Background

End-of-life care research across Africa is under-resourced and under-developed. A central issue in research in end-of-life care is the measurement of effects and outcomes of care on patients and families. Little is known about the experiences of health professionals' selection and implementation of outcome measures (OM) in clinical care, research, audit, or teaching in Africa.

Methods

An online survey was undertaken of those using outcome measures across the region, as part of the PRISMA project. A questionnaire addressing the use of OMs was developed for a similar survey in Europe and adapted for Africa. Participants were sampled through the contacts database of APCA. Invitation emails were sent out in January 2010 and reminders in February 2010.

Results

168/301 invited contacts (56%) from 24 countries responded, with 78 respondents having previously used OM (65% in clinical practice, 12% in research and 23% for both). Main reasons for not using OM were a lack of guidance/training on using and analysing OM, with 49% saying that they would use the tools if this was provided. 40% of those using OM in clinical practice used POS, and 80% used them to assess, evaluate and monitor change. The POS was also the main tool used in research, with the principle criteria for use being validation in Africa, access to the tool and time needed to complete it. Challenges to the use of tools were shortage of time and resources, lack of guidance and training for the professionals, poor health status of patients and complexity of OM. Researchers also have problems analysing OM data. The APCA African POS was the most common version of the POS used, and was reported as a valuable tool for measuring outcomes. Respondents indicated the ideal outcome tool should be short, multi-dimensional and easy to use.

Conclusion

This was the first survey on professionals' views on OM in Africa. It showed that the APCA African POS was the most frequently OM used. Training and support are needed to help professionals utilise OM in palliative care, and OMs have an ongoing and important role in palliative care in Africa.

Background

Clinical guidance recommends early CHF palliative care intervention, but the magnitude of need is unknown and evidence-based referral criteria absent.

This study aimed to: 1) Measure point prevalence of inpatients appropriate for palliative care. 2) Identify patient characteristics associated with palliative care appropriateness. 3) Propose evidence-based clinical referral criteria.

Methods

Census: all adult medical inpatient files in a UK tertiary teaching hospital were reviewed, identifying patients with CHF as a reason for current admission, using NYHA stage 3/4 classification, cross referenced with existing ECHO data. Each CHF patient was classified according to appropriateness for palliative care against a definition of unresolved pain and/or symptoms and/or psychosocial problems 7 days post admission.

Results

Three hundred and sixty-five patient files were reviewed, and 28 clinically identified as having CHF. Of these, 11 had confirmed unpreserved ejection fraction,16 of the 28 patients were appropriate for palliative care. Of the total inpatient population reviewed, 10 (2.7%) had both confirmed ejection fraction ≤45%, and were appropriate for palliative care. Of the 17 clinically-identified CHF patients with no recorded evidence of ejection fraction ≤45%, 5 (29.4%) were still appropriate for palliative care. A total of 4.4% of the reviewed inpatient population had a clinical diagnosis of CHF and were appropriate for palliative care.

Conclusion

CHF patients with ejection fraction >45% also require palliative care. Our conservative criteria suggest a point prevalence of 2.7% of patients having both ejection fraction ≤45% and palliative care needs, although this may be a conservative estimate due to the file review methodology to identify unresolved palliative care problems. It is important to note that the point prevalence of patients with clinical diagnosis and palliative care needs was 4.4% of the population. We present evidence-based referral criteria from the larger multi methods study.

Background

Loss of dignity for people with advanced cancer is associated with high levels of psychological and spiritual distress and the loss of the will to live. Dignity Therapy is a brief psychotherapy, which has been developed to help promote dignity and reduce distress. It comprises a recorded interview, which is transcribed, edited then returned to the patient, who can bequeath it to people of their choosing. Piloting in Canada, Australia and the USA, has suggested that Dignity Therapy is beneficial to people with advanced cancer and their families. The aims of this study are to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of Dignity Therapy to reduce psychological and spiritual distress in people with advanced cancer who have been referred to hospital-based palliative care teams in the UK, and to pilot the methods for a Phase III RCT.

Design

A randomised controlled open-label trial. Forty patients with advanced cancer are randomly allocated to one of two groups: (i) Intervention (Dignity Therapy offered in addition to any standard care), and (ii) Control group (standard care). Recipients of the 'generativity' documents are asked their views on taking part in the study and the therapy. Both quantitative and qualitative outcomes are assessed in face-to-face interviews at baseline and at approximately one and four weeks after the intervention (equivalent in the control group). The primary outcome is patients' sense of dignity (potential effectiveness) assessed by the Patient Dignity Inventory. Secondary outcomes for patients include distress, hopefulness and quality of life. In view of the relatively small sample size, quantitative analyses are mainly descriptive. The qualitative analysis uses the Framework method.

Discussion

Dignity Therapy is brief, can be delivered at the bedside and may help both patients and their families. This detailed exploratory research shows if it is feasible to offer Dignity Therapy to patients with advanced cancer, many of whom are likely to be in the terminal stage of their illness, whether it is acceptable to them and their families, if it is likely to be effective, and determine whether a Phase III RCT is desirable.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Clinical Trials: ISRCTN29868352

Background

HIV/AIDS treatment programs are currently being mounted in many developing nations that include palliative care services. While measures of palliative care have been developed and validated for resource rich settings, very little work exists to support an understanding of measurement for Africa, Latin America or Asia.

Methods

This study investigates the construct validity of measures of reported pain, pain control, symptoms and symptom control in areas with high HIV-infected prevalence in Dominican Republic and Cambodia Measures were adapted from the POS (Palliative Outcome Scale). Households were selected through purposive sampling from networks of people living with HIV/AIDS. Consistencies in patterns in the data were tested used Chi Square and Mantel Haenszel tests.

Results

The sample persons who reported chronic illness were much more likely to report pain and symptoms compared to those not chronically ill. When controlling for the degrees of pain, pain control did not differ between the chronically ill and non-chronically ill using a Mantel Haenszel test in both countries. Similar results were found for reported symptoms and symptom control for the Dominican Republic. These findings broadly support the construct validity of an adapted version of the POS in these two less developed countries.

Conclusion

The results of the study suggest that the selected measures can usefully be incorporated into population-based surveys and evaluation tools needed to monitor palliative care and used in settings with high HIV/AIDS prevalence.