Report on palliative sedation medication usage: a survey of palliative care experts in Eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: The practice of palliative sedation continues to raise ethical questions among people, which in turn leads to its varied acceptance and practice across regions. As part of the Palliative Sedation European Union (EU) project, the aim of the present study was to determine the perceptions of palliative care experts regarding the practice of palliative sedation in eight European countries (The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, UK, Italy, Spain, Hungary, and Romania). METHODS: A specifically designed survey, including questions on the most frequently used medications for palliative sedation, their availability per countries and settings, and the barriers and facilitators to the appropriate practice of palliative sedation was sent to expert clinicians involved and knowledgeable in palliative care in the indicated countries. A purposive sampling strategy was used to select at least 18 participating clinicians per consortium country. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted on the survey data. RESULTS: Of the 208 expert clinicians invited to participate, 124 participants completed the survey. Midazolam was perceived to be the most frequently used benzodiazepine in all eight countries. 86% and 89% of expert clinicians in Germany and Italy, respectively, perceived midazolam was used "almost always", while in Hungary and Romania only about 50% or less of the respondents perceived this. Levomepromazine was the neuroleptic most frequently perceived to be used for palliative sedation in the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Between 38- 86% of all eight countries´ expert clinicians believed that opioid medications were "almost always" used during palliative sedation. The perceived use of IV hydration and artificial nutrition "almost always" was generally low, while the country where both IV hydration and artificial nutrition were considered to be "very often" given by a third of the expert clinicians, was in Hungary, with 36% and 27%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight about the differences in the perceived practice of medication during palliative sedation between eight European countries. In countries where palliative care services have been established longer perceptions regarding medication use during palliative sedation were more in line with the recommended European guidelines than in Central and Eastern European countries like Romania and Hungary.

Challenges to Exploring the Patient Perspective in Palliative Care Conversations: A Qualitative Study Among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Chronic Heart Failure Patients and Their Health Care Professionals.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to reveal the challenges faced in exploring the patient's perspective as experienced by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or chronic heart failure and their health care professionals (HCPs), including the circumstances under which these challenges are experienced during palliative care conversations. Methods: This is a qualitative, explorative study in the Netherlands using purposive sampling to create diversity in demographic variables of both patients and HCPs. Semistructured interviews with 12 patients and 7 HCPs were carried out with the use of topic lists. All interviews were audiorecorded, verbatim transcribed, and thematically analyzed. Results: Patients find it challenging to express their wishes, preferences, and boundaries and say what is really preoccupying them, especially when they do not feel a good connection with their HCP. HCPs find it challenging to get to know the patient and discuss the patient's perspective particularly when patients are not proactive, open or realistic, or unable to understand or recall information. Conclusions: Patients and HCPs seem to share the same aim: patients want to be known and understood and HCPs want to know and understand the patient as a unique individual. At the same time, they seem unable to personalize their conversations. To move beyond this impasse patients and HCPs need to take steps and be empowered to do so.

Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials: a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients' decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. METHODS: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients' initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one's fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients' values, but generally only gave 'contrasting' examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. CONCLUSIONS: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

Accentuating patient values in shared decision-making: A mixed methods development of an online value clarification tool and communication training in the context of early phase clinical cancer trials.

OBJECTIVE: In the shared decision-making (SDM) process for potential early phase clinical cancer trial participation, value clarification is highly recommended. However, exploration and discussion of patient values between patients and oncologists remains limited. This study aims to develop an SDM-supportive intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) and a communication training. METHODS: The OnVaCT intervention was developed and pilot-tested by combining theoretical notions on value clarification, with interview studies with patients and oncologists, focus groups with patient representatives and oncologists, and think aloud sessions with patients, following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for complex interventions. These human-centered methodologies enabled a user-centered approach at every step of the development process of the intervention. RESULTS: This study shows relevant patient values and oncologists' perspectives on value exploration and discussion in daily practice. This has been combined with theoretical considerations into the creation of characters based on real-life experiences of patients in the OnVaCT, and how the tool is combined with a communication training for oncologists to improve SDM.

The clinical practice of palliative sedation in patients dying from COVID-19: a retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical experts experienced challenges in the practice of palliative sedation (PS) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid deterioration in patients' situation was observed while the indications for starting PS seemed to differ compared to other terminal patients. It is unclear to which extent clinical trajectories of PS differ for these COVID patients compared to regular clinical practice of PS. OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical practice of PS in patients with COVID versus non-COVID patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from a Dutch tertiary medical centre was performed. Charts of adult patients who died with PS during hospitalisation between March '20 and January '21 were included. RESULTS: During the study period, 73 patients received PS and of those 25 (34%) had a COVID infection. Refractory dyspnoea was reported as primary indication for starting PS in 84% of patients with COVID compared to 33% in the other group (p < 0.001). Median duration of PS was significantly shorter in the COVID group (5.8 vs. 17.1 h, p < 0.01). No differences were found for starting dosages, but median hourly dose of midazolam was higher in the COVID group (4.2 mg/hr vs. 2.4 mg/hr, p < 0.001). Time interval between start PS and first medication adjustments seemed to be shorter in COVID patients (1.5 vs. 2.9 h, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: PS in COVID patients is characterized by rapid clinical deterioration in all phases of the trajectory. What is manifested by earlier dose adjustments and higher hourly doses of midazolam. Timely evaluation of efficacy is recommended in those patients.

Monitoring the clinical practice of palliative sedation (PALSED) in patients with advanced cancer: an international, multicentre, non-experimental prospective observational study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation involves the intentional lowering of consciousness at the end of life. It can be initiated to relieve a patient's burden caused by refractory symptoms at the end of life. The impact of palliative sedation needs to be clinically monitored to adjust the proper dose and regimen of sedative medication to ensure that patients are at ease and comfortable at the end of their lives. Although there is consensus among health care professionals and within guidelines that efficacy of palliative sedation needs to be closely monitored, there is no agreement about how, when, and by whom, this monitoring should be performed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of palliative sedation by measuring the discomfort levels and sedation/agitation levels of the patients at regular timepoints. In addition, the clinical trajectories of those patients receiving palliative sedation will be monitored and recorded. METHODS: The study is an international prospective non-experimental observational multicentre study. Patients are recruited from in-patient palliative care settings in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. Adult patients with advanced cancer are monitored by using proxy observations of discomfort (DS-DAT) and depth of sedation/agitation levels (RASS-PAL) during palliative sedation. After the palliative sedation period, the care for the specific participant case is evaluated by one of the attending health care professionals and one relative via a questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study will be the first international prospective multicenter study evaluating the clinical practice of palliative sedation including observations of discomfort levels and levels of sedation. It will provide valuable information about the practice of palliative sedation in European countries in terminally ill cancer patients. Results from this study will facilitate the formulation of recommendations for clinical practice on how to improve monitoring and comfort in patients receiving palliative sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov since January 22, 2021, registration number: NCT04719702.

Regulations on palliative sedation: an international survey across eight European countries.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation is a commonly accepted medical practice. This study aims to clarify how palliative sedation is regulated in various countries and whether this may impact its practice. METHODS: An online survey requesting regulations on palliative sedation was conducted in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain, Romania and the UK. Purposive sampling strategy was used to identify clinicians from different medical fields and legal experts for each country. Regulations were analyzed using the principles of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework on palliative sedation. Country reports describing how palliative sedation is regulated were elaborated. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-nine out of 223 (62%) participants identified 31 laws and other regulations affecting palliative sedation. In Spain, 12 regional laws recognize palliative sedation as a right of the patient at the end of life when there are refractory symptoms. In Italy, the law of informed consent and advance directives specifically recognizes the doctor can use deep sedation when there are refractory symptoms. There are also general medical laws that, while not explicitly referring to palliative sedation, regulate sedation-related principles: the obligation of doctors to honour advance directives, informed consent, the decision-making process and the obligation to document the whole process. In Germany, the Netherlands and the UK, palliative sedation is also regulated through professional guidelines that are binding as good practice with legal significance. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative sedation is considered in the general law of medical practice, in laws regarding the patient's autonomy, and through professional guidelines.

Developing a toolkit for patients with COPD or chronic heart failure and their informal caregivers to improve person-centredness in conversations with healthcare professionals: A Design Thinking approach.

BACKGROUND: The perspective of patients and informal caregivers is often not expressed in conversations with healthcare professionals which can have a negative impact on quality of care and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: Describe the development of a toolkit for patients with COPD or chronic heart failure and their informal caregivers enabling them to explore and express their perspective in conversations with healthcare professionals. Patient involvement: Patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals were involved in the design process from problem definition to solution development. METHOD: Design Thinking Approach using eight co-creation sessions and qualitative data-collection methods. Nineteen patients, ten informal caregivers and thirteen healthcare professionals participated in one or more co-creation sessions. Homogenous subgroups of participants were used in session 1, 2 and 4 and mixed groups were used in session 3, 5 and 6. Session 7 and 8 were used to test prototype toolkits. RESULTS: Three challenges to expressing the personal perspective to healthcare professionals, four statements defining the desired situation for conversations, eleven design criteria for the toolkit and ten selection criteria for tools were identified. This information was used to develop a prototype toolkit. DISCUSSION: Most patients and informal caregivers had moderate to high levels of education and all participating healthcare professionals were female with a majority of nurses and only three physicians. It is possible that this has influenced the design of the toolkit. PRACTICAL VALUE: The toolkit can support patients and informal caregivers in exploring and expressing their perspective in conversations with healthcare professionals. Feasibility of the toolkit and implications for healthcare professionals will be examined in a pilot implementation study.

Review of European Guidelines on Palliative Sedation: A Foundation for the Updating of the European Association for Palliative Care Framework.

In 2009, the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) developed a framework on palliative sedation, acknowledging this practice as an important and ethically acceptable intervention of last resort for terminally ill patients experiencing refractory symptoms. Before and after that, other guidelines on palliative sedation have been developed in Europe with variations in terminology and concepts. As part of the Palliative Sedation project (Horizon 2020 Funding No. 825700), a revision of the EAPC framework is planned. The aim of this article is to analyze the most frequently used palliative sedation guidelines as reported by experts from eight European countries to inform the discussion of the new framework. The three most reported documents per country were identified through an online survey among 124 clinical experts in December 2019. Those meeting guideline criteria were selected. Their content was assessed against the EAPC framework on palliative sedation. The quality of their methodology was evaluated with the Appraisal Guideline Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Nine guidelines were included. All recognize palliative sedation as a last-resort treatment for refractory symptoms, but the criterion of refractoriness remains a matter of debate. Most guidelines recognize psychological or existential distress as (part of) an indication and some make specific recommendations for such cases. All agree that the assessment should be multiprofessional, but they diverge on the expertise required by the attending physician/team. Regarding decisions on hydration and nutrition, it is proposed that these should be independent of those for palliative sedation, but there is no clear consensus on the decision-making process. Several weaknesses were highlighted, particularly in areas of rigor of development and applicability. The identified points of debate and methodological weaknesses should be considered in any update or revision of the guidelines analyzed to improve the quality of their content and the applicability of their recommendations.

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients' decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. METHODS: Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients' common language about cancer and clinical trials. RESULTS: Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one's fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one's fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature. CONCLUSIONS: This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients' emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial.

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials: Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing.

When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (ß = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (ß = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (ß = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (ß = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict.

The Decision-Making Process for Palliative Sedation for Patients with Advanced Cancer-Analysis from a Systematic Review of Prospective Studies.

BACKGROUND: The involvement of patients in decision making about their healthcare plans is being emphasized. In the context of palliative sedation, it is unclear how these decisions are made and who are involved in. The aim of the study is to understand how this decision-making is taken. METHOD: Information from a systematic review on clinical aspects of palliative sedation prospective studies were included. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019). Data extraction and analysis regarded: (a) When and by whom the decision-making process is initiated; (b) patient involvement; (c) family involvement and (d) healthcare involvement. RESULTS: Data about decision making were reported in 8/10 included articles. Palliative sedation was reported in 1137 patients (only 16 of them were non-cancer). Palliative sedation was introduced by the palliative care team during the disease process, at admission, or when patients experienced refractory symptoms. Only two studies explicitly mentioned the involvement of patients in decision making. Co-decision between families and the regular health care professionals was usual, and the health care professionals involved had been working in palliative care services. CONCLUSION: Patient participation in decision making appeared to be compromised by limited physical or cognitive capacity and family participation is described. The possibility of palliative sedation should be discussed earlier in the disease process.

Identifying patient values impacting the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: For many patients with advanced cancer, the decision whether to participate in early phase clinical trials or not is complex. The decision-making process requires an in-depth discussion of patient values. We therefore aimed to synthesize and describe patient values that may affect early phase clinical trial participation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search in seven electronic databases on patient values in relation to patients' decisions to participate in early phase clinical cancer trials. RESULTS: From 3072 retrieved articles, eleven quantitative and five qualitative studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. We extracted ten patient values that can contribute to patients' decisions. Overall, patients who seek trial participation usually report hope, trust, quantity of life, altruism, perseverance, faith and/or risk tolerance as important values. Quality of life and humanity are main values of patients who refuse trial participation. Autonomy and social adherence can be reported by both trial seekers or refusers, dependent upon how they are manifested in a patient. CONCLUSIONS: We identified patient values that frequently play a role in the decision-making process. In the setting of discussing early phase clinical trial participation with patients, healthcare professionals need to be aware of these values. This analysis supports the importance of individual exploration of values. Patients that become aware of their values, e.g. by means of interventions focused on clarifying their values, could feel more empowered to choose. Subsequently, healthcare professionals could improve their support in a patients' decision-making process and reduce the chance of decisional conflict.

Clinical Aspects of Palliative Sedation in Prospective Studies. A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed. OBJECTIVES: To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed. RESULTS: Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort. CONCLUSION: Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.

How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed. AIM: To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured. DESIGN: Integrative review of most recent empirical research. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010-2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness. RESULTS: Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement. CONCLUSIONS: There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.

Living and dying with incurable cancer: a qualitative study on older patients' life values and healthcare professionals' responsivity.

BACKGROUND: In ageing Western societies, many older persons live with and die from cancer. Despite that present-day healthcare aims to be patient-centered, scientific literature has little knowledge to offer about how cancer and its treatment impact older persons' various outlooks on life and underlying life values. Therefore, the aims of this paper are to: 1) describe outlooks on life and life values of older people (≥ 70) living with incurable cancer; 2) elicit how healthcare professionals react and respond to these. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 12 older persons with advanced cancer and two group interviews with healthcare professionals were held and followed by an analysis with a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Several themes and subthemes emerged from the patient interview study: a) handling incurable cancer (the anticipatory outlook on "a reduced life", hope and, coping with an unpredictable disease) b) being supported by others ("being there", leaving a legacy, and having reliable healthcare professionals) and; c) making end-of-life choices (anticipatory fears, and place of death). The group interviews explained how healthcare professionals respond to the abovementioned themes in palliative care practice. Some barriers for (open) communication were expressed too by the latter, e.g., lack of continuity of care and advance care planning, and patients' humble attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults living with incurable cancer showed particular outlooks on life and life values regarding advanced cancer and the accompanying last phase of life. This paper could support healthcare professionals and patients in jointly exploring and formulating these outlooks and values in the light of treatment plans.

Disseminating research findings using a massive online open course for maximising impact and developing recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Developing recommendations for how we deliver healthcare is often left to leading experts in a field. Findings from the Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) study, which aimed to identify best practice in integrated palliative care in cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure, led to recommendations developed through an expert consultation process. We also wanted to develop these recommendations further with participants who were largely clinicians and members of the public. METHODS: Results from the InSup-C study were disseminated through a three-week massive open online course (MOOC) which ran in 2016, 2017 and 2019. The first course helped develop the final recommendations, which were ranked by MOOC participants in the subsequent courses. MOOC participants were predominantly clinicians, but also academics and members of the public. They rated how important each recommendation was on a 9 point scale (9 most important). Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the ratings. The results were compared to findings from the consultation. RESULTS: Five hundred fifteen completed the last part of the course where the recommendations were ranked, of which 195 (38%) completed the ratings. The top recommendations related to: need to expand palliative care to non-malignant conditions; palliative care needs to include different dimensions of care including physical, psychological and spiritual; policies and regulations assessments should be made regularly; palliative care integration should be mandatory; and there should be greater availability of medicines. These differed compared to the top ranked recommendations by the consultation panel in relation to the importance of leadership and policy making. This may indicate that clinicians are more focused on daily care rather than the (inter) national agenda. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst both sets of recommendations are important, our study shows that we need to include the views of clinicians and the public rather than rely upon leading expert opinion alone. To keep recommendations fresh we need both the input of clinicians, the public and experts. When disseminating findings, MOOCs offer a useful way to gain greater reach with clinicians and the public, and importantly could be a vehicle to validate recommendations made by leading expert panels.

Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: Experiences from three European palliative care studies.

BACKGROUND: Research requires high-quality ethical and governance scrutiny and approval. However, when research is conducted across different countries, this can cause challenges due to the differing ethico-legal framework requirements of ethical boards. There is no specific guidance for research which does not involve non-medicinal products. AIM: To describe and address differences in ethical and research governance procedures applied by research ethics committees for non-pharmaceutical palliative care studies including adult participants in collaborative European studies. DESIGN: An online survey analysed using descriptive statistics. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen principal investigators in 11 countries conducting one of three European-funded studies. RESULTS: There was variation in practice including whether ethical approval was required. The time to gain full approvals differed with the United Kingdom having governance procedures that took the longest time. Written consent was not required in all countries nor were data safety monitoring committees for trials. There were additional differences in relation to other data management issues. CONCLUSION: Researchers need to take the differences in research approval procedures into account when planning studies. Future research is needed to establish European-wide recommendations for policy and practice that dovetail ethical procedures and enhance transnational research collaborations.