The evidence base of palliative medicine: is inpatient palliative medicine evidence-based?

Evidence-Based Palliative Care 13 Years On: Has anything changed?

There is a paucity of data on whether interventions in individual palliative care units are evidence-based. Thirteen years ago an initial study evaluated the evidence base of interventions in palliative care. Using similar methodology in the present study, we evaluated the evidence for interventions performed in an inpatient palliative care setting, looking at level of evidence as well as quality and outcome of evidence. More than half of all the interventions (47 interventions, 59 percent) we looked at in a Brisbane, Australia, inpatient palliative care setting were based on a high level of evidence in the form of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (level I or level II). There were only a few interventions (10 percent) for which no evidence could be retrieved. Our results show that the evidence base for interventions in palliative care continues to evolve, but that there are still areas for which further high-quality studies are needed.

Reality of evidence-based practice in palliative care

There has been a paradigm shift in medicine away from tradition, anecdote and theoretical reasoning from the basic sciences towards evidence-based medicine (EBM). In palliative care however, statistically significant benefits may be marginal and may not be related to clinical meaningfulness. The typical treatment vs. placebo comparison necessitated by ‘gold standard’ randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not necessarily applicable. The complex multimorbidity of end of life care involves considerations of the patient’s physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs. In addition, the field of palliative care covers a heterogeneous group of chronic and incurable diseases no longer limited to cancer. Adequate sample sizes can be difficult to achieve, reducing the power of studies and high attrition rates can result in inadequate follow up periods. This review uses examples of the management of cancer-related fatigue and death rattle (noisy breathing) to demonstrate the current state of EBM in palliative care. The future of EBM in palliative care needs to be as diverse as the patients who ultimately derive benefit. Non-RCT methodologies of equivalent quality, validity and size conducted by collaborative research networks using a ‘mixed methods approach’ are likely to pose the correct clinical questions and derive evidence-based yet clinically relevant outcomes.

Improving the evidence base in palliative care to inform practice and policy: thinking outside the box

The adoption of evidence-based hierarchies and research methods from other disciplines may not completely translate to complex palliative care settings. The heterogeneity of the palliative care population, complexity of clinical presentations, and fluctuating health states present significant research challenges. The aim of this narrative review was to explore the debate about the use of current evidence-based approaches for conducting research, such as randomized controlled trials and other study designs, in palliative care, and more specifically to (1) describe key myths about palliative care research; (2) highlight substantive challenges of conducting palliative care research, using case illustrations; and (3) propose specific strategies to address some of these challenges. Myths about research in palliative care revolve around evidence hierarchies, sample heterogeneity, random assignment, participant burden, and measurement issues. Challenges arise because of the complex physical, psychological, existential, and spiritual problems faced by patients, families, and service providers. These challenges can be organized according to six general domains: patient, system/organization, context/setting, study design, research team, and ethics. A number of approaches for dealing with challenges in conducting research fall into five separate domains: study design, sampling, conceptual, statistical, and measures and outcomes. Although randomized controlled trials have their place whenever possible, alternative designs may offer more feasible research protocols that can be successfully implemented in palliative care. Therefore, this article highlights "outside the box" approaches that would benefit both clinicians and researchers in the palliative care field. Ultimately, the selection of research designs is dependent on a clearly articulated research question, which drives the research process.

Developing evidence-informed decision making in a hospice: an evaluation of organisational readiness

INTRODUCTION

Multiprofessional home care and hospice teams should play a part in evidence-informed decision making.

AIMS

To assess organisational readiness to adopt evidence-informed decision making in a hospice in England.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods approach was used. Clinical staff were surveyed regarding their attitudes to and skills in using evidence, and senior managers completed an organisation-based self-assessment tool recording the readiness of the organisation to embrace an evidence-informed focus.

RESULTS

81% of the staff completed the survey. Staff were committed to the principles of evidence-informed decision making, but overall lacked the necessary knowledge and skills. Information obtained from the management self-assessment highlighted that a priority was to develop an evidence-informed decision-making culture focusing on education, training, and policy development.

CONCLUSION

The process used in this evaluation may be applicable to other areas of health care when assessing an organisation's readiness to incorporate evidence-informed decision making into policy and procedure.