Role and relevance of dentists in a multiprofessional palliative care team: results of a cross-sectional survey study.

PURPOSE: Despite the multiprofessional concept surrounding palliative care patients (PCPs) and their high prevalence of oral issues, licensed dentists (LDs) are often not included in their treatment team. This study aimed to examine the current state of cooperation and to determine whether and how LDs should be included in the care for PCPs. METHODS: This single-centre cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital Muenster, Germany. We surveyed three participant groups: PCPs, LDs, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Questionnaires were tailored for each group, with some questions common for comparison. RESULTS: The study encompassed the results of 48 questionnaires from LDs, 50 from PCPs along with 50 from HCPs. Consensus was reached among all parties (LDs: 73% (n = 35/48); HCPs: 94%, n = 47/50; PCPs: 60%, n = 30/50) that involving LDs in the treatment concept is favourable. On the other hand, a significant discrepancy emerged in the perception of the dental treatment effort required by PCPs. While LDs (81%; n = 39/48) and HCPs (64%; n = 32/50) were convinced of increased effort, PCPs (34%; n = 17/50) largely did not share this perspective. To enhance patient care and formulate appropriate treatment plans, LDs consider both training (58%; n = 28/48) and guidebooks (71%; n = 34/48) to be valuable and would attend or use such resources. CONCLUSION: This study sheds light on the current gaps in including LDs in palliative care teams and emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration to address oral health needs effectively. Development of continuing education options and collaborative models between LDs and HCPs needs to be further expanded in future.

Telemedicine Plus Standard Care Versus Standard Care Only in Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial.

Background: Patients suffering from incurable diseases are more likely to die in the hospital than at home. Specialized outpatient palliative care (PC) may be able to counteract this tendency. Similarly, potential benefits of telemedicine in health care were scientifically reported. The aim of this research was to compare patients receiving specialized outpatient PC plus telemedicine with those receiving standard specialized outpatient PC only. In this study, telemedicine is assumed to decrease the number of home visits and therefore should not be considered a mere add-on. Methods: This is a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Recruitment lasted between January 2020 and October 2021. Quality of care was evaluated using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) at day 0, 7, and 14 after randomization. Change from day 0 to 7 was defined as the primary outcome (noninferiority margin = 4 points). This study was conducted in an urban setting in collaboration with a university hospital and a local specialized outpatient PC service. Results: A total of 196 patients were screened with 34 patients included (18 telemedicine/16 standard care). The mean change in the total score of the IPOS from day 0 to 7 amounted to -1.8 ± 3.9 (telemedicine) versus 1.2 ± 5.7 (standard care). The telemedicine group was statistically not relevantly inferior to the standard care group (t-test for noninferiority, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Although, due to COVID-19, the sample size remained rather small, our findings indicate that telemedical approaches offer a promising and equally effective option to provide specialized outpatient PC. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT06054048.

Telemedical Consultations in Palliative Care: Benefits through Knowledge Exchange and Intercollegiate Collaboration-Findings from the German oVID Project.

(1) Background: As the number of people receiving specialized palliative care (PC) continues to rise, there is a need to ensure the transfer of this expertise from university-based PC departments to primary care hospitals without such in-house access. The present study examines the potential of telemedicine to bridge these gaps. (2) Methods: This is a prospective multi-center feasibility trial. All physicians were appropriately pre-equipped and instructed to conduct telemedical consultations (TCs), which took place within fixed meetings or on-call appointments either related or unrelated to individual patients (allowing TCs also for educational and knowledge exchange purposes). (3) Results: An inquiry for participation was submitted to 11 hospitals, with 5 external hospitals actively cooperating. In the first study section, a total of 57 patient cases were included within 95 patient-related TCs during 80 meetings. Other university disciplines were involved in 21 meetings (26.2%). Therapy adjustments resulted following 25 of 71 affected TCs (35.2%). In 20 cases (21.1%), an on-site consultation at the university hospital was avoided, and in 12 cases (12.6%), a transfer was avoided. Overall, TCs were considered helpful in resolving issues for 97.9% of the cases (n = 93). Yet, technical problems arose in about one-third of all meetings for at least one physician (36.2%; n = 29). Besides, in the second study section, we also conducted 43 meetings between physicians for education and knowledge exchange only. (4) Conclusions: Telemedicine has the potential to transfer university expertise to external hospitals through simple means. It improves collaboration among physicians, may prevent unnecessary transfers or outpatient presentations, and is thus likely to lower costs.

Virtual reality reduces pain in palliative care-A feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Effective symptom control is a stated goal of palliative care (PC) to improve quality of life for terminally ill patients. Virtual reality (VR) provides temporary escapes from pharmacologically resistant pain and allows for experiences and journeys patients may not access in any other way. Enabling wishes through virtual worlds may also offer additional benefits such as controlling psychological and physical symptoms. AIMS: We investigated the feasibility of a single VR experience as a viable, satisfying, and effective tool for end-of-life pain relief for inpatients presenting palliative needs. DESIGN: This is an observational, single-arm and national single-center feasibility trial. METHODS: A one-time VR experience with a selection of several videos and games was offered to 45 inpatients receiving PC at Muenster University Hospital. Patients with brain tumors, brain metastases, seizures, motion sickness, claustrophobia, vertigo, hearing or visual impairment, or unable to consent were excluded. Primary outcome measured patient reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). We also measured Karnofsky performance status, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, and the Pain Out Questionnaire for postoperative pain. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 21 women (52.5%) and 19 men (47.5%) at an average age of 51.9 (SD: 15.81) years. The mean Karnofsky score among the sample was 45.5 (SD: 14.97) and the HRQOL was 41.9 (SD: 23.08). While no serious side effects were reported during the intervention, three patients experienced nausea (7%), two headaches (5%), and three reported dry eyes (7%) afterwards. Significant pain reduction (baseline VAS 2.25 (SD: 0.4399)) was demonstrated during (VAS 0.7 (SD: 0.2983, p < 0.0001)), immediately after (VAS 0.9 (SD: 0.3354, p = 0.0001)) and one hour after the intervention (VAS 1.15 (SD: 0.4163, p = 0.0004)). More than 80% rated the VR experience as very good or good (85%, n = 34) and intended to make use of the device again (82.5%, n = 33). However, two participants (5%) also expressed sadness by becoming aware of old memories and previous opportunities that are gone. DISCUSSION: The present pilot study suggests that VR seems to be a feasible and effective tool for pain relief in PC. Its use encompasses the approach of a total pain and symptom therapy and enhances patients' dignity and autonomy. Future research ought to include if and to what extent VR could reduce the necessity of pharmacological pain relief.

A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS).

BACKGROUND: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. AIM: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. DESIGN: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test-retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany. RESULTS: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher - reflecting more problems - in those patients with 'unstable' or 'deteriorating' versus 'stable' Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p < 0.001). Good convergent and discriminant validity to hypothesised items and subscales of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General is demonstrated. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows good internal consistency (α = 0.77) and acceptable to good test-retest reliability (60% of items kw > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. CONCLUSION: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

Discovering the hidden benefits of cognitive interviewing in two languages: The first phase of a validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale.

BACKGROUND: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a newly developed advancement of the Palliative care Outcome Scale. It assesses patient-reported symptoms and other concerns. Cognitive interviewing is recommended for questionnaire refinement but not adopted widely in palliative care research. AIM: To explore German- and English-speaking patients' views on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale with a focus on comprehensibility and acceptability, and subsequently refine the questionnaire. METHODS: Bi-national (United Kingdom/Germany) cognitive interview study using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis and pre-defined categories. Results from both countries were collated and discussed. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale was then refined by consensus. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposely sampled patients from four palliative care teams in palliative care units, general hospital wards and in the community. RESULTS: A total of 15 German and 10 UK interviews were conducted. Overall, comprehension and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were good. Identified difficulties comprised the following: (1) comprehension problems with specific terms (e.g. 'mouth problems') and length of answer options; (2) judgement difficulties, for example, due to the 3-day recall for questions; and (3) layout problems. Combining the results from both countries (e.g. regarding 'felt good about yourself') and discussing them from both languages' perspectives resulted in wider consideration of the items' meaning, enabling more detailed refinement. CONCLUSION: Cognitive interviewing proved valuable to increase face and content validity of the questionnaire. The concurrent approach in two languages - to our knowledge the first such approach in palliative care - benefited the refinement. Psychometric validation of the refined Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is now underway.