Pharmacological treatment of cancer pain and opioid induced nausea and vomiting: online survey and comparison with current guidelines.

PURPOSE: We assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices. METHODS: An online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared. RESULTS: Two-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV. CONCLUSIONS: Physician's practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.

Lessons Learned from Introducing Last Aid Courses at a University Hospital in Germany.

In recent years, so called "Last Aid courses", concerning end-of-life care for people dying, have successfully been established in community settings in several European countries, Australia, and South-America. To date, they have not been evaluated in hospital settings, where educational needs (concerning care of the dying) are especially high, and may differ from the general population. To evaluate if Last Aid courses are feasible in hospital settings, and if informational needs of hospital staff are met by the curriculum, we introduced Last Aid courses at a university hospital. Five courses were offered; participants of courses 1 and 2 completed surveys with open-ended questions; the answers were used to develop the evaluation questionnaire employed in courses 3-5. In these three courses, 55 of the 56 participants completed an evaluation survey to explore their learning goals and obtain feedback. Courses were fully booked; participants were heterogeneous with regard to their professional background. The most prevalent learning goals were "preparation for emotional aspects in care of dying" (65.5% ratings "very important"), "preparation for medical/care aspects in care of dying" (60.0%), and "knowledge of supportive services and facilities" (54.5%). Overall, the evaluation showed that Last Aid courses were more suitable to educate non-medical hospital staff about care of the dying. Medical staff, in contrast to non-medical staff, more often requested courses with an extended curriculum in order to meet their learning goals. Last Aid courses were well accepted and helped to reduce information deficits on care of the dying in a heterogeneous population of hospital staff.

Development of Rasch-based item banks for the assessment of work performance in patients with musculoskeletal diseases.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to develop a self-description assessment instrument to measure work performance in patients with musculoskeletal diseases. In terms of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), work performance is defined as the degree of meeting the work demands (activities) at the actual workplace (environment). To account for the fact that work performance depends on the work demands of the job, we strived to develop item banks that allow a flexible use of item subgroups depending on the specific work demands of the patients' jobs. METHODS: Item development included the collection of work tasks from literature and content validation through expert surveys and patient interviews. The resulting 122 items were answered by 621 patients with musculoskeletal diseases. Exploratory factor analysis to ascertain dimensionality and Rasch analysis (partial credit model) for each of the resulting dimensions were performed. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis resulted in four dimensions, and subsequent Rasch analysis led to the following item banks: 'impaired productivity' (15 items), 'impaired cognitive performance' (18), 'impaired coping with stress' (13) and 'impaired physical performance' (low physical workload 20 items, high physical workload 10 items). The item banks exhibited person separation indices (reliability) between 0.89 and 0.96. CONCLUSIONS: The assessment of work performance adds the activities component to the more commonly employed participation component of the ICF-model. The four item banks can be adapted to specific jobs where necessary without losing comparability of person measures, as the item banks are based on Rasch analysis.