Development of a measure of coping with multiple sclerosis caregiving

Development of a self-report measure of coping specific to multiple sclerosis (MS) caregiving is needed to advance our understanding of the role of coping in adaptation to caring for a person with MS and to contribute to a lack of empirical data on MS caregiving. A total of 213 MS caregivers and their care recipients completed a Coping with MS Caregiving Inventory (CMSCI) and measures of adjustment (psychological distress), appraisal and illness. A subsample (n = 64) also completed the Ways of Coping Checklist (WCC) and additional adjustment measures (depression, caregiving impact. dyadic adjustment, and relationship conflict and reciprocity). Factor analyses revealed 5 factors: Supportive Engagement, Criticism and Coercion, Practical Assistance, Avoidance, and Positive Reframing. Subscales had internal reliabilities comparable to similar scales and were empirically distinct. Preliminary construct validation data are consistent with recent MS caregiving research that links passive avoidant emotion-focused coping with poorer adjustment, and relationship-focused coping caregiving research that links greater reliance on positive relationship-focused coping and less reliance on criticism with better adjustment. Results extend this research by revealing new relations between coping and adaptation to MS caregiving. Convergent validation data suggest that although the inventory differs from the WCC, it does share certain conceptual similarities with this scale.

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 at home: general practitioners working with palliative care teams

Home care is the preferred option for most people with a terminal illness. Providing home care relies on good community-based services, and a general practice workforce competent in palliative care practice and willing to accommodate patients' needs. Structured palliative care training of general practitioners is needed at undergraduate and postgraduate level, with attention to barriers to teamwork and communication. Good palliative care-can be delivered to patients at home by GPs (supported by specialist palliative care teams) and community nurses, with access to an inpatient facility when required. To optimise patient care, careful planning and good communication between all members of the healthcare team is crucial.

How well do general practitioners deliver palliative care? A systematic review

General practitioners (GPs) deliver the majority of palliative care to patients in the last year of life. This article seeks to examine the nature of GP care, perceptions of the GPs themselves and others of that care, the adequacy of palliative care training, issues relating to accessibility of GPs to palliative care patients, and strategies that may be of use in encouraging more effective delivery of palliative care by GPs. Medline and PubMed databases from 1966 to 2000 were searched, and 135 references identified. Sixty-six of these described studies relevant to GP palliative care. GPs value this part of their work. Most of the time, patients appreciate the contribution the GP makes to palliative care particularly if the GP is accessible, takes time to listen, allows patient and carer to ventilate their feelings, and is seen to be making efforts made regarding symptom relief. However, reports from bereaved relatives suggest that palliative care is performed less well in the community than in other settings. GPs express discomfort about their competence to perform palliative care adequately. They tend to miss symptoms which are not treatable by them, or which are less common. However, with appropriate specialist support and facilities, GPs have been shown to deliver sound and effective care. GP comfort working with specialist teams increases with exposure to this form of patient management, as does the understanding of the potential other team members have in contributing to the care of the patient. Formal arrangements engaging GPs to work with specialist teams have been shown to improve functional outcomes, patient satisfaction, improve effective use of resources and improve effective physician behaviour in other areas of medicine. Efforts by specialist services to develop formal involvement of GPs in the care of individual patients, may be an effective method of improving GP palliative care skills and appreciation of the roles specialist services can play.

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.