There is a need to improve education and knowledge about specialist palliative care and hospice care amongst health and social care professionals, patients and carers. Standardized referral criteria need to be developed. Further work is also needed to assess the needs of those not currently accessing palliative care services.
Background: In common with international health policy, The End of Life Care Strategy forEngland has highlighted the delivery of high quality palliative care in the acute hospital setting as an area of priority.
Aim:To explore the extent of palliative care need in the acute hospital setting, and to explore agreement between different sources in the identification of patients with palliative care need.Design:: A cross-sectional survey of palliative care need was undertaken in two UK acute hospitals. Hospital case notes were examined for evidence of palliative care need according to Gold Standards Framework (GSF) prognostic indicator criteria. Medical and nursing staff were asked to identify patients with palliative care needs. Patients (or consultees) completed assessments of palliative care need.Participants: Of a total inpatient population of 1359, complete datasets were collected for 514 patients/consultees.Results: 36.2% of patients were identified as having palliative care needs according to GSF criteria. Medical staff identified 15.5% of patients as having palliative care needs, and nursing staff 17.4% of patients. Patient self-report data indicated that 83.2% of patients meeting GSF criteria, had palliative care needs.
Conclusion: :The results reveal that according to the GSF prognostic guide, over a third of hospital in-patients meet the criteria for palliative care need. Consensus between medical staff, nursing staff and the GSF was poor regarding the identification of patients with palliative care needs. This has significant implications for patient care and draws into question the utility of the GSF in the hospital setting.
The objectives of this study were to establish the extent to which UK primary care has adopted recommended practices on supportive and palliative care of adults with cancer, and to relate this to participation in national initiatives. We conducted a cross-sectional postal questionnaire survey of a random sample of UK general practices. In total, 60.0% of practices (2096 of 3495) responded to the survey: 61.5% reported involvement with the Gold Standards Framework (GSF); 24.4% with the Liverpool or other End of Life Care Pathway; 12.3%, with the Preferred Place of Care (PPC) initiative; and 8.4% with Advance Care Planning (ACP). Participation in GSF contributed most to the variance in practice organization scores; and practice organization scores contributed most to the variance in clinical care scores. Participation in ACP or PPC, and higher clinical care scores were associated with an increased likelihood of reported high rates of death at home for cancer patients. Our findings appear to support the role of national initiatives in improving the quality of end-of-life care delivery in general practice. A population-based study would be required to assess the effect of end of life care on clinical outcomes and patient or carer experience.
Three strands of activity can be identified in the history of pain measurement. The first, psychophysics, dates back to the nineteenth century and measures the effect of analgesia by quantifying the noxious stimulation required to elicit pain, as well as the maximum stimulation tolerated. The second uses standardized questionnaires for patients, developed to categorize pain according to its emotional impact, distribution, character, and other dimensions. The third asks patients to report on pain intensity using rating scales, and is used in clinical trials where analgesics are evaluated and results can be combined to influence clinical guidelines and protocols. Although all three strands have found a place in modern clinical practice or drug development, it is the reporting of pain by patients undergoing treatment using simple scales of intensity which has emerged as the crucial method by which analgesic therapies can now be evaluated and compared.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.