Unlike in previous reviews, we were able to draw some conclusions about the effectiveness of some types of respite care. There is nonetheless still a need for new intervention studies measuring the impact of respite care, especially in-home respite care programs, on the caregiver, the care recipient, and health care resource utilization. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract.Background: Dementia is known as a major public health problem affecting both patients and caregivers, and placing a high financial strain upon society. In community-dwelling patients, it is important to support informal caregivers in order to help them sustain their demanding role. Previous reviews about effectiveness of such supporting strategies often included a small number of studies, focused only on particular supportive types, particular outcomes, or solely on caregivers. Objective: A general systematic review was conducted investigating effectiveness of different supportive strategies on at least the well-being of the caregiver or the care-recipient. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Web of Science and PubMed. An adapted version of the Downs and Black (1998) checklist was used to assess methodological quality. A new classification was developed to group different types of caregiver support. Results: Fifty-three papers met the inclusion criteria. Although 87% of the interventions were to some extent effective, methods and findings were rather inconsistent. Psychoeducational interventions generally lead to positive outcomes for caregivers, and delay permanent institutionalization of care-recipients. Cognitive behavioral therapy decreases dysfunctional thoughts among caregivers. Occupational therapy decreases behavioral problems among patients and improves self-efficacy of caregivers. In general, those interventions tailored on individual level generate better outcomes. Comparative research on respite care was very rare. Conclusions: Despite methodological inconsistency, supporting caregivers appears to be an effective strategy often improving well-being of caregiver or care-recipient and resulting in additional benefits for society. However, there is a need for more research on the (cost)-effectiveness of respite care.

BackgroundDying at home and dying at the preferred place of death are advocated to be desirable outcomes of palliative care. More insight is needed in their usefulness as quality indicators. Our objective is to describe whether “the percentage of patients dying at home” and “the percentage of patients who died in their place of preference” are feasible and informative quality indicators.Methods and FindingsA mortality follow-back study was conducted, based on data recorded by representative GP networks regarding home-dwelling patients who died non-suddenly in Belgium (n = 1036), the Netherlands (n = 512), Italy (n = 1639) or Spain (n = 565). “The percentage of patients dying at home” ranged between 35.3% (Belgium) and 50.6% (the Netherlands) in the four countries, while “the percentage of patients dying at their preferred place of death” ranged between 67.8% (Italy) and 86.0% (Spain). Both indicators were strongly associated with palliative care provision by the GP (odds ratios of 1.55–13.23 and 2.30–6.63, respectively). The quality indicator concerning the preferred place of death offers a broader view than the indicator concerning home deaths, as it takes into account all preferences met in all locations. However, GPs did not know the preferences for place of death in 39.6% (the Netherlands) to 70.3% (Italy), whereas the actual place of death was known in almost all cases.ConclusionGPs know their patients’ actual place of death, making the percentage of home deaths a feasible indicator for collection by GPs. However, patients’ preferred place of death was often unknown to the GP. We therefore recommend using information from relatives as long as information from GPs on the preferred place of death is lacking. Timely communication about the place where patients want to be cared for at the end of life remains a challenge for GPs.

for the PACE trial group IMPORTANCE High-quality evidence on how to improve palliative care in nursing homes is lacking.OBJECTIVE To investigate the effect of the Palliative Care for Older People (PACE) Steps to Success Program on resident and staff outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSA cluster-randomized clinical trial (2015)(2016)(2017) in 78 nursing homes in 7 countries comparing PACE Steps to Success Program (intervention) with usual care (control). Randomization was stratified by country and median number of beds in each country in a 1:1 ratio. INTERVENTIONSThe PACE Steps to Success Program is a multicomponent intervention to integrate basic nonspecialist palliative care in nursing homes. Using a train-the-trainer approach, an external trainer supports staff in nursing homes to introduce a palliative care approach over the course of 1 year following a 6-steps program. The steps are (1) advance care planning with residents and family, (2) assessment, care planning, and review of needs and problems, (3) coordination of care via monthly multidisciplinary review meetings, (4) delivery of high-quality care focusing on pain and depression, (5) care in the last days of life, and (6) care after death. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary resident outcome was comfort in the last week of life measured after death by staff using the End-of-Life in Dementia Scale Comfort Assessment While Dying (EOLD-CAD; range, 14-42). The primary staff outcome was knowledge of palliative care reported by staff using the Palliative Care Survey (PCS; range, 0-1).RESULTS Concerning deceased residents, we collected 551 of 610 questionnaires from staff at baseline and 984 of 1178 postintervention in 37 intervention and 36 control homes. Mean (SD) age at time of death ranged between 85.22 (9.13) and 85.91 (8.57) years, and between 60.6% (160/264) and 70.6% (190/269) of residents were women across the different groups. Residents' comfort in the last week of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (baseline-adjusted mean difference, −0.55; 95% CI, −1.71 to 0.61; P = .35). Concerning staff, we collected 2680 of 3638 questionnaires at baseline and 2437 of 3510 postintervention in 37 intervention and 38 control homes. Mean (SD) age of staff ranged between 42.3 (12.1) and 44.1 (11.7) years, and between 87.2% (1092/1253) and 89% (1224/1375) of staff were women across the different groups. Staff in the intervention group had statistically significantly better knowledge of palliative care than staff in the control group, but the clinical difference was minimal (baseline-adjusted mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.02-0.05; P < .001). Data analyses began on April 20, 2018. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEResidents' comfort in the last week of life did not improve after introducing the PACE Steps to Success Program. Improvements in staff knowledge of palliative care were clinically not important.

Over the past 15 years, an increasing number of elderly patients were admitted to our ICU. The incidence of nosocomial bloodstream infection is lower among very old ICU patients when compared to middle-aged and old patients. Yet, the adverse impact of this infection is higher in very old patients.

No abstract

There is a high degree of uncertainty about the reported symptom prevalence because of small sample sizes, high heterogeneity among studies, and the extent of instrument validation. Research based on rigorous methods is needed to allow more conclusive results.

Background:Nursing homes are among the most common places of death in many countries.Aim:To determine the quality of dying and end-of-life care of nursing home residents in six European countries.Design:Epidemiological survey in a proportionally stratified random sample of nursing homes. We identified all deaths of residents of the preceding 3-month period. Main outcomes: quality of dying in the last week of life (measured using End-of-Life in Dementia Scales – Comfort Assessment while Dying (EOLD-CAD)); quality of end-of-life care in the last month of life (measured using Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care (QoD-LTC) scale). Higher scores indicate better quality.Setting/participants:Three hundred and twenty-two nursing homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and England. Participants were staff (nurses or care assistants) most involved in each resident’s care.Results:Staff returned questionnaires regarding 1384 (81.6%) of 1696 deceased residents. The End-of-Life in Dementia Scales – Comfort Assessment while Dying mean score (95% confidence interval) (theoretical 14–42) ranged from 29.9 (27.6; 32.2) in Italy to 33.9 (31.5; 36.3) in England. The Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care mean score (95% confidence interval) (theoretical 11–55) ranged from 35.0 (31.8; 38.3) in Italy to 44.1 (40.7; 47.4) in England. A higher End-of-Life in Dementia Scales – Comfort Assessment while Dying score was associated with country (p = 0.027), older age (p = 0.012), length of stay ⩾1 year (p = 0.034), higher functional status (p < 0.001). A higher Quality of Dying in Long-Term Care score was associated with country (p < 0.001), older age (p < 0.001), length of stay ⩾1 year (p < 0.001), higher functional status (p = 0.002), absence of dementia (p = 0.001), death in nursing home (p = 0.033).Conclusion:The quality of dying and quality of end-of-life care in nursing homes in the countries studied are not optimal. This includes countries with high levels of palliative care development in nursing homes such as Belgium, the Netherlands and England.