Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.

More than the sum of its parts-A constructivist grounded-theory study on specialist palliative care during crises like the COVID pandemic

BACKGROUND

The COVID pandemic is an example of a crisis challenging healthcare systems worldwide. The impact of the pandemic on providing high-quality palliative care calls for a deeper understanding of specialist services during crises. This is essential in preparation for further crises.

AIM

To develop a conceptual understanding of the impact of the pandemic on specialist palliative care as an example for arising future crises.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study across Germany, following a constructivist grounded theory methodology.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Eleven semi-structured interviews with experts with overarching knowledge of structures and processes in specialist palliative care between 05-07/2020 and between 02-06/2021, 23 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals working in a specialist palliative care setting.

RESULTS

The complex system of palliative care provision during crises has properties that cannot be understood as separated parts of the care process. The pandemic led to unique structural and processual challenges characterized by interconnectedness, uncertainty, dynamic, underlying dilemmas, and unclear long-term goal. In response to the pandemic, teams experienced different phases, which enhanced adaption, innovation, and progress within complex care situations. Creative strategy approaches and dynamic responsiveness facilitated innovative development and could lead to long-lasting improvement within services. Availability of information, transparent communication, comprehensible instructions, participation in decision-making, and search for solutions contributed to teams' proactive development throughout the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

Addressing the complex problems in specialist palliative care caused by crises requires system thinking and a learning mindset. This can facilitate teams to overcome the crisis and move forward rather than bounce back to normal.

Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care-a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Standardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT.

RESULTS

Seventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring).

CONCLUSIONS

Although benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs.

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine : Consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DG Palliativmedizin]

The integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S3 guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients presenting in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

Symptom and problem clusters in German specialist palliative home care - a factor analysis of non-oncological and oncological patients' symptom burden

BACKGROUND

Specialist palliative home care (SPHC) aims to maintain and improve patients' quality of life in the community setting. Symptom burden may differ between oncological and non-oncological patients. However, little is known about diagnosis-related differences of SPHC patients. This study aims to describe the prevalence of physical symptom burden and psychosocial problems of adult patients in SPHC, and to evaluate diagnosis-related symptom clusters.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a prospective, cross-sectional, multi-centre study on complexity of patients, registered at the German Register for Clinical Studies (DRKS trial registration number: DRKS00020517, 12/10/2020). Descriptive statistics on physical symptom burden and psychosocial problems at the beginning of care episodes. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to identify symptom and problem clusters.

RESULTS

Seven hundred seventy-eight episodes from nine SPHC teams were included, average age was 75 years, mean duration of episode 18.6 days (SD 19.4). 212/778 (27.2%) had a non-oncological diagnosis. Main burden in non-oncological episodes was due to poor mobility (194/211; 91.9%) with significant diagnosis-related differences (χ² = 8.145, df = 1, p = .004; oncological: 472/562; 84.0%), and due to weakness (522/565; 92.4%) in oncological episodes. Two symptom clusters (psychosocial and physical) for non-oncological and three clusters (psychosocial, physical and communicational/practical) for oncological groups were identified. More patients in the non-oncological group compared to the oncological group showed at least one symptom cluster (83/212; 39.2% vs. 172/566; 30.4%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with non-oncological diseases had shorter episode durations and were more affected by symptom clusters, whereas patients with oncological diseases showed an additional communicational/practical cluster. Our findings indicate the high relevance of care planning as an important part of SPHC to facilitate anticipatory symptom control in both groups.

Implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice for adults (IMPCOM): Protocol for an update systematic review of facilitators and barriers

Background: Despite the development of patient-centred or patient-reported outcome measures (PCOMs or PROMs) in palliative and end-of-life care over recent years, their routine use in practice faces continuing challenges. Objective: To update a highly cited literature review, identify and synthesise new evidence on facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, PCOMs used, models of implementation, implementation outcomes, costs, and consequences of implementing PCOMs in palliative care clinical practice. Methods: We will search MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, SCI-Expanded, SSCI, ESCI, and BNI. The database search will be supplemented by a list of studies from the expert advisory committee, hand-searching of reference lists for included articles, and citations of the original review. We will include primary studies using a PCOM during clinical care of adult patients with advanced disease in palliative care settings and extract data on reported models of implementation, PCOMs, facilitators, barriers, lessons learned, costs, and implementation outcomes. Gough's Weight of Evidence Framework will be used to assess the robustness and relevance of the studies. We will narratively synthesise and tabulate the findings. This review will follow PRISMA, PRISMA-Abstract, PRISMA-P, and PRISMA-Search as the reporting guidelines. Source of funding: Marie Curie. The funder is not involved in designing or conducting this study. Protocol registration: CRD42023398653 (13/02/2023).

Drug Therapy Safety in Palliative Care-Pharmaceutical Analysis of Medication Processes in Palliative Care

Pharmacotherapy plays a crucial role in symptom management in palliative care and is associated with risks potentially leading to drug-related problems (DRP). Pharmacists can identify DRPs and advise prescribers on optimizing drug therapy. The aim of this study was to identify DRP in a palliative care unit (PCU) and evaluate corresponding pharmaceutical interventions. A non-randomized before-and-after study in a PCU starts with a control phase, an interphase, and an intervention phase. Primary endpoint: DRP, including pharmaceutical interventions and their acceptance. The medication of all inpatients was recorded at set time points, assessed for potential and manifest DRP, and categorized. In the control phase, the ward pharmacist did not interfere with the clinical team. In the intervention phase, the pharmacist could intervene when a DRP was identified and give recommendations. During the 12-month period, 284 patients were included (control phase n = 138; intervention phase n = 146) and 1079 DRPs were identified (control phase n = 634; intervention phase n = 445). The number of DRPs/patient was significantly reduced by the pharmacist's interventions between the control and intervention phases (4 vs. 3 DRPs, p = 0.001). Overall acceptance of pharmaceutical interventions by prescribers was very high (227/256; 88%). DRPs are hardly preventable. With a clinical pharmacist as a member of the palliative care team, it is possible to reduce the number of DRPs and identify potential problems earlier.

Expert-approved best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care (SedPall)

BACKGROUND

The use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in end-of-life care is associated with clinical, ethical and legal challenges. In view of these and of the issue's great importance to patients undergoing intolerable suffering, we conducted a project titled SedPall ("From anxiolysis to deep continuous sedation - Development of recommendations for sedation in palliative care") with the purpose of developing best practice recommendations on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and obtaining feedback and approval from experts in this area.

DESIGN

Our stepwise approach entailed drafting the recommendations, obtaining expert feedback, conducting a single-round Delphi study, and convening a consensus conference. As an interdisciplinary group, we created a set of best practice recommendations based on previously published guidance and empirical and normative analysis, and drawing on feedback from experts, including patient representatives and of public involvement participants. We set the required agreement rate for approval at the single-round Delphi and the consensus conference at ≥80%.

RESULTS

Ten experts commented on the recommendations' first draft. The Delphi panel comprised 50 experts and patient and public involvement participants, while 46 participants attended the consensus conference. In total, the participants in these stages of the process approved 66 recommendations, covering the topics "indications", "intent/purpose [of sedation]", "decision-making", "information and consent", "medication and type of sedation", "monitoring", "management of fluids and nutrition", "continuing other measures", "support for relatives", and "team support". The recommendations include suggestions on terminology and comments on legal issues.

CONCLUSION

Further research will be required for evaluating the feasibility of the recommendations' implementation and their effectiveness. The recommendations and the suggested terminology may serve as a resource for healthcare professionals in Germany on the use of sedative drugs and intentional sedation in specialist palliative care and may contribute to discussion on the topic at an international level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00015047 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Documentation of Sedation in Palliative Care: A Scoping Review of Requirements, Recommendations, and Templates

Objective: To identify and describe requirements, recommendations, and templates for the documentation of sedation in adult palliative care. Introduction: International literature shows inconsistency in clinical practice regarding sedation in palliative care accompanied by legal, ethical, and medical uncertainties. Documentation in general serves as proof for previous treatments. In the context of intentional sedation to relieve suffering at the end of life, documentation provides a clear demarcation against practices of euthanasia. Inclusion Criteria: Articles with full-text version published in English or German since 2000, covering documentation requirements, recommendations, monitoring parameters or templates for sedation in adult palliative care were included. Methods: Scoping review following the JBI methodology. Search in online databases, websites of professional associations in palliative care, reference lists of relevant publications, the archive of the German "Journal of Palliative Medicine" and databases for unpublished literature were used. Search terms included "palliative care,' "sedation," and "documentation." The search was conducted from January 2022 to April 2022 with an initial hand search in November 2021. Data were screened and charted by one reviewer after conducting a pilot test of the criteria. Results: From the initial 390 articles (database search), 22 articles were included. In addition, 15 articles were integrated from the hand search. The results can be clustered in two sets of items, regarding either the documentation before or during sedation. The documentation requirements referred both to inpatient and homecare settings but in many cases, a clear assignment was missing. Conclusions: The guidelines analyzed in this study rarely cover setting-specific differences in documentation and often treat documentation as minor topic. Further research is needed addressing legal and ethical concerns of health care teams and, therefore, help to improve treatment of patients suffering from otherwise intractable burden at the end of life.

Implementing ePROM in specialist palliative home care: the professionals' perspective - a mixed-methods study

Background

Over the last decades, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) have been developed for a better understanding of patient needs. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is an internationally recommended PROM in palliative care. The validated electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) was implemented in four German specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams for use in everyday clinical practice. Patients reported symptoms and concerns via eIPOS, which were transmitted directly to the electronic patient record of the respective SPHC team.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to describe and explore the health care professionals' (HCPs') experiences regarding acceptance and use of eIPOS in clinical practice in SPHC.

Design

The mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comprised an anonymized quantitative online survey followed by qualitative focus groups.

Methods

The online survey asked in both closed and open questions for HCP's experience with eIPOS. Ambiguous results from the survey were discussed in two focus groups. Survey data were analysed with descriptive and univariable statistics, and the framework approach was used for qualitative data. In a further step, we conducted integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative results using joint displays.

Results

All HCPs of the four SPHC teams (n = 52) were invited to participate. HCPs participating in the survey (n = 32) and the focus groups (n = 7) saw potentials for implementing ePROM in palliative home care - as far as it is technically easy to handle and can be easily integrated into clinical practice.

Conclusion

Successful use of ePROMs is affected by the possibility of easy integration into the teams' different structures and processes and the HCPs' perceptions of potentials regarding ePROM use in SPHC.

Registration

The study is registered on clinicaltrials.org (NCT03879668).

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine: consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DGPalliativmedizin]

The timely integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S-3-guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients being treated in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

Accessibility to specialist palliative care services in Germany: a geographical network analysis

BACKGROUND

The need for palliative care will increase over the next years because of the rise in deaths from chronic illness and demographic changes. The provision of specialist palliative care (SPC) in Germany (palliative care units (PCU), specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams and palliative care advisory (PCA) teams) has been expanded in recent years. Despite the increasing availability, there is still insufficient coverage with long travel times. The aim was to describe the spatial distribution of SPC services in Germany, to calculate the potential accessibility of facilities and to assess potential spatial under-provision.

METHODS

Retrospective cross-sectional study with regional analysis of SPC services in Germany. Addresses of SPC services registered online were geocoded, accessibility and network analyses were conducted, and proportion of the population living up to 60 minutes driving time were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 673 facilities were included. Their distribution is heterogeneous with every fourth of the 401 districts (110/401; 27.4%) lacking a SPC service. In half of the area of Germany the existing PCU and SPHC teams are within reach of 30 minutes, with nearly 90% of the population living there. Hospitals providing PCA teams can be reached within 30 minutes in 17% of the total area with provision for 43% of the population.

CONCLUSIONS

A high coverage of SPHC teams and PCU indicates a good spatial distribution in Germany but no complete adequate provision of SPC services, especially for PCA teams. There is a persistent need for further implementation of hospital PCA teams.

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine : Consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DGPalliativmedizin]

The timely integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S‑3-guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients presenting in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

[Palliative aspects in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care medicine : Consensus paper of the DGIIN, DGK, DGP, DGHO, DGfN, DGNI, DGG, DGAI, DGINA and DGPalliativmedizin]

The timely integration of palliative medicine is an important component in the treatment of various advanced diseases. While a German S‑3-guideline on palliative medicine exists for patients with incurable cancer, a recommendation for non-oncological patients and especially for palliative patients presenting in the emergency department or intensive care unit is missing to date. Based on the present consensus paper, the palliative care aspects of the respective medical disciplines are addressed. The timely integration of palliative care aims to improve quality of life and symptom control in clinical acute and emergency medicine as well as intensive care.

Benefit of a Palliative Care Drug Information Service and User Experience: A Cross-sectional Study Using a Web-based Online Survey

A specialized drug information service can assist professionals in collating relevant information and hereby help to increase medication safety. It is only helpful if the information provided can also be put into practice, though. The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits of a specialized palliative care drug information service AMInfoPall and its users' experience. A web-based survey among health care professionals subsequent to inquiry between 07/2017 and 06/2018 was conducted. Twenty questions related to the use and transfer of received information into clinical practice and the result of the consecutive treatment. Invitations to participate/ reminders were sent out 8 and 11 days after receiving the requested information. The survey's response rate was 119/176 (68%). Most participants were physicians (54%), followed by pharmacists (34%) and nurses (10%), 33/119 (28%) worked in palliative home care teams, 29 (24%) on palliative care units, and 27 (23%) in retail pharmacies. 86/99 respondents had conducted an unsatisfiable literature search before contacting AMInfoPall. 113/119 (95%) were satisfied with the provided answer. Information was transferred into clinical practice as recommended in 65/119 (55%) cases and led to a change in patient status in 33%, mostly improvement. No change was reported in 31% and in 36% it was unclear. AMInfoPall was well accepted and mostly used by physicians and palliative home care services. It provided helpful support for decision-making. The obtained information was mostly well transferable into practice.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on processes, resource use and cost in palliative care

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic impacts on working routines and workload of palliative care (PC) teams but information is lacking how resource use and associated hospital costs for PC changed at patient-level during the pandemic. We aim to describe differences in patient characteristics, care processes and resource use in specialist PC (PC unit and PC advisory team) in a university hospital before and during the first pandemic year.

METHODS

Retrospective, cross-sectional study using routine data of all patients cared for in a PC unit and a PC advisory team during 10-12/2019 and 10-12/2020. Data included patient characteristics (age, sex, cancer/non-cancer, symptom/problem burden using Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS)), information on care episode, and labour time calculated in care minutes. Cost calculation with combined top-down bottom-up approach with hospital's cost data from 2019. Descriptive statistics and comparisons between groups using parametric and non-parametric tests.

RESULTS

Inclusion of 55/76 patient episodes in 2019/2020 from the PC unit and 135/120 episodes from the PC advisory team, respectively. IPOS scores were lower in 2020 (PCU: 2.0 points; PC advisory team: 3.0 points). The number of completed assessments differed considerably between years (PCU: episode beginning 30.9%/54.0% in 2019/2020; PC advisory team: 47.4%/40.0%). Care episodes were by one day shorter in 2020 in the PC advisory team. Only slight non-significant differences were observed regarding total minutes/day and patient (PCU: 150.0/141.1 min., PC advisory team: 54.2/66.9 min.). Staff minutes showed a significant decrease in minutes spent in direct contact with relatives (PCU: 13.9/7.3 min/day in 2019/2020, PC advisory team: 5.0/3.5 min/day). Costs per patient/day decreased significantly in 2020 compared to 2019 on the PCU (1075 Euro/944 Euro for 2019/2020) and increased significantly for the PC advisory team (161 Euro/200 Euro for 2019/2020). Overhead costs accounted for more than two thirds of total costs. Direct patient cost differed only slightly (PCU: 134.7 Euro/131.1 Euro in 2019/2020, PC advisory team: 54.4 Euro/57.3 Euro).

CONCLUSIONS

The pandemic partially impacted on daily work routines, especially on time spent with relatives and palliative care problem assessments. Care processes and quality of care might vary and have different outcomes during a crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Direct costs per patient/day were comparable, regardless of the pandemic.

Specialized palliative care for hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of the LEOSS registry

PURPOSE

Symptom control for patients who were severely ill or dying from COVID-19 was paramount while resources were strained and infection control measures were in place. We aimed to describe the characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients who received specialized palliative care (SPC) and the type of SPC provided in a larger cohort.

METHODS

From the multi-centre cohort study Lean European Open Survey on SARS-CoV-2 infected patients (LEOSS), data of patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection documented between July 2020 and October 2021 were analysed.

RESULTS

273/7292 patients (3.7%) received SPC. Those receiving SPC were older and suffered more often from comorbidities, but 59% presented with an estimated life expectancy > 1 year. Main symptoms were dyspnoea, delirium, and excessive tiredness. 224/273 patients (82%) died during the hospital stay compared to 789/7019 (11%) without SPC. Symptom control was provided most common (223/273; 95%), followed by family and psychological support (50% resp. 43%). Personal contact with friends or relatives before or during the dying phase was more often documented in patients receiving SPC compared to patients without SPC (52% vs. 30%).

CONCLUSION

In 3.7% of SARS-CoV-2 infected hospitalized patients, the burden of the acute infection triggered palliative care involvement. Besides complex symptom management, SPC professionals also focused on psychosocial and family issues and aimed to enable personal contacts of dying patients with their family. The data underpin the need for further involvement of SPC in SARS-CoV-2 infected patients but also in other severe chronic infectious diseases.

Measurement equivalence of the paper-based and electronic version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS): A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) validly and reliably measures symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care.

AIM

To determine the equivalence of the paper version with an electronic version of the IPOS (eIPOS).

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised crossover trial (NCT03879668) with a within-subject comparison of the two modes (washout period 30 min).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Convenience sample of specialist inpatient and palliative home care patients aged over 18 years with cancer and non-cancer conditions was recruited. Scores were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and via a mixed-effects analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were randomised to complete paper-electronic (n = 24) and electronic-paper (n = 26) IPOS with median age 69 years (range 24-95), 56% male, 16% non-cancer. The ICCs showed very high concordance for the total score (ICC 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.00), lowest ICCs being observed for symptoms 'Appetite loss' and 'Drowsiness' (ICC 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97). Nine of seventeen items had ICCs above 0.98, as did all subscales. No statistically significant mode, order, age, and interaction effects were observed for IPOS total score and subscales, except for 'Communication' (F_mode = 5.9, p = 0.019). Fifty-eight percent preferred the electronic version. In the group 75+ years, 53% preferred the paper version. Only three entries in the free-text main problems differed between the versions.

CONCLUSION

The very high equivalence in scores and free text between the IPOS and the eIPOS demonstrates that eIPOS is feasible and reliable in an older palliative population.

Challenges developing an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement for palliative home care: A qualitative interview and focus group study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures have the potential to improve outcomes, quality, and effectiveness of care. Digital use of patient-reported outcome measures could be an option to foster implementation in palliative care. The Palli-MONITOR study focused on developing and testing an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in specialised palliative home care. As part of this study, we examined setting-specific challenges for the development of the measure.

AIM

We aimed to identify and explore challenges for the development of electronic patient-reported outcome measures as standardised assessment in specialised palliative home care.

DESIGN

Qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Data were thematically analysed using the framework method.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients and professionals from five German palliative home care teams.

RESULTS

Patients described potential problems in using electronic questionnaires due to their deteriorating health. Answering the electronic questionnaire encouraged patients to reflect on their current palliative situation, which was partly perceived as burdensome. Identified concerns and questions regarding the future roll-out of electronic patient-reported outcome measurement addressed the process of receiving and using the provided information in clinical care routine. Challenging factors on organisational and structural level were the potential undermining of the established 24-h emergency call system and the potential use for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide a multifaceted picture of challenges developing electronic systems for patient-reported outcome measurement in palliative home care on the individual and organisational level. The study underpins the benefit of stakeholder involvement creating digital health innovations and emphasises the importance to therefore mind setting specific culture.