PurposeThe purpose of this new resource-stratified guideline is to provide expert guidance to clinicians and policymakers on implementing palliative care of patients with cancer and their caregivers in resource-constrained settings and is intended to complement the Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update of 2016.MethodsASCO convened a multidisciplinary, multinational panel of experts in medical oncology, family medicine, radiation oncology, hematology/oncology, palliative and/or hospice care, pain and/or symptom management, patient advocacy, public health, and health economics. Guideline development involved a systematic literature review, a modified ADAPTE process, and a formal consensus-based process with the Expert Panel and additional experts (consensus ratings group).ResultsThe systematic review included 48 full-text publications regarding palliative care in resource-constrained settings, along with cost-effectiveness analyses; the evidence for many clinical questions was limited. These provided indirect evidence to inform the formal consensus process, which resulted in agreement of ≥ 75% (by consensus ratings group including Expert Panel).RecommendationsThe recommendations help define the models of care, staffing requirements, and roles and training needs of team members in a variety of resource settings for palliative care. Recommendations also outline the standards for provision of psychosocial support, spiritual care, and opioid analgesics, which can be particularly challenging and often overlooked in resource-constrained settings. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.It is the view of ASCO that health care providers and health care system decision makers should be guided by the recommendations for the highest stratum of resources available. The guideline is intended to complement but not replace local guidelines.
While deciding about the ethical issues, the physicians and nurses do not restrict their considerations to the physical aspects of the disease, but also reflect upon the complex wider consequences of the treatment decisions.
Aim:We wanted to assess Indian palliative-care nurses and physicians’ attitudes toward pain control and palliative sedation.Materials and Methods:From May to September 2008, we interviewed 14 physicians and 13 nurses working in different palliative-care programs in New Delhi, using a semi-structured questionnaire, and following grounded-theory methodology (Glaser and Strauss).Results:The interviewees did not consider administration of painkillers in large doses an ethical problem, provided the pain killers are properly titrated. Mild palliative sedation was considered acceptable. The interviewees disagreed whether palliative sedation can also be deep and continuous. Arguments mentioned against deep continuous palliative sedation were the conviction that it may cause unacceptable side effects, and impedes basic daily activities and social contacts. A few interviewees said that palliative sedation may hasten death.Conclusion:Due to fears and doubts regarding deep continuous palliative sedation, it may sometimes be too easily discarded as a treatment option for refractory symptoms.
Background:It is important to ensure that minimum standards for palliative care based on available resources are clearly defined and achieved.Aims:(1) Creation of minimum National Standards for Palliative Care for India. (2) Development of a tool for self-evaluation of palliative care organizations. (3) Evaluation of the tool in India. In 2006, Pallium India assembled a working group at the national level to develop minimum standards. The standards were to be evaluated by palliative care services in the country.Materials and Methods:The working group prepared a “standards” document, which had two parts – the first composed of eight “essential” components and the second, 22 “desirable” components. The working group sent the document to 86 hospice and palliative care providers nationwide, requesting them to self-evaluate their palliative care services based on the standards document, on a modified Likert scale.Results:Forty-nine (57%) palliative care organizations responded, and their self-evaluation of services based on the standards tool was analyzed. The majority of the palliative care providers met most of the standards identified as essential by the working group. A variable percentage of organizations had satisfied the desirable components of the standards.Conclusions:We demonstrated that the “standards tool” could be applied effectively in practice for self-evaluation of quality of palliative care services.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.