Implementation of clinical guidelines in specialized palliative care-results from a national improvement project: A national register-based study

Midazolam Indications and Dosing in Palliative Medicine: Results from a Multinational Survey

Despite sparse evidence and limited guidance on indications, use, and dosing, midazolam is widely used in palliative care. We aimed to describe and compare the use of midazolam in three different countries to improve clinical practice in palliative care. We performed an online survey among palliative care physicians in Norway, Denmark, and the United Kingdom (UK). The focus was indications, dosing, administration, and concomitant drugs. A web-based questionnaire was distributed to members of the respective national palliative medicine associations. The total response rate was 9.4%. Practices in the UK, Norway, and Denmark were overall similar regarding the indications of midazolam for anxiety, dyspnoea, and pain treatment in combination with opioids. However, physicians in the UK used a higher starting dose for anxiety, dyspnoea, and pain treatment compared to Norway and Denmark, as well as a higher maximum dose. Danish physicians preferred, to a higher degree, on-demand midazolam administration. Despite practice similarities in the UK, Norway, and Denmark, differences exist for midazolam dosing and administration in palliative medicine. We demonstrated a lack of consensus on how midazolam should be used in palliative care, setting the stage for future studies on the topic.

The first decade of the Danish Palliative Care Database: improvements and ongoing challenges in the quality and use of specialised palliative care

BACKGROUND

Danish Palliative Care Database comprises five quality indicators: (1) Contact with specialised palliative care (SPC) among referred patients, (2) Waiting time of less than 10 days, (3) Proportion of patients who died from (A) cancer or (B) non-cancer diseases, and had contact with SPC, (4) Proportion of patients completing the patient-reported outcome measure at baseline (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), and (5) Proportion of patients discussed at a multidisciplinary conference.

PURPOSE

To investigate changes in the quality indicators from 2010 until 2020 in cancer and non-cancer patients. Patients/material: Patients aged 18+ years who died from 2010 until 2020.

METHOD

Register-based study with the Danish Palliative Care Database as the main data source. Indicator changes were reported as percentage fulfilment.

RESULTS

From 2010 until 2020, the proportion of patients with non-cancer diseases in SPC increased slightly (2.5-7.2%). In 2019, fulfilment of the five indicators for cancer and non-cancer were: (1) 81% vs. 73%; (2) 73% vs. 68%; (3A) 50%; (3B) 2%; (4) 73% vs. 66%; (5) 73% vs. 65%. Whereas all other indicators improved, the proportion of patients waiting less than 10 days from referral to contact decreased. Differences between type of unit were found, mainly lower for hospice.

INTERPRETATION

Most patients in SPC had cancer. All indicators except waiting time improved during the 10-year period. The establishment of the Danish Palliative Care Database may have contributed to the positive development; however, SPC in Denmark needs to be improved, especially regarding a reduction in waiting time and enhanced contact for non-cancer patients.

Barriers and facilitators to national guideline implementation for palliative cancer care in a Danish cross-sectoral healthcare setting: A qualitative study of healthcare professionals' experiences

OBJECTIVE

Patients with incurable cancer should receive general palliative care according to their needs, as provided through collaboration between hospital departments, municipalities, and general practices and as outlined in national guidelines. However, the implementation of general palliative care in Denmark has been inadequate. This study aimed to investigate the healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perceptions on barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of the Danish National Guideline (NG) for general palliative care.

METHODS

This descriptive, qualitative study was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Qualitative focus group and individual interviews were conducted with 23 HCPs. The interview guide, coding, analysis, and reporting of findings were developed within the CFIR framework.

RESULTS

The main barriers to implementing NG were as follows: lack of knowledge about the NG, lack of an implementation plan, and insufficient communication and collaboration across sectors. Important facilitators were as follows: HCP motivation to meet palliative care needs, HCPs with special functions taking responsibility for incorporating NG into local guidelines, and the role of district nurses specialised in palliative care as opinion leaders providing security and continuity for the HCPs working in palliative care.

CONCLUSIONS

To address the needs of patients with incurable cancer, greater efforts are required on implementing general palliative care. Although HCPs in our setting were motivated to improve NG implementation, financial resources and strategies are necessary to ensure sufficient knowledge uptake and accommodate identified barriers in order to translate the NG into practice.