The four themes may be useful for guiding clinical practice and measurements of quality, with the overall goal of meeting future needs and improving quality in palliative care services to suit patients' preferences.

BackgroundPatients’ perceptions of care quality within and across settings are important for the further development of palliative care. The aim was to investigate patients’ perceptions of palliative care quality within settings, including perceptions of care received and their subjective importance, and contrast palliative care quality across settings.MethodA cross-sectional study including 191 patients in late palliative phase (73 % response rate) admitted to hospice inpatient care, hospice day care, palliative units in nursing homes, and home care was conducted, using the Quality from the Patients’ Perspective instrument-palliative care (QPP-PC). QPP-PC comprises four dimensions and 12 factors; “medical–technical competence” (MT) (2 factors), “physical–technical conditions” (PT) (one factor), “identity–orientation approach” (ID) (4 factors), “sociocultural atmosphere” (SC) (5 factors), and three single items (S); medical care, personal hygiene and atmosphere. Data were analysed using paired-samples t-test and analysis of covariance while controlling for differences in patient characteristics.ResultsPatients’ perceptions of care received within settings showed high scores for the factors and single items “honesty” (ID) and “atmosphere” (S) in all settings and low scores for “exhaustion” (MT) in three out of four settings. Patients’ perceptions of importance scored high for “medical care” (S), “honesty” (ID), “respect and empathy” (ID) and “atmosphere” (S) in all settings. No aspects of care scored low in all settings. Importance scored higher than perceptions of care received, in particular for receiving information. Patients’ perceptions of care across settings differed, with highest scores in hospice inpatient care for the dimensions; ID, SC, and “medical care” (S), the SC and “atmosphere” (S) for hospice day care, and “medical care” (S) for palliative units in nursing homes. There were no differences in subjective importance across settings.ConclusionStrengths of services related to identity–orientation approach and a pleasant and safe atmosphere. Key areas for improvement related to receiving information. Perceptions of subjective importance did not differ across settings, but perceptions of care received scored higher in more care areas for hospice inpatient care, than in other settings. Further studies are needed to support these findings, to investigate why perceptions of care differ across settings and to highlight what can be learned from settings receiving high scores.

BackgroundHigh energy trauma is rare and, as a result, training of prehospital care providers often takes place during the real situation, with the patient as the object for the learning process. Such training could instead be carried out in the context of simulation, out of danger for both patients and personnel. The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the development and foci of research on simulation in prehospital care practice.MethodsAn integrative literature review were used. Articles based on quantitative as well as qualitative research methods were included, resulting in a comprehensive overview of existing published research. For published articles to be included in the review, the focus of the article had to be prehospital care providers, in prehospital settings. Furthermore, included articles must target interventions that were carried out in a simulation context.ResultsThe volume of published research is distributed between 1984- 2012 and across the regions North America, Europe, Oceania, Asia and Middle East. The simulation methods used were manikins, films, images or paper, live actors, animals and virtual reality. The staff categories focused upon were paramedics, emergency medical technicians (EMTs), medical doctors (MDs), nurse and fire fighters. The main topics of published research on simulation with prehospital care providers included: Intubation, Trauma care, Cardiac Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR), Ventilation and Triage.ConclusionSimulation were described as a positive training and education method for prehospital medical staff. It provides opportunities to train assessment, treatment and implementation of procedures and devices under realistic conditions. It is crucial that the staff are familiar with and trained on the identified topics, i.e., intubation, trauma care, CPR, ventilation and triage, which all, to a very large degree, constitute prehospital care. Simulation plays an integral role in this. The current state of prehospital care, which this review reveals, includes inadequate skills of prehospital staff regarding ventilation and CPR, on both children and adults, the lack of skills in paediatric resuscitation and the lack of knowledge in assessing and managing burns victims. These circumstances suggest critical areas for further training and research, at both local and global levels.

BackgroundInstruments specific to palliative care tend to measure care quality from relative perspectives or have insufficient theoretical foundation. The instrument Quality from the Patient’s Perspective (QPP) is based on a model for care quality derived from patients’ perceptions of care, although it has not been psychometrically evaluated for use in palliative care. The aim of this study was to adapt the QPP for use in palliative care contexts, and to describe patients’ perceptions of the care quality in terms of the subjective importance of the care aspects and the perceptions of the care received.MethodA cross-sectional study was conducted between November 2013 and December 2014 which included 191 patients (73 % response rate) in late palliative phase at hospice inpatient units, hospice day-care units, wards in nursing homes that specialized in palliative care and homecare districts, all in Norway. An explorative factor analysis using principal component analysis, including data from 184 patients, was performed for psychometric evaluation. Internal consistency was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha and paired t-tests were used to describe patients’ perceptions of their care.ResultsThe QPP instrument was adapted for palliative care in four steps: (1) selecting items from the QPP, (2) modifying items and (3) constructing new items to the palliative care setting, and (4) a pilot evaluation. QPP instrument specific to palliative care (QPP-PC) consists of 51 items and 12 factors with an eigenvalue ≥1.0, and showed a stable factor solution that explained 68.25 % of the total variance. The reliability coefficients were acceptable for most factors (0.79–0.96). Patients scored most aspects of care related to both subjective importance and actual care received as high. Areas for improvement were symptom relief, participation, continuity, and planning and cooperation.ConclusionThe QPP-PC is based on a theoretical model of quality of care, and has its roots in patients’ perspectives. The instrument was developed and psychometrically evaluated in a sample of Norwegian patients with various diagnoses receiving palliative care in different care contexts. The evaluation of the QPP-PC shows promising results, although it needs to be further validated and tested in other contexts and countries.

Learning through simulation does not require years of exposure to accident scenes. The simulated learning is enhanced by realistic, stressful scenarios where ambulance nurses interact with the patients. In this study, being able to communicate with the patient was highlighted as a positive contribution to learning. However, this has seldom been mentioned in a previous research on simulation. Debriefing is important for learning as it enables scrutiny of one's actions and thereby the possibility to improve and adjust one's caring. The effect of simulation exercises is important on patient outcome.