26.8%), affecting task performance (41.5 vs 18.9%) and communication (55.0 vs 40.9%), dyspnea (36.0 vs 14.4%), skin rash (37.5 vs 19.4%) and headache (37.5 vs 19.4%). Frequent user errors included touching the front while in use (70.1% Mask vs 66.3% Resp) and omitting hand hygiene before (61.8% Mask vs 55.0% Resp) or after use (61.3% Mask vs 57.0% Resp). Average number of errors was higher for Mask (4.3), than for Resp (3.2) (all: P < .001).ConclusionsMost HCP admitted an extended use of Mask/ Resp. Resp were more prone to adverse effects and Mask more prone to errors. Strategies to reinforce good practices should be considered.