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)

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.

Adoption of a sedation scoring system and sedation guideline in an intensive care unit

Aim. The paper presents a study assessing the rate of adoption of a sedation scoring system and sedation guideline. Background. Clinical practice guidelines including sedation guidelines have been shown to improve patient outcomes by standardizing care. In particular sedation guidelines have been shown to be beneficial for intensive care patients by reducing the duration of ventilation. Despite the acceptance that clinical practice guidelines are beneficial, adoption rates are rarely measured. Adoption data may reveal other factors which contribute to improved outcomes. Therefore, the usefulness of the guideline may be more appropriately assessed by collecting adoption data. Method. A quasi-experimental pre-intervention and postintervention quality improvement design was used. Adoption was operationalized as documentation of sedation score every 4 hours and use of the sedation and analgesic medications suggested in the guideline. Adoption data were collected from patients' charts on a random day of the month; all patients in the intensive care unit on that day were assigned an adoption category. Sedation scoring system adoption data were collected before implementation of a sedation guideline, which was implemented using an intensive information-giving strategy, and guideline adoption data were fed back to bedside nurses. After implementation of the guideline, adoption data were collected for both the sedation scoring system and the guideline. The data were collected in the years 2002-2004. Findings. The sedation scoring system was not used extensively in the pre-intervention phase of the study; however, this improved in the postintervention phase. The findings suggest that the sedation guideline was gradually adopted following implementation in the postintervention phase of the study. Field notes taken during the implementation of the sedation scoring system and the guideline reveal widespread acceptance of both. Conclusion. Measurement of adoption is a complex process. Appropriate operationalization contributes to greater accuracy. Further investigation is warranted to establish the intensity and extent of implementation required to positively affect patient outcomes.

A pragmatic 2 × 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial of educational outreach visiting and case conferencing in palliative care—methodology of the Palliative Care Trial [ISRCTN 81117481]

The demand for palliative care is increasing, yet there are few data on the best models of care nor well-validated interventions that translate current evidence into clinical practice. Supporting multidisciplinary patient-centered palliative care while successfully conducting a large clinical trial is a challenge. The Palliative Care Trial (PCT) is a pragmatic 2 x 2 x 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial that tests the ability of educational outreach visiting and case conferencing to improve patient-based outcomes such as performance status and pain intensity. Four hundred sixty-one consenting patients and their general practitioners (GPs) were randomized to the following: (1) GP educational outreach visiting versus usual care, (2) Structured patient and caregiver educational outreach visiting versus usual care and (3) A coordinated palliative care model of case conferencing versus the standard model of palliative care in Adelaide, South Australia (3:1 randomization). Main outcome measures included patient functional status over time, pain intensity, and resource utilization. Participants were followed longitudinally until death or November 30, 2004. The interventions are aimed at translating current evidence into clinical practice and there was particular attention in the trial's design to addressing common pitfalls for clinical studies in palliative care. Given the need for evidence about optimal interventions and service delivery models that improve the care of people with life-limiting illness, the results of this rigorous, high quality clinical trial will inform practice. Initial results are expected in mid 2005. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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.