Palliative medicine
-
Palliative medicine · Jan 2009
Review Comparative StudyA systematic review of specialised palliative care for terminal patients: which model is better?
There is evidence of improved effectiveness of specialised palliative care for terminally ill patients in comparison to conventional care. However, there is uncertainty about which model is better. The objective of this systematic review was to identify studies that compare specialised palliative care models between them assessing their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. ⋯ Six systematic reviews, three studies on effectiveness and one cost study were included. All systematic reviews drew the conclusion that specialised palliative care is more effective than conventional care. The methodological limitations of the original studies and the heterogeneity of programmes did not allow to draw conclusions about whether a specific model of specialised palliative care is more or less effective or cost-effective than other.
-
Palliative medicine · Jan 2009
ReviewEvaluation of hospital palliative care teams: strengths and weaknesses of the before-after study design and strategies to improve it.
Hospital palliative care teams (HPCTs) are well established as multi-professional services to provide palliative care in an acute hospital setting and are increasing in number. However, there is still limited evaluation of them, in terms of efficacy and effectiveness. The gold standard method of evaluation is a randomised control trial, but because of methodological (e.g., randomisation), ethical and practical difficulties such trials are often not possible. ⋯ As for every study design, avoidance and minimisation of bias is important to improve validity. Therefore, strategies of selecting an appropriate control group or time series and applying valid outcomes and measurement tools help reducing bias and strengthen the methods. Special attention is needed to plan and define the design and applied method.
-
Palliative medicine · Jan 2009
ReviewAdvanced cancer patients' prognostic information preferences: a review.
Open communication in cancer care has gained increasing importance in recent years and diagnostic disclosure is now common place. However, there is a significant variability in the sharing of prognostic information. Information needs may vary significantly over the disease trajectory, and there has been relatively little work done focussing on late illness. ⋯ However, for a proportion of patients, hope and realism were irreconcilable when presented with detailed or unequivocal information. Professionals have a responsibility to provide information to patients, but also to respect the need to maintain some ambiguity about the future, if that is a patient's wish. Therefore, prognostic discussions necessitate careful, individualised assessment, a process which can facilitate enhanced palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.