BackgroundSeveral studies have highlighted the need for improvement in palliative care delivered to older people long-term care facilities. However, the available evidence on how to improve palliative care in these settings is weak, especially in Europe. We describe the protocol of the PACE trial aimed to 1) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ palliative care intervention for older people in long-term care facilities, and 2) assess the implementation process and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation in different countries.MethodsWe will conduct a multi-facility cluster randomised controlled trial in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and England. In total, 72 facilities will be randomized to receive the ‘Pace Steps to Success intervention’ or to ‘care as usual’. Primary outcome at resident level: quality of dying (CAD-EOLD); and at staff level: staff knowledge of palliative care (Palliative Care Survey). Secondary outcomes: resident’s quality of end-of-life care, staff self-efficacy, self-perceived educational needs, and opinions on palliative care. Economic outcomes: direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).Measurements are performed at baseline and after the intervention. For the resident-level outcomes, facilities report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over a previous four-month period and structured questionnaires are sent to (1) the administrator, (2) staff member most involved in care (3) treating general practitioner, and (4) a relative. For the staff-level outcomes, all staff who are working in the facilities are asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A process evaluation will run alongside the effectiveness evaluation in the intervention group using the RE-AIM framework.DiscussionThe lack of high quality trials in palliative care has been recognized throughout the field of palliative care research. This cross-national cluster RCT designed to evaluate the impact of the palliative care intervention for long-term care facilities ‘PACE Steps to Success’ in seven countries, will provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness as well as the preconditions for optimal implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, and this within different health care systems.Trial registrationThe study is registered at www.isrctn.com – ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) Registration date: July 30, 2015.

Background By 2030, 30% of the European population will be aged 60 or over and those aged 80 and above will be the fastest growing cohort. An increasing number of people will die at an advanced age with multiple chronic diseases. In Europe at present, between 12 and 38% of the oldest people die in a long-term care facility. The lack of nationally representative empirical data, either demographic or clinical, about people who die in long-term care facilities makes appropriate policy responses more difficult. Additionally, there is a lack of comparable cross-country data; the opportunity to compare and contrast data internationally would allow for a better understanding of both common issues and country-specific challenges and could help generate hypotheses about different options regarding policy, health care organization and provision. The objectives of this study are to describe the demographic, facility stay and clinical characteristics of residents dying in long-term care facilities and the differences between countries. Methods Epidemiological study (2015) in a proportionally stratified random sample of 322 facilities in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and England. The final sample included 1384 deceased residents. The sampled facilities received a letter introducing the project and asking for voluntary participation. Facility manager, nursing staff member and treating physician completed structured questionnaires for all deaths in the preceding 3 months. Results Of 1384 residents the average age at death ranged from 81 (Poland) to 87 (Belgium, England) ( p < 0.001) and length of stay from 6 months (Poland, Italy) to 2 years (Belgium) ( p < 0.05); 47% (the Netherlands) to 74% (Italy) had more than two morbidities and 60% (England) to 83% (Finland) dementia, with a significant difference between countries (p < 0.001). Italy and Poland had the highest percentages with poor functional and cognitive status 1 month before death (BANS-S score of 21.8 and 21.9 respectively). Clinical complications occurred often during the final month (51.9% England, 66.4% Finland and Poland). Conclusions The population dying in long-term care facilities is complex, displaying multiple diseases with cognitive and functional impairment and high levels of dementia. We recommend future policy should include integration of high-quality palliative and dementia care.

Background: The number of older people dying in long-term care facilities is increasing; however, care at the end of life can be suboptimal. Interventions to improve palliative care delivery within these settings have been shown to be effective in improving care, but little is known about their implementation. Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the nature of implementation strategies and to identify facilitators and/or barriers to implementing palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities. Design: Scoping review with a thematic synthesis, following the ENTREQ guidelines. Data sources: Published literature was identified from electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Controlled, non-controlled and qualitative studies and evaluations of interventions to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities were included. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were sourced and data extracted on the study characteristics, the implementation of the intervention, and facilitators and/or barriers to implementation. Results: The review identified 8902 abstracts, from which 61 studies were included in the review. A matrix of implementation was developed with four implementation strategies (facilitation, education/training, internal engagement and external engagement) and three implementation stages (conditions to introduce the intervention, embedding the intervention within day-to-day practice and sustaining ongoing change). Conclusion: Incorporating an implementation strategy into the development and delivery of an intervention is integral in embedding change in practice. The review has shown that the four implementation strategies identified varied considerably across interventions; however, similar facilitators and barriers were encountered across the studies identified. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which different implementation strategies can facilitate the uptake of palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities.

Objectives: The number of older people dying in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) is increasing globally, but care quality may be variable. A framework was developed drawing on empirical research findings from the Palliative Care for Older People (PACE) study and a scoping review of literature on the implementation of palliative care interventions in LTCFs. The PACE study mapped palliative care in LTCFs in Europe, evaluated quality of end-of-life care and quality of dying in a cross-sectional study of deceased residents of LTCFs in 6 countries, and undertook a cluster-randomized control trial that evaluated the impact of the PACE Steps to Success intervention in 7 countries. Working with the European Association for Palliative Care, a white paper was written that outlined recommendations for the implementation of interventions to improve palliative and end-of-life care for all older adults with serious illness, regardless of diagnosis, living in LTCFs. The goal of the article is to present these key domains and recommendations. Design: Transparent expert consultation. Setting: International experts in LTCFs. Participants: Eighteen (of 20 invited) international experts from 15 countries participated in a 1-day faceto-face Transparent Expert Consultation (TEC) workshop in Bern, Switzerland, and 21 (of 28 invited) completed a follow-up online survey. Methods: The TEC study used (1) a face-to-face workshop to discuss a scoping review and initial recommendations and (2) an online survey. Results: Thirty recommendations about implementing palliative care for older people in LTCFs were refined during the TEC workshop and, of these, 20 were selected following the survey. These 20 recommendations cover domains at micro (within organizations), meso (across organizations), and macro (at national or regional) levels addressed in 3 phases: establishing conditions for action, embedding in everyday practice, and sustaining ongoing change. Conclusions and implications: We developed a framework of 20 recommendations to guide implementation of improvements in palliative care in LTCFs.

Objective: To examine how relatives evaluate the quality of communication with the treating physician of a dying resident in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and to assess its differences between countries. Design: A cross-sectional retrospective study in a representative sample of LTCFs conducted in 2015. Relatives of residents who died during the previous 3 months were sent a questionnaire. Settings and participants: 761 relatives of deceased residents in 241

No abstract

No abstract

Backgrounds Health care workers’ (HCWs) knowledge of and compliance with personal protective procedures is a key for patients’ and personnel safety. The aim of this study was to assess which factors are associated with higher self-evaluations of training on infection prevention and control (IPC) and higher self-assessment of IPC practices used by HCWs regarding COVID-19 in University Hospital in Krakow, Poland, in January 2021. Material and methods This was an online survey on the preparedness for COVID-19 epidemic of medical/non-medical staff and medical students. Questions included in the survey concerned participants’ socio-demographic characteristics, hospital staff involvement in the training, knowledge about the hand hygiene, and adherence to IPC measures. Knowledge and Performance Index (K&PI) based on selected questions was constructed for to reflect both subjective (self-evaluation) of preparedness and objective IPC knowledge and skills of HCWs participated in the IPC training. Results A total of 1412 health care workers, including 129 medical students, participated in the study. The largest group, 53.6%, was made up of nurses and paramedics. Age of respondents significantly correlated with knowledge of IPC and with K&PI. The mean age of workers with high K&PI was 42.39 ± 12.53, and among those with low, 39.71 ± 13.10, p < 0.001. 51% UHK workers participated in IPC training, but 11.3% of physicians, 28.8% of other HCWs, and 55.8% of students did not know the IPC standard precaution. Most participants, 72.3%, felt that they had received sufficient training; however, 45.8% of students declined this. There was no correlation between self-reported preparedness and the K&PI, indicating that self-reported preparedness was inadequate for knowledge and skills. Nurses and paramedics assessed their knowledge most accurately. Participants with low K&PI and high subjective evaluation constituted a substantial group in all categories. Students least often overestimated (23.8%) and most often (9.6%) underestimated their knowledge and skills. Conclusions Our study revealed inadequate IPC practice, especially as it refers to the training programme. We confirmed the urgent need of including theory and practice of IPC in curricula of health professions’ training in order to provide students with knowledge and skills necessary not only for future pandemic situations but also for everyday work.