A Comparison of Methodologies from Two Longitudinal Community-Based Randomized Controlled Trials of Similar Interventions in Palliative Care: What Worked and What Did Not

Background: Methodological challenges such as recruitment problems and participant burden make clinical trials in palliative care difficult. In 2001-2004, two community-based randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of case conferences in palliative care settings were independently conducted in Australia-the Queensland Case Conferences trial (QCC) and the Palliative Care Trial (PCT). Design: A structured comparative study of the QCC and PCT was conducted, organized by known practical and organizational barriers to clinical trials in palliative care. Results: Differences in funding dictated study designs and recruitment success; PCT had 6 times the budget of QCC. Sample size attainment. Only PCT achieved the sample size goal. QCC focused on reducing attrition through gatekeeping while PCT maximized participation through detailed recruitment strategies and planned for significant attrition. Testing sustainable interventions. QCC achieved a higher percentage of planned case conferences; the QCC strategy required minimal extra work for clinicians while PCT superimposed conferences on normal work schedules. Minimizing participant burden. Differing strategies of data collection were implemented to reduce participant burden. QCC had short survey instruments. PCT incorporated all data collection into normal clinical nursing encounters. Other. Both studies had acceptable withdrawal rates. Intention-to-treat analyses are planned. Both studies included substudies to validate new outcome measures. Conclusions: Health service interventions in palliative care can be studied using RCTs. Detailed comparative information of strategies, successes and challenges can inform the design of future trials. Key lessons include adequate funding, recruitment focus, sustainable interventions, and mechanisms to minimize participant burden.

General practitioner, specialist providers case conferences in palliative care: Lessons learned from 56 case conferences

OBJECTIVE: To describe the utility and acceptability to general practitioners and palliative care staff of case conferences in palliative care. METHOD: Research focussed on case conferences conducted between GPs and staff of three specialist palliative care units (in an inner urban, outer metropolitan and regional setting), at the time of referral of patients to the service. Telephone interviews were conducted with all GPs who participated in a case conference, and focus groups were conducted with palliative care staff. RESULTS: For most GPs, case conferences by teleconference were a time effective and immediate means of information transfer. The best instances for a conference were at time of patient referral, time of discharge to the community, or where the case was complex. General practitioners appreciated access to multiple professionals simultaneously. Workload pressures were a drawback of participation for both GPs and specialists. Palliative care team members thought case conferences gave GPs an appreciation of a team approach, and reduced professional isolation. The usefulness of the case conferences depended on the willingness of the GP to participate. General practitioners would participate again provided they did not have to organise the case conference. Specialist staff were concerned by the financial cost of organising case conferences. DISCUSSION: Case conferences provide useful information exchange between GPs and specialist staff, and are acceptable to both parties. Much depends on the individual GPs attitude toward participation, as well as the timing of the conferences in the course of the patient's illness. Organisation needs to be a task of the specialist units, who would need administrative support to organise them. (author abstract)

Palliative care training: a survey of physicians in Australia and Europe

The purpose of this paper is to present data about the level and background characteristics of physicians' training in palliative care in Australia (AU), Belgium (BE), Denmark (DK), Italy (IT), the Netherlands (NL), Sweden (SE) and Switzerland (CH) (n=16,486). The response rate to an anonymous questionnaire differed between countries (39%-68%). In most countries approximately half of all responding physicians had any formal training in palliative care (median: 3-10 days). Exceptions were NL (78%) and IT (35%). The most common type of training was a postgraduate course. Physicians in nursing home medicine (only in NL), geriatrics, oncology (not in NL), and general practice had the most training. In all seven countries, physicians with such training discussed options for palliative care and options to forgo life-sustaining treatment more often with their patients than did physicians without. Irrespective of earlier palliative care training, 87%-98% of the physicians wanted extended training.