Antonio Noguera

Official certification of doctors working in palliative medicine in Europe: data from an EAPC study in 52 European countries.

There is an increasing move to recognize palliative medicine as an area of certificated specialization. Drawing on a survey of palliative care provision in the World Health Organization European region, an overview of palliative care specialization and accreditation practices was presented. Within an international survey to key experts in palliative care carried out in 2005, conducted in 52 countries, a question about the certification for palliative care professionals was included. Information was obtained for 43 of the 52 countries surveyed and all 43 countries (83%) provided data on certification. Palliative medicine has specialty status in just two European countries: Ireland and the UK. In five countries it is considered as a sub-specialty, for which a second certification is required: Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Germany and, recently, France. Some 10 other countries have started the process of certification for palliative medicine, in all cases opting for sub-specialty status that follows full recognition in an established specialty. Across countries there is disparity in the certification criteria followed and considerable variability in the demands that are made in order to achieve certification. Further studies are needed to focus in depth on palliative medicine certification and accreditation across Europe. Establishing uniform approaches to certification for palliative medicine in different European countries will contribute to wider take-up of specialty status and the improved recognition of palliative care as a discipline. Palliative Medicine 2007; 21 : 683—687

Screening for Constipation in Palliative Care Patients

INTRODUCTION The objective of this study was to establish screening criteria for constipation in palliative care and, subsequently, to determine data for diagnostic suspicion of constipation in a palliative care population. Also we investigate the incidence of fecal impaction in the same sample of palliative care patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A descriptive, multicenter cross-sectional study was done. All patients in active care by a group of hospital and home palliative care teams were studied. A questionnaire on signs (frequency and consistency of stools) and symptoms (pain, discomfort, or a sensation of incomplete evacuation when having a bowel movement) of constipation in last weeks, and a verbal numerical scale (VNS) (0-10) on discomfort or difficulty with constipation was completed by the patients. The patients were asked about impaction in the last 3 months. RESULTS One hundred twenty patients from 21 palliative care teams were included; the majority of patients received opiates (66%) and also laxatives (60%). Bowel movement rate less than three stools per week was found in 13% of patients, stools harder than normal were experienced in 24% patients, and 33% exhibited pain, discomfort, or sensation of incomplete evacuation. Of the patients studied 13% had some signs of habitual constipation but they did not complain of symptoms, others (17%) had some discomfort in spite of not having signs of constipation. As screening criteria for constipation in palliative care we elected to include indistinct presence of constipation symptoms or constipation signs in recent weeks. A diagnosis of suspicion of constipation was established in almost 1 of 2 patients (48%) of our palliative care population. VNS with cutoff point of 3 or more of 10, showed a sensitivity of 0.70 and a specificity of 0.74 and positive predictive value (PPV) of 73% positive and negative predictive value (NPV) of 70%. In addition to these findings a considerable number of our palliative care patients (20%) reported episodes of fecal impaction in the last 3 months. CONCLUSION The screening for constipation in palliative care should be performed exploring subjective symptoms and other objective signs. A diagnosis of suspected constipation was found in almost half of the palliative care patients studied. A VNS of constipation did not produce good predictive values for the detection of constipation in our sample.

A multicenter survey of Hispanic caregiver preferences for patient decision control in the United States and Latin America

Background: Understanding family caregivers’ decisional role preferences is important for communication, quality of care, and patient and family satisfaction. The family caregiver has an important role in a patient’s decisional role preferences. There are limited studies on family caregivers’ preferences of the patient’s decision control at the end of life among Hispanics. Aims: To identify Hispanic caregivers’ preferences of the decision control of patients with advanced cancer and to compare the preferences of caregivers in Hispanic Latin American and Hispanic American caregivers. Design: We surveyed patients and their family caregivers referred to outpatient palliative care clinics in the United States, Chile, Argentina, and Guatemala. Caregiver preferences of patient’s decision control were evaluated using the Control Preference Scale. Caregivers’ and patients’ sociodemographic variables, patient performance status, and Hispanic American patient acculturation level were also collected. Participants: A total of 387 caregivers were surveyed: 100 (26%) in Chile, 99 (26%) in Argentina, 97 (25%) in Guatemala, and 91 (24%) in the United States. The median age was 56 years, and 59% were female. Results: Caregiver preference of patient’s decision control was passive, shared, and active for 10 (11%), 45 (52%), and 32 (37%) Hispanic American caregivers and 54 (19%), 178 (62%), and 55 (19%) Hispanic Latin American caregivers (p = 0.0023), respectively. Caregiver acculturation level did not affect the preferences of the Hispanic American sample (p = 0.60). Conclusions: Most Hispanic family caregivers preferred the patient to make shared decisions. Hispanic Latin American caregivers more frequently preferred patients to assume a passive decisional role. Acculturation did not influence the preferences of Hispanic American caregivers.

Delirium, agitation, and symptom distress within the final seven days of life among cancer patients receiving hospice care

OBJECTIVE Knowledge of symptom prevalence and adequate assessment of such symptoms at the end of life is important in clinical practice. We determined the frequency and severity of symptom distress and delirium using the Edmonton Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and evaluated the clinical utility of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) as scored by a caregiver as a screening tool for delirium. METHOD We conducted a secondary analysis of the data from a previous randomized controlled trial on parenteral hydration at the end of life of patients admitted to home hospice. Only patients that had assessments within the last week of life were included. We collected the ESAS, MDAS, Nu-DESC, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) results. The sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were then calculated. RESULTS Some 78 of 261 patients were included in our study, 62 (80%) of which had moderate-to-severe symptoms corresponding to an ESAS score >4. These symptoms include: 73 (94%) anorexia, 63 (81%) fatigue, 56 (73%) drowsiness, 58 (75%) decreased well-being, and 39 (51%) pain. Delirium was diagnosed in 34 (44%) of patients using the MDAS. The Nu-DESC was found to have a sensitivity of 35%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 58%, and an negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% when used by caregivers. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS Hospice patients at the end of life have a high rate of symptom distress and delirium. The Nu-DESC is not a reliable tool for screening delirium when scoring is conducted by a caregiver. Our study illustrates the need for routine use of assessment tools to improve care.

Impact of a new palliative care consultation team on opioid prescription in a University Hospital

BackgroundThere are no validated measuring tools to gauge the effectiveness of a Hospital Palliative Care Consultation Team (PCCT). One way would be to consider its effect on the consumption of opioids expressed in total amounts and different formulations administered. We perform this study to evaluate the impact of a hospital PCCT on the trends of opioid prescription in a University Hospital.MethodsA seven year retrospective study on opioid prescription was carried out in the Clínica Universidad de Navarra. The period includes three years before and three years after the PCCT was implemented. Prescription was analysed calculating yearly the Defined Daily Dose (DDD) adjusted to 1000 hospital stays (DDD/1000HS). Indicators considered were the proportion of patients treated using opioids compared to the total estimated in need of treatment (rate of effectiveness) and the proportion of patients potentially requiring opioids but not treated who were incorporated into the treatment group (rate of improvement).ResultsFrom 2001 to 2007, total opioid prescription was low in non-oncology Departments (range: 69–110 DDD/1000HS) while parenteral morphine and fentanyl did not register any changes. In the same period of time, total opioid prescription increased in the Oncology Department from 240 to 558 DDD/1000HS. The rate of effectiveness in the three years prior to the implantation of the consultation team was 64% and in the three following years rose to 87%. The rate of improvement prior to the palliative care consultation team was 43% and in the three following years was 64%. A change in opioid prescription was registered after the implementation of the PCCT resulting in an increase in the prescription of parenteral morphine and methadone and a decrease in transdermal fentanyl.ConclusionImplementation of a PCCT in a University Hospital is associated with a higher and more adequate use of opioids.