Development of a national health policy logic model to accelerate the integration of oncology and palliative care: a nationwide Delphi survey in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations to deliver palliative care to cancer patients and their caregivers, their distress has not been alleviated satisfactorily. National health policies play a pivotal role in achieving a comprehensive range of quality palliative care delivery for the public. However, there is no standardised logic model to appraise the efficacy of these policies. This study aimed to develop a logic model of a national health policy to deliver cancer palliative care and to reach consensus towards specific policy proposals. METHODS: A draft version of the logic model and specific policy proposals were formulated by the research team and the internal expert panel, and the independent external expert panel evaluated the policy proposals based on the Delphi survey to reach consensus. RESULTS: The logic model was divided into three major conceptual categories: 'care-delivery at cancer hospitals', 'community care coordination', and 'social awareness of palliative care'. There were 18 and 45 major and minor policy proposals, which were categorised into four groups: requirement of government-designated cancer hospitals; financial support; Basic Plan to Promote Cancer Control Programs; and others. These policy proposals were independently evaluated by 64 external experts and the first to third Delphi round response rates were 96.9-98.4%. Finally, 47 policy proposals reached consensus. The priority of each proposal was evaluated within the four policy groups. CONCLUSIONS: A national health policy logic model was developed to accelerate the provision of cancer palliative care. Further research is warranted to verify the study design to investigate the efficacy of the logic model.

Development and Validation of the Death Pronouncement Burden Scale for Oncology Practice.

Background: Informing families of a patient's death is one of the most challenging responsibilities of clinicians who provide care for terminally ill patients. Although death pronouncement can be a highly stressful event for clinicians, no previous study has reported qualitative characteristics of the burden experienced by clinicians related to death pronouncements. Moreover, no scale has been developed to assess this burden. Objective: This study sought to develop a scale to evaluate clinicians' burden related to death pronouncement (Death Pronouncement Burden Scale for oncology practice [DPBS-oncol]) and examine its reliability and validity in Japan. Methods: We presented the DPBS-oncol to clinicians involved in oncology practice and examined its reliability and discriminant validity. To investigate the test-retest reliability of the scale, the DPBS-oncol was presented a second time to a subsample of the clinicians. Results: Factor analysis required a grouping of the 15 DPBS-oncol items into one factor. Cronbach's α coefficient of the total score of DPBS-oncol was 0.94, and the intraclass correlation coefficient of the total score of DPBS-oncol was 0.89. Regarding discriminant validity, DPBS-oncol total score was moderately correlated with other available scales for assessing clinicians' attitudes to end-of-life care. Conclusion: This study was the first to develop a scale to evaluate clinicians' burden related to death pronouncement. The DPBS-oncol, which includes 15 items, was validated and shown to have sufficient reliability.

Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes: Validation of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for staff.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of palliative and supportive care is to improve patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the gold standard for the assessment of QoL and symptoms; however, when self-reporting is complicated, PROMs are often substituted with proxy-reported outcome measures, such as clinician-reported outcome measures. The objective of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) for staff (IPOS-Staff). METHODS: This multicenter, cross-sectional observational study was conducted concurrently with the validation of the IPOS for patients (IPOS-Patient). Japanese adult patients with cancer and their staff were recruited. We assessed the characteristics of the patients and staff members, missing values, prevalence, and total IPOS scores. For the analysis of criterion validity, intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability, we calculated intraclass correlations (ICCs). RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients completed the IPOS-Patient, and 79 medical staff members completed the IPOS-Staff. The most common missing values from IPOS-Staff were Family Anxiety (3.5%) and Sharing Feelings (3.5%). Over half of the patients scored themselves moderate or worse for Poor Mobility, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety, while staff members scored patients moderate or worse for Weakness, Anxiety, and Family Anxiety. For criterion validity (patient-staff agreement) as well as intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, ICCs ranged from 0.114 (Sharing Feelings) to 0.826 (Nausea), 0.720 (Anxiety) to 0.933 (Nausea), and -0.038 (Practical Problems) to 0.830 (Nausea), respectively. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The IPOS-Staff is easy to respond to; it has fair validity and reliability for physical items but poor for psycho-social items. By defining the context and objectives of its use and interpretation, the IPOS-Staff can be a useful tool for measuring outcomes in adult patients with cancer who cannot complete self-evaluations.

Unmet Learning Needs of Physicians in Specialty Training in Palliative Care: A Japanese Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the urgent need for a quality training system in palliative care, learning needs among physicians in palliative care specialty training have not been systematically explored in Japan. AIM: To clarify unmet learning needs among Japanese physicians in specialty training in palliative care and the potential solutions they favor to meet those needs. DESIGN: A Japanese nationwide survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were physicians in specialty training in palliative care. The questionnaire included unmet learning needs and potential solutions. Factor analysis was performed to identify underlying subscales of unmet needs. RESULTS: In total, 253 of 735 institutions (34%) responded; of 284 physicians, 253 (89%) responded and 229 were eligible. The most prevalent unmet needs included the following: "to learn areas other than medicine" (89%), "to obtain research support from a data center" (87%), and "to learn ways to educate students and residents about palliative medicine" (87%). The potential solutions most participants favored to meet those needs included the following: "to develop a comprehensive training program" (74%), "to develop systems which reflect trainees' opinions on the improvement of training programs" (71%), and "to increase the number of training institutions" (69%). CONCLUSION: Physicians in palliative care specialty training had markedly unmet needs regarding training on comprehensive contents, education, and research support; they considered increasing the number of comprehensive quality training programs as a potential solution. Our findings may help physicians in palliative care training, faculty physicians, training programs, academic societies, and the government to develop collaborative efforts to fulfill the unmet needs of trainees.