Defining consensus norms for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe using Delphi methods: A White Paper from the European Association of Palliative care

Background: People with intellectual disabilities often present with unique challenges that make it more difficult to meet their
palliative care needs.
Aim: To define consensus norms for palliative care of people with intellectual disabilities in Europe.
Design: Delphi study in four rounds: (1) a taskforce of 12 experts from seven European countries drafted the norms, based on available empirical knowledge and regional/national guidelines; (2) using an online survey, 34 experts from 18 European countries evaluated the draft norms, provided feedback and distributed the survey within their professional networks. Criteria for consensus
were clearly defined; (3) modifications and recommendations were made by the taskforce; and (4) the European Association for
Palliative Care reviewed and approved the final version.
Setting and participants: Taskforce members: identified through international networking strategies. Expert panel: a purposive sample identified through taskforce members’ networks.
Results: A total of 80 experts from 15 European countries evaluated 52 items within the following 13 norms: equity of access, communication, recognising the need for palliative care, assessment of total needs, symptom management, end-of-life decision making, involving those who matter, collaboration, support for family/carers, preparing for death, bereavement support, education/training
and developing/managing services. None of the items scored less than 86% agreement, making a further round unnecessary. In light of respondents’ comments, several items were modified and one item was deleted.
Conclusion: This White Paper presents the first guidance for clinical practice, policy and research related to palliative care for people with intellectual disabilities based on evidence and European consensus, setting a benchmark for changes in policy and practice.

Late-stage, primary open-angle glaucoma in Europe:Social and health care maintenance costs and quality of life of patients from 4 countries

Objective: The purpose of this study was to estimate costs and quality of life (QoL) of late-stage glaucoma patients in 4 European countries. Methods: Retrospective review of medical charts of patients with POAG who were followed in a low-vision or vision rehabilitation center in one of 4 countries for at least 1 year was used to determine patient characteristics, health status, and health care resource use. Visual impairment was measured by best-corrected visual acuity (Snellen score). Patients were also interviewed over the telephone in order to assess their health-related QoL (using EuroQol EQ-5D) and use of resources including: the number of visits to rehabilitation centers, visits to hospital and non-hospital specialists, the use of low-vision devices, medication, tests, and the use of hired home help. The costs associated with resource use were calculated from the perspective of a third-party payer of health and social care based on resource usage and unit costs in each country. Results: Patients undergoing visual rehabilitation in France (n=21), Denmark (n=59), Germany (n=60), and the United Kingdom (n=22) were identified, interviewed and had their medical charts reviewed. Annual maintenance costs of late-stage glaucoma amounted to €830 (±445) on average. Average home help costs were more than 3 times higher. QoL, on average, was 0.65 (±0.28). QoL was positively correlated with the level of visual acuity in the patients' best eye. On the other hand, visual acuity was also positively correlated to health care costs, but negatively correlated to costs of home help. Conclusions: The study was limited by its observational, uncontrolled design. The finding that late-stage glaucoma is associated with higher home help costs than health care maintenance costs suggests that potential savings from a better preventive treatment are to be found for social care payers rather than health care payers. © 2008 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

A framework for developing evaluation capacity in health care settings.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for developing an effective evaluation practice within health care settings. Three features are reviewed; capacity building, the application of evaluation to program activities and the utilization of evaluation recommendations. First, the organizational elements required to establish effective evaluation practice are reviewed emphasizing that an organization's capacity for evaluation develops over time and in stages. Second, a comprehensive evaluation framework is presented which demonstrates how evaluation practice can be applied to all aspects of a program's life cycle, thus promoting the scope of evidence-based decision making within an organization. Finally, factors which influence the adoption of evaluation recommendations by decision makers are reviewed accompanied by strategies to promote the utilization of evaluation recommendations in organization decision making.

Resource utilisation and costs of palliative cancer care in an interdisciplinary health care model

This paper presents a detailed description of health care resource utilisation and costs of a pilot interdisciplinary health care model of palliative home care in Ontario, Canada. The descriptive evaluation entailed examining the use of services and costs of the pilot program: patient demographics, length of stay broken down by disposition (discharged, alive, death), access to services/resources, use of family physician and specialist services, and drug use. There were 434 patients included in the pilot program. Total costs were approximately CAN$2.4 million, and the cost per person amounted to approximately CAN$5586.33 with average length of stay equal to over 2 months (64.22 days). One may assume that length of stay would be influenced by the amount of service and support available. Future research might investigate whether in-home palliative home care is the most cost effective and suitable care setting for those patients requiring home care services for expected periods of time. © 2009 SAGE Publications.

Nuclear disasters and health: lessons learned, challenges, and proposals

Past nuclear disasters, such as the atomic bombings in 1945 and major accidents at nuclear power plants, have highlighted similarities in potential public health effects of radiation in both circumstances, including health issues unrelated to radiation exposure. Although the rarity of nuclear disasters limits opportunities to undertake rigorous research of evidence-based interventions and strategies, identification of lessons learned and development of an effective plan to protect the public, minimise negative effects, and protect emergency workers from exposure to high-dose radiation is important. Additionally, research is needed to help decision makers to avoid premature deaths among patients already in hospitals and other vulnerable groups during evacuation. Since nuclear disasters can affect hundreds of thousands of people, a substantial number of people are at risk of physical and mental harm in each disaster. During the recovery period after a nuclear disaster, physicians might need to screen for psychological burdens and provide general physical and mental health care for many affected residents who might experience long-term displacement. Reliable communication of personalised risks has emerged as a challenge for health-care professionals beyond the need to explain radiation protection. To overcome difficulties of risk communication and provide decision aids to protect workers, vulnerable people, and residents after a nuclear disaster, physicians should receive training in nuclear disaster response. This training should include evidence-based interventions, support decisions to balance potential harms and benefits, and take account of scientific uncertainty in provision of community health care. An open and joint learning process is essential to prepare for, and minimise the effects of, future nuclear disasters.

Evaluation of a partnership between primary and secondary care providing an accessible Level 1 sexual health service in the community

Comprehensive testing for asymptomatic sexually transmitted infections in Northern Ireland has traditionally been provided by genitourinary medicine clinics. As patient demand for services has increased while budgets have remained limited, there has been increasing difficulty in accommodating this demand. In May 2013, the newly commissioned specialist Sexual Health service in the South Eastern Trust sought to pilot a new model of care working alongside a GP partnership of 12 practices. A training programme to enable GPs and practice nurses to deliver Level 1 sexual health care to heterosexual patients aged >16 years, in accordance with the standards of BASHH, was developed. A comprehensive care pathway and dedicated community health advisor supported this new model with close liaison between primary and secondary care. Testing for Chlamydia, gonorrhoea, HIV and syphilis was offered. The aims of the pilot were achieved, namely to provide accessible, cost-effective sexual health care within a framework of robust clinical governance. Furthermore, it uncovered a high positivity rate for Chlamydia, especially in young men attending their general practice, and demonstrated a high level of patient satisfaction. Moreover the capacity of secondary care to deliver Levels 2 and 3 services was increased.

Dedicated severe asthma services improve health-care use and quality of life

Background: Systematic assessment of severe asthma can be used to confirm the diagnosis, identify comorbidities, and address adherence to therapy. However, the prospective usefulness of this approach is yet to be established. The objective of this study was to determine whether the systematic assessment of severe asthma is associated with improved quality of life (QoL) and health-care use and, using prospective data collection, to compare relevant outcomes in patients referred with severe asthma to specialist centers across the United Kingdom. Methods: Data from the National Registry for dedicated UK Difficult Asthma Services were used to compare patient demographics, disease characteristics, and health-care use between initial assessment and a median follow-up of 286 days. Results: The study population consisted of 346 patients with severe asthma. At follow-up, there were significant reductions in health-care use in terms of primary care or ED visits (66.4% vs 87.8%, P < .0001) and hospital admissions (38% vs 48%, P = .0004). Although no difference was noted in terms of those requiring maintenance oral corticosteroids, there was a reduction in steroid dose (10 mg [8-20 mg] vs 15 mg [10-20 mg], P = .003), and fewer subjects required short-burst steroids (77.4% vs 90.8%, P = .01). Significant improvements were seen in QoL and control using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Asthma Control Questionnaire. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first time that a prospective study has shown that a systematic assessment at a dedicated severe asthma center is associated with improved QoL and asthma control and a reduction in health-care use and oral steroid burden.