Non-kin caregivers of terminally ill people: Contributions, experiences, and needs: A protocol for a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: The role of non-kin caregivers, such as friends, neighbours, and acquaintances, in providing end-of-life care is significant but often overlooked in research and policy discussions. These caregivers provide extensive support for individuals in end-of-life care, in addition to or instead of family members. However, there is limited evidence in the literature regarding the experiences, burdens, and benefits of non-kin caregivers. AIMS: The aim of this research is to examine the role and contributions of non-kin caregivers in end-of-life care. The study intends to uncover their experiences, associated challenges, benefits, and requirements for support. METHODS: In order to achieve this objective, a mixed-methods approach will be employed, gathering data through structured questionnaires from approximately 150 non-kin caregivers and in-depth interviews with up to 25 participants. The questionnaires will measure the impact, burden, and benefits of caregiving. The Burden Scale for Family Caregivers, the Benefits of Being a Caregiver Scale, the Family Inventory of Needs, the Positive Mental Health Scale, a Graphic Closeness Scale, and selected items of the Eurofamcare Common Assessment Tool for socio-demographic and caregiving-related data will be used. Quantitative data will be analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 28 for descriptive analysis and group comparison. The objective of the qualitative in-depth interviews is to obtain a comprehensive picture of the personal experiences, motivations and support needs of members of the non-kin caregivers cohort, who are as heterogeneous as possible in terms of gender, socio-economic status, and facility with the German language. The qualitative data from the interviews will be examined using MAXQDA software, adopting a grounded theory approach for analysis. DISCUSSION: This research will develop a comprehensive framework that captures the nuanced experiences of non-kin caregivers at the end of life. The framework will identify areas where support for non-kin caregivers is lacking and where further research is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) (Registration N° DRKS00033889; date of registration: 05 April 2024). The study is searchable under the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal of the World Health Organization, under the German Clinical Trials Register number.

Knowledge and Public Perception of Palliative Care in Germany.

Background: Literature reviews reveal poor knowledge and awareness of palliative care in the public. Health literacy deficits impact access to palliative care. Objectives: The aim of this manuscript is to explore the public perception of palliative care in Germany. Design: Triangulated qualitative research design: a snowball-spread online survey and a random pedestrian survey. Setting/Subjects: Citizens in Germany. Results: The pedestrian survey (n = 100) revealed 34% of the participants being not familiar with palliative care. The online survey (n = 994) 5.7% of participants reported to not know what palliative care was. The public's perception of palliative care is mainly medicine oriented, referring to inpatient care for the immediately dying; however, further significant misperceptions were scarce. Conclusions: The public perception shows an indistinct picture of palliative care, and some misconceptions about the objectives and areas of responsibility of the subject, meanwhile, palliative care is known to a majority of people. Understanding partly incomplete pictures of patients and relatives may help to react appropriately in staff-patient interactions and improve public relations.

Symptom burden and relief in palliative care units of German Comprehensive Cancer Center and other hospitals.

PURPOSE: The National Hospice and Palliative Registry contains patient data from German hospice and palliative care facilities about symptoms. The aim of the study at hand is to differentiate symptom burden of patients in palliative care units between Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) and other hospitals regarding symptom burden and relief of patients in palliative care units. METHODS: The registry analysis provided data of patients in palliative care units (2014-2018). We analyzed characteristic and symptom-related data on 18 symptoms, with considerable symptom-burdened patients (moderate or severe). We followed a cancer (yes/no) and facility-specific descriptive analysis (f, %, µ, Mdn, SD, V, r) using SPSS. RESULTS: We evaluated 10,447 patient records (CCC: 4234 pts/non CCC 6,213 pts), 82% with a cancer diagnosis. For cancer patients, the mean age in CCC-affiliated palliative care units was 68 (SD 19-99) years, in others 73 (SD 23-104) years (p < 0.05; V = 0.2). The proportion of patients with significant symptom burden is lower in CCC-affiliated than in other palliative care units. The difference between facilities shows a significant weak effect in pain, vomiting and constipation, depressiveness, anxiety, and tension. The proportion of cases which symptom burden could be alleviated is higher in CCC-affiliated palliative care units with significant weak/medium effect in pain, nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, constipation, wound care problems, depressiveness, anxiety, tension, confusion, and problems in organizing care. CONCLUSION: We found differences in symptom burden and symptom relief between CCC-affiliated and other palliative care units. CCCs should continue to feel responsible for sharing knowledge about symptom relief, such as through standard operating procedures and education.

Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: A wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard. METHODS: Comprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa. RESULTS: In 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.

Expert-approved best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care (SedPall).

BACKGROUND: The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue's great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall ("From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation - Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care") with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area. DESIGN: Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%. RESULTS: Ten experts commented on the recommendations' first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics "indications", "intent/purpose [of sedation]", "decision-making", "information and consent", "medication and type of sedation", "monitoring", "management of fluids and nutrition", "continuing other measures", "support for relatives", and "team support". The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues. CONCLUSION: Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations' implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Palliative care as a digital working world (PALLADiUM) - A mixed-method research protocol.

BACKGROUND: In Palliative Care, actors from different professional backgrounds work together and exchange case-specific and expert knowledge and information. Since Palliative Care is traditionally distant from digitalization due to its holistically person-centered approach, there is a lack of suitable concepts enabling digitalization regarding multi-professional team processes. Yet, a digitalised information and collaboration environment geared to the requirements of palliative care and the needs of the members of the multi-professional team might facilitate communication and collaboration processes and improve information and knowledge flows. Taking this chance, the presented three-year project, PALLADiUM, aims to improve the effectiveness of Palliative Care teams by jointly sharing available inter-subjective knowledge and orientation-giving as well as action-guiding practical knowledge. Thus, PALLADiUM will explore the potentials and limitations of digitally supported communication and collaboration solutions. METHODS: PALLADiUM follows an open and iterative mixed methods approach. First, ethnographic methods - participant observations, interviews, and focus groups - aim to explore knowledge and information flow in investigating Palliative Care units as well as the requirements and barriers to digitalization. Second, to extend this body, the analysis of the historical hospital data provides quantitative insights. Condensing all findings results in a to-be work system. Adhering to the work systems transformation method, a technical prototype including artificial intelligence components will enhance the collaborative teamwork in the Palliative Care unit. DISCUSSION: PALLADiUM aims to deliver decisive new insights into the preconditions, processes, and success factors of the digitalization of a medical working environment as well as communication and collaboration processes in multi-professional teams. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered prospectively at DRKS (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien) Registration-ID: DRKS0025356 Date of registration: 03.06.21.

Documentation of Sedation in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review of Requirements, Recommendations, and Templates.

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life.

Palliative care and new technologies. The use of smart sensor technologies and its impact on the Total Care principle.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is an integral part of health care, which in term has become increasingly technologized in recent decades. Lately, innovative smart sensors combined with artificial intelligence promise better diagnosis and treatment. But to date, it is unclear: how are palliative care concepts and their underlying assumptions about humans challenged by smart sensor technologies (SST) and how can care benefit from SST? AIMS: The paper aims to identify changes and challenges in palliative care due to the use of SST. In addition, normative guiding criteria for the use of SST are developed. METHODS: The principle of Total Care used by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) forms the basis for the ethical analysis. Drawing on this, its underlying conceptions of the human and its socio-ethical aspects are examined with a phenomenological focus. In the second step, the advantages, limitations, and socio-ethical challenges of using SST with respect to the Total Care principle are explored. Finally, ethical-normative requirements for the application of SST are derived. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: First, SST are limited in their measurement capabilities. Second, SST have an impact on human agency and autonomy. This concerns both the patient and the caregiver. Third, some aspects of the Total Care principle are likely to be marginalized due to the use of SST. The paper formulates normative requirements for using SST to serve human flourishing. It unfolds three criteria according to which SST must be aligned: (1) evidence and purposefulness, (2) autonomy, and (3) Total Care.

Development of a national strategy with recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics: A modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a constant challenge for health care systems, also in Germany. Care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives is often neglected and suffering increased due to sub-optimal symptom management, visiting restrictions and lonely dying. The project "Palliative Care in Pandemics (PallPan)" intended to develop a national strategy including evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives during pandemic times in Germany. AIM: To reach consensus on evidence-based recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics. METHODS: Three-step consensus process comprising two online Delphi rounds and an expert workshop conducted from April to June 2021. One hundred twenty experts from various areas of healthcare, administration, and politics in Germany were included. RESULTS: During the consensus-process, pre-formulated evidence-based recommendations were refined step-by-step. This resulted in consensus on 33 recommendations on the topics of "supporting patients and their relatives," "supporting staff," and "supporting and maintaining structures and provision of palliative care." The recommendations address professional carers and various responsibilities on a governmental, federal state and municipal level, and in healthcare facilities. CONCLUSION: We provide evidence and consensus-based recommendations for the care of seriously ill and dying people and their relatives in pandemics in Germany. This is an important step towards a pandemic preparedness and hopefully improves the future palliative care response to pandemics.

COVID-19: Challenges and solutions for the provision of care to seriously ill and dying people and their relatives during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic - perspectives of pandemic response team members: A qualitative study on the basis of expert interviews (part of PallPan).

BACKGROUND: During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic's initial waves, bans on visiting and isolation measures placed limits on providing services for seriously ill and dying people and their relatives. Pandemic response teams at governmental level (macro), at federal state and municipal level (meso) and in healthcare facilities (micro) played their role in pandemic management procedures. AIM: To explore pandemic-related challenges and solutions of pandemic response teams regarding the provision of care to seriously ill and dying people and their relatives. Findings were to be integrated into a national strategy (PallPan). DESIGN: Semi-structured expert interviews (10/2020-2/2021) analysed via structured content analysis. SETTINGPARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 41 members, who discussed the work of 43 German pandemic response teams (micro n = 23; meso n = 20; no members were available at macro level) from 14 German federal states. RESULTS: Twenty-nine of 43 teams took account of the needs of seriously ill and dying. Their main challenges resulted from pandemic-related legal requirements in hospitals and long-term care facilities. The implementation of such was in the remits of the meso level. Dysfunctional or non-existent communication between the levels was reported to be challenging. To foster patient-related solutions the micro level pandemic response teams supported individual decisions to enable patient-relative contact for example, visiting and saying goodbye outside, meeting via digital solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Pandemic response teams evidently struggled to find appropriate solutions to ease pandemic-related impact on the care of seriously ill and dying patients and their relatives. We recommend bringing palliative care expertise on board.

Possible age-related differences in healthcare professionals' perspectives on younger and older patients' autonomy and decision-making in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care: exploratory secondary qualitative content and linguistic conversation analysis of interviews with healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Chronic illnesses and multi-morbidity can threaten competence and independence, particularly in old age. Autonomy becomes increasingly important in the context of sedation, as in this case medication leads to (further) changes of consciousness. The study aimed to identify possible age-related differences in the perspectives of healthcare professionals on patients' autonomy, in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care. METHOD: Secondary analysis of interviews with healthcare professionals, analysed by qualitative content and linguistic conversation analysis. The interviews analysed span 51 healthcare professionals in specialised palliative care across 17 centres (adult inpatient and specialist palliative home care services) in Germany. RESULTS: The study shows that the perspectives of healthcare professionals on patients' autonomy differs according to the age of the patient in the context of sedation in specialised palliative care. The different perspectives may lead to different ways of treating the patients, for example a greater space of autonomy and decision-making for younger patients. CONCLUSION: In particular, measures that may restrict consciousness (e.g. sedation) and thus influence patients' ability to fully exercise their autonomy and fully participate in decision-making require special attention by healthcare professionals with respect to possible influences on treatment, such as different perceptions by healthcare professionals based on the patient's age or age-related stereotypes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study "SedPall" is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00015047 ).

[COVID-19 pandemic response teams: organization, competencies, and challenges-understanding and using structural realities]. / COVID-19-Pandemiekrisenstäbe: Organisation, Befugnisse und Herausforderungen ­ Strukturelle Gegebenheiten verstehen und nutzen.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Germany has a federal state system. Pandemic response teams are key instruments of pandemic management. The aim of this article is to describe the structures and powers of pandemic response teams that were explored during a study on the care of the critically ill and dying in times of a pandemic (PallPan). The focus is on health-related pandemic response teams on the national state level (macrolevel) and federal and community level (mesolevel) as well as pandemic response teams in healthcare facilities (microlevel). METHODS: Members of pandemic response teams took part in qualitative semi-structured interviews (October 2020-February 2021). The evaluation was carried out by means of qualitative structuring content analysis. RESULTS: Forty-two persons reported on 43 crisis teams from 14 federal states. Response teams in healthcare facilities and public administration differ primarily with regard to their competencies. Officially predetermined regulations regarding the initiation, personal composition, tasks, responsibilities, and competencies of pandemic response teams are not predefined in Germany. The macrolevel defined the legal and financial conditions for pandemic management. Meso- and microlevel pandemic response teams bear responsibility for maintaining the provision of healthcare. The defaults of local public health authorities are decisive for the pandemic response team's work. Main tasks and measures were the provision of information and the procurement and distribution of resources. DISCUSSION: In terms of preparing for future pandemic situations, the knowledge gained will help to address concerns about maintaining healthcare for specific population groups, such as seriously ill and dying people, to the locally differing responsible bodies, even under pandemic conditions.

Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS. SETTINGS: Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study. PARTICIPANTS: Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS. RESULTS: There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS. CONCLUSION: Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

[Health- and disease-related data of inpatients in palliative care units of the Comprehensive Cancer Centers and other hospitals in comparison-Data from the Hospice and Palliative Care Register]. / Gesundheits- und krankheitsbezogene Daten von Patienten auf Palliativstationen der onkologischen Spitzenzentren und anderer Krankenhäuser im Vergleich ­ Daten aus dem Hospiz- und Palliativregister.

BACKGROUND: The National Hospice and Palliative Registry is a database for palliative care facilities documenting a core data set for quality assurance and scientific evaluations. OBJECTIVES: The study aims identifying differences between patients in palliative care units treated in Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) or other hospitals (OH) focussing on sociodemographic and health/disease-related characteristics. METHODS: Descriptive data analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 included patients treated from 2014 to 2018. Comparisons included sociodemographic data, diagnoses, ECOG status and treatment duration. RESULTS: 12,922 patient data were analyzed (CCC n = 4975/OH = 7947). In CCCs 79.8% had a tumor diagnosis, in other hospitals 85.1%. The proportion of patients with ECOG 4 was higher in CCCs than in other hospitals. The average length of stay in CCCs was 12.6 days, in other hospitals 11.3 days (p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Data show differences between patients in palliative care implicating CCCs treating more complex palliative care patients than other hospitals.

Physicians' Opinion and Practice With the Continuous Use of Sedatives in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: There are few international studies about the continuous use of sedatives (CUS) in the last days of life. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the experiences and opinions regarding CUS of physicians caring for terminally ill patients in seven countries. METHODS: Questionnaire study about practices and experiences with CUS in the last days of life among physicians caring for terminally ill patients in Belgium (n = 175), Germany (n = 546), Italy (n = 214), Japan (n = 513), the Netherlands (n = 829), United Kingdom (n = 114) and Singapore (n = 21). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22%. Of the respondents, 88-99% reported that they had clinical experience of CUS in the last 12 months. More than 90% of respondents indicated that they mostly used midazolam for sedation. The use of sedatives to relieve suffering in the last days of life was considered acceptable in cases of physical suffering (87%-99%). This percentage was lower but still substantial in cases of psycho-existential suffering in the absence of physical symptoms (45%-88%). These percentages were lower when the prognosis was at least several weeks (22%-66% for physical suffering and 5%-42% for psycho-existential suffering). Of the respondents, 10% or less agreed with the statement that CUS is unnecessary because suffering can be alleviated with other measures. A substantial proportion (41%-95%) agreed with the statement that a competent patient with severe suffering has the right to demand the use of sedatives in the last days of life. CONCLUSION: Many respondents in our study considered CUS acceptable for the relief of physical and psycho-existential suffering in the last days of life. The acceptability was lower regarding CUS for psycho-existential suffering and regarding CUS for patients with a longer life expectancy.

Improving Dyspnoea Symptom Control of Patients in Palliative Care Using a Smart Patch-A Proof of Concept Study.

The world of healthcare constantly aims to improve the lives of people while nurturing their health and comfort. Digital health and wearable technologies are aimed at making this possible. However, there are numerous factors that need to be addressed such as aging, disabilities, and health hazards. These factors are intensified in palliative care (PC) patients and limited hospital capacities make it challenging for health care providers (HCP) to handle the crisis. One of the most common symptoms reported by PC patients with severe conditions is dyspnoea. Monitoring devices with sufficient comfort could improve symptom control of patients with dyspnoea in PC. In this article, we discuss the proof-of-concept study to investigate a smart patch (SP), which monitors the pulmonary parameters: (a) breathing rate (BR) and inspiration to expiration ratio (I:E); markers for distress: (b) heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV), and (c) transmits real-time data securely to an adaptable user interface, primarily geared for palliative HCP but scalable to specific needs. The concept is verified by measuring and analyzing physiological signals from different electrode positions on the chest and comparing the results achieved with the gold standard Task Force Monitor (TFM).

[Support for and involvement of family caregivers in Comprehensive Cancer Center - an Assessment of the Palliative Care Working Group within the network of Comprehensive Cancer Center funded by the German Cancer Aid]. / Mitbetreuung und Einbeziehung von Angehörigen in Comprehensive Cancer Centern ­ eine Erhebung der AG Palliativmedizin der von der Deutschen Krebshilfe geförderten Onkologischen Spitzenzentren.

BACKGROUND: According to current oncological guidelines, early integration of specialist palliative care (SPC) represents standard cancer care supporting not only the patients, but also their family caregivers. Data on the actual implementation in daily oncology practice in Germany are lacking. METHODS: The Palliative Care Working Group of the network of Comprehensive Cancer Centers certified by the German Cancer Aid (CCC) assessed the implementation of measures for family caregiver support and involvement within the CCC/within SPC in the CCC/local outside the CCC in all 17 CCC locations. RESULTS: In the CCC/in SPC psycho-oncological (100 %/94 %), social (94 %/100 %) and spiritual counselling of family caregivers (94 % each) as well as support for children with parental cancer (88 %/100 %) and information materials for family caregivers (88 % each) are well established. Training on nursing skills (77 %/94 %) and family conferences (59 %/88 %) are established more frequently within SPC than in the rest of the CCC. SOPs are rather rare (23 %/18 %) as well as screenings for family caregiver needs (0/24 %). Bereavement or self-help groups are with 82 % each more frequent locally outside the CCC. Psycho-oncological and social counselling as well as support for children with parental cancer were scored as most important (94 % each). For SPC, training on nursing skills and information materials were rated equally (94 % each). SOPs were rated as very/extremely important in 47 %/41 % and routine screening for family caregiver in 53 %/65 %. CONCLUSION: In correspondence to their importance, psychosocial and spiritual counselling and support for children with parental cancer are well implemented in CCC. In SPC, training on nursing skills and family conferences are also well implemented. SOPs for family caregiver support and involvement as well as routine screenings for family caregiver needs have to be implemented urgently in the CCC.

Screening for Palliative Care Needs: Pilot Data From German Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Guidelines recommend several screening tools to identify patients with complex palliative needs. This diversity and lack of structural recommendations offer a wide scope for implementing screening. Against this background, the current status of implementation at German Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCCs) funded by the German Cancer Aid has not yet been investigated. METHODS: e-mail survey of the 17 hospital sites of the 13 CCCs. The questionnaire asked for structural characteristics of the centers as well as preconditions of the screening process. Structurally established screening procedures (one item) and standardized workflows, modes of performance, screening tools (four items), modes of training how to screen, and responsibilities (two items) were assessed. RESULTS: In a 2-month period, 15 hospital sites responded; seven hospital sites conducted a palliative care needs (PCN) screening. Only one hospital site carried out PCN screening in almost all oncology departments, but only with the distress thermometer. Other hospital sites determined palliative needs by assessing physical symptoms using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale or the Minimal Documentation System, and two hospital sites combined tools to determine both physical and psychological stress. The type of screening varied from paper-pencil-based to tablet computer-based documentation. The main barriers to implementation were identified as a lack of human resources and a lack of structural conditions. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of consensus among palliative care specialists and oncologists in the CCCs supported by the German Cancer Aid in PCN screening as well as of structured guidelines and the professional association. Structural requirements should be adapted to these needs, which include both technical and human resources. A combined psycho-oncologic and palliative care screening might help to formulate best practice recommendations.

Evaluating the implementation of national recommendations on multidrug-resistant bacterial microorganisms in end-of-life care.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017, a national recommendation on multidrug-resistant bacterial microorganisms (MDRO) in end-of-life care was published. In order to monitor the implementation in a hospital-based palliative care unit, a dedicated multidisciplinary working group on MDRO was established. It developed a standard operating procedure and a documentation template (checklist). The aim of the present study is to evaluate the implementation status after one year. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was selected. The status of implementation was identified through a survey among staff members. A retrospective routine data analysis was performed. A focus group discussion with members of the working group focused on previous steps, factors conducive to implementation and on remaining problems. RESULTS: Almost all (18 out of 20) participants (20 out of 29 eligible staff members) knew the national recommendations. Twelve out of 27 recommendations had a high degree of implementation after one year, another 13 recommendations were seen as at least partly integrated into daily routine. For two recommendations the degree of implementation was rated low: (i) "Taking into account any additional time constraint imposed by protection and isolation measures when planning for personnel and bed occupancy", and (ii) "Facilitating the patient's ability to distinguish and recognize team members and family caregivers". Working group members reported improvements since the implementation, whilst reporting some uncertainty prevailing among both staff members and visitors. Inhibitory factors were said to include the complexity of the standard operating procedure, inadequate usage and poor usability of the checklist. Behavioural and cognitive barriers such as anxieties related to transmission and the sense of security caused by the routine use of protective clothing were considered to be strong. Improving the checklist and the standard operating procedure as well as anchoring procedures in daily routine were considered to be the next important steps. DISCUSSION: The implementation of recommendations is an iterative process and requires the ongoing development of appropriate measures for implementation in the respective institution. A multidisciplinary working group with monitoring tasks is an advantage.