<?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="/rss/styledrssBMC.css" type="text/css"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:extra="http://www.biomedcentral.com/xml/schemas/extra/" xmlns:prism="http://prismstandard.org/namespaces/1.2/basic/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/">
	<channel rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/rss">
		<extra:info rdf:parseType="Literal">
			<html:div xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" style="font:14px Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
				<html:span style="font-weight:bold">This is an RSS newsfeed from BioMed Central</html:span>
				<html:br/>
				<html:span style="font-size: 12px;">It is intended to be used with an RSS reader. For more information about RSS newsfeeds from BioMed Central, visit <html:br/><html:a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/" style="color:#3333CC; font-size:12px;">http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/rss/</html:a><html:br/>
				</html:span>
			</html:div>
		</extra:info>
		<title>BMC Palliative Care - Most viewed articles</title>
		<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpalliatcare/mostviewed/</link>
		<description>Most viewed articles in last 30 days from BMC Palliative Care (ISSN 1472-684X) published by 
				
				BioMed Central
		</description>
        <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
         <items>
            <rdf:Seq>
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/8"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/3"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/5"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/6/7"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/7"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/3/3"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/4/7"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/2"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/1"/>			    
            
				    <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/4"/>			    
            
            </rdf:Seq>
        </items>
    </channel>
    
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/8">
            
            <title>Palliative care in advanced dementia; A mixed methods approach for the development of a complex intervention</title>
			<description>Background:
There is increasing interest in improving the quality of care that patients with advanced dementia receive when they are dying. Our understanding of the palliative care needs of these patients and the natural history of advanced disease is limited. Many people with advanced dementia have unplanned emergency admissions to the acute hospital; this is a critical event: half will die within 6 months. These patients have complex needs but often lack capacity to express their wishes. Often carers are expected to make decisions. Advance care planning discussions are rarely performed, despite potential benefits such more consistent supportive healthcare, a reduction in emergency admissions to the acute hospital and better resolution of carer bereavement.Design/MethodsWe have used the MRC complex interventions framework, a "bottom-up" methodology, to develop an intervention for patients with advanced dementia and their carers aiming to 1) define end of life care needs for both patients and carers, 2) pilot a palliative care intervention and 3) produce a framework for advance care planning for patients.The results of qualitative phase 1 work, which involved interviews with carers, hospital and primary care staff from a range of disciplines, have been used to identify key barriers and challenges. For the exploratory trial, 40 patients will be recruited to each of the control and intervention groups. The intervention will be delivered by a nurse specialist. We shall investigate and develop methodology for a phase 3 randomised controlled trial. For example we shall explore the feasibility of randomisation, how best to optimise recruitment, decide on appropriate outcomes and obtain data for power calculations. We will evaluate whether the intervention is pragmatic, feasible and deliverable on acute hospital wards and test model fidelity and its acceptability to carers, patients and staff.DiscussionResults of qualitative phase 1 work suggested that carers and staff were keen to discuss these issues and guided the development of the intervention and choice of outcomes. This will be vital in moving to a phase III trial that is pragmatic and feasible for these complex patients within the NHSTrial registrationISRCTN03330837</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/8</link>		
			<dc:creator>Elizabeth L Sampson, Ingela Thun&#233;-Boyle, Riitta Kukkastenvehmas, Louise Jones, Adrian Tookman, Michael King and Martin R Blanchard</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:8</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 536</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-07-11</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-8</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>8</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-07-11</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/3">
            
            <title>Use of a Cybex NORM dynamometer to assess muscle function in patients with thoracic cancer</title>
			<description>Background:
The cachexia-anorexia syndrome impacts on patients' physical independence and quality of life. New treatments are required and need to be evaluated using acceptable and reliable outcome measures, e.g. the assessment of muscle function. The aims of this study were to: (i) examine the acceptability and reliability of the Cybex NORM dynamometer to assess muscle function in people with non-small cell lung cancer or mesothelioma; (ii) compare muscle function in this group with healthy volunteers and; (iii) explore changes in muscle function over one month.
Methods:
The test consisted of 25 repetitions of isokinetic knee flexion and extension at maximal effort while seated on a Cybex NORM dynamometer. Strength and endurance for the quadriceps and hamstrings were assessed as peak torque and total work and an endurance ratio respectively. Thirteen patients and 26 volunteers completed the test on three separate visits. Acceptability was assessed by questionnaire, reliability by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and tests of difference compared outcomes between and within groups.
Results:
All subjects found the test acceptable. Peak torque and work done were reliable measures (ICC >0.80), but the endurance ratio was not. Muscle function did not differ significantly between the patient and a matched volunteer group or in either group when repeated after one month.
Conclusion:
For patients with non-small cell lung cancer or mesothelioma, the Cybex NORM dynamometer provides an acceptable and reliable method of assessing muscle strength and work done. Muscle function appears to be relatively well preserved in this group and it appears feasible to explore interventions which aim to maintain or even improve this.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/3</link>		
			<dc:creator>Andrew Wilcock, Matthew Maddocks, Mary Lewis, Paul Howard, Jacky Frisby, Sarah Bell, Bisharat El Khoury, Cathann Manderson, Helen Evans and Simon Mockett</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:3</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 330</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-04-10</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-3</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-10</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/5">
            
            <title>Self-perceived symptoms and care needs of patients with severe to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure or chronic renal failure and its consequences for their closest relatives: the research protocol</title>
			<description>Background:
Recent research shows that the prevalence of patients with very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and chronic renal failure (CRF) continues to rise over the next years. Scientific studies concerning self-perceived symptoms and care needs in patients with severe to very severe COPD, CHF and CRF are scarce.Consequently, it will be difficult to develop an optimal patient-centred palliative care program for patients with end-stage COPD, CHF or CRF. The present study has been designed to assess the symptoms, care needs, end-of-life care treatment preferences and communication needs of patients with severe to very severe COPD, CHF or CRF. Additionally, family distress and care giving burden of relatives of these patients will be assessed.Methods/designA cross-sectional comparative and prospective longitudinal study in patients with end-stage COPD, CHF or CRF has been designed. Patients will be recruited by their treating physician specialist. Patients and their closest relatives will be visited at baseline and every 4 months after baseline for a period of 12 months. The following outcomes will be assessed during home visits: self-perceived symptoms and care needs; daily physical functioning; general health status; end-of-life care treatment preferences; end-of-life care communication and care-giver burden of family caregivers. Additionally, end-of-life care communication and prognosis of survival will be assessed with the physician primarily responsible for the management of the chronic organ failure. Finally, if patients decease during the study period, the baseline preferences with regard to life-sustaining treatments will be compared with the real end-of-life care.DiscussionTo date, the symptoms, care needs, caregiver burden, end-of-life care treatment preferences and communication needs of patients with very severe COPD, CHF or CRF remain unknown. The present study will increase the knowledge about the self-perceived symptoms, care-needs, caregiver burden, end-of-life care treatment preferences and communication needs from the views of patients, their loved ones and their treating physician. This knowledge is necessary to optimize palliative care for patients with COPD, CHF or CRF. Here, the design of the present study has been described. A preliminary analysis of the possible strengths, weaknesses and clinical consequences is outlined.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/5</link>		
			<dc:creator>Daisy JA Janssen, Emiel FM Wouters, Jos MGA Schols and Martijn A Spruit</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:5</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 313</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-05-06</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-5</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>5</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-06</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/6/7">
            
            <title>The attitudes of brain cancer patients and their caregivers towards death and dying: a qualitative study</title>
			<description>Background:
Much money and energy has been spent on the study of the molecular biology of malignant brain tumours. However, little attention has been paid to the wishes of patients afflicted with these incurable tumours, and how this might influence treatment considerations.
Methods:
We interviewed 29 individuals &#8211; 7 patients dying of a malignant brain tumor and 22 loved ones. One-on-one interviews were conducted according to a pre-designed interview guide. A combination of open-ended questions, as well as clinical scenarios was presented to participants in order to understand what is meaningful and valuable to them when determining treatment options and management approaches. The results were analyzed, coded, and interpreted using qualitative analytic techniques in order to arrive at several common overarching themes.
Results:
Seven major themes were identified. In general, respondents were united in viewing brain cancer as unique amongst malignancies, due in large part to the premium placed on mental competence and cognitive functioning. Importantly, participants found their experiences, however difficult, led to the discovery of inner strength and resilience. Responses were usually framed within an interpersonal context, and participants were generally grateful for the opportunity to speak about their experiences. Attitudes towards religion, spirituality, and euthanasia were also probed.
Conclusion:
Several important themes underlie the experiences of brain cancer patients and their caregivers. It is important to consider these when managing these patients and to respect not only their autonomy but also the complex interpersonal toll that a malignant diagnosis can have.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/6/7</link>		
			<dc:creator>Nir Lipsman, Abby Skanda, Jonathan Kimmelman and Mark Bernstein</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2007, 6:7</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 276</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2007-11-08</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-6-7</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>6</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2007-11-08</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/7">
            
            <title>Randomised controlled trial of a new palliative care service: Compliance, recruitment and completeness of follow-up</title>
			<description>Background:
Palliative care has been proposed for progressive non-cancer conditions but there have been few evaluations of service developments. We analysed recruitment, compliance and follow-up data of a fast track (or wait list control) randomised controlled trial of a new palliative care service &#8211; a design not previously used to assess palliative care.Methods/DesignAn innovative palliative care service (comprising a consultant in palliative medicine, a clinical nurse specialist, an administrator and a psychosocial worker) was delivered to people severely affected by multiple sclerosis (MS), and their carers, in southeast London. Our design followed the MRC Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Interventions. In phase II we conducted randomised controlled trial, of immediate referral to the service (fast-track) versus a 12-week wait (standard best practice). Main outcome measures were: compliance (the extent the trial protocol was adhered to), recruitment (target 50 patients), attrition and missing data rates; trial outcomes were Palliative Care Outcome Scale and MS Impact Scale.
Results:
69 patients were referred, 52 entered the trial (26 randomised to each arm), 5 refused consent and 12 were excluded from the trial for other reasons, usually illness or urgent needs, achieving our target numbers. 25/26 fast track and 21/26 standard best practice patients completed the trial, resulting in 217/225 (96%) of possible interviews completed, 87% of which took place in the patient's home. Main reasons for failure to interview and/or attrition were death or illness. There were three deaths in the standard best practice group and one in the fast-track group during the trial. At baseline there were no differences between groups. Missing data for individual questionnaire items were small (median 0, mean 1&#8211;5 items out of 56+ items per interview), not associated with any patient or carer characteristics or with individual questionnaires, but were associated with interviewer.
Conclusion:
This is the first time a fast track (or wait list) randomised trial has been reported in palliative care. We found it achieved good recruitment and is a feasible method to evaluate palliative care services when patients are expected to live longer than 3&#8211;6 months. Home interviews are needed for a trial of this kind; interviewers need careful recruitment, training and supervision; and there should be careful separation from the clinical service of the control patients to prevent accidental contamination.Trial RegistrationClinical Trials.Gov NCT00364963</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/7</link>		
			<dc:creator>Irene J Higginson, Sam Hart, Rachel Burman, Eli Silber, Tariq Saleem and Polly Edmonds</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:7</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 272</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-05-28</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-7</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-05-28</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/3/3">
            
            <title>Bereavement care interventions: a systematic review</title>
			<description>Background:
Despite abundant bereavement care options, consensus is lacking regarding optimal care for bereaved persons.
Methods:
We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, EBMR, and other databases using the terms (bereaved or bereavement) and (grief) combined with (intervention or support or counselling or therapy) and (controlled or trial or design). We also searched citations in published reports for additional pertinent studies. Eligible studies had to evaluate whether the treatment of bereaved individuals reduced bereavement-related symptoms. Data from the studies was abstracted independently by two reviewers.
Results:
74 eligible studies evaluated diverse treatments designed to ameliorate a variety of outcomes associated with bereavement. Among studies utilizing a structured therapeutic relationship, eight featured pharmacotherapy (4 included an untreated control group), 39 featured support groups or counselling (23 included a control group), and 25 studies featured cognitive-behavioural, psychodynamic, psychoanalytical, or interpersonal therapies (17 included a control group). Seven studies employed systems-oriented interventions (all had control groups). Other than efficacy for pharmacological treatment of bereavement-related depression, we could identify no consistent pattern of treatment benefit among the other forms of interventions.
Conclusions:
Due to a paucity of reports on controlled clinical trails, no rigorous evidence-based recommendation regarding the treatment of bereaved persons is currently possible except for the pharmacologic treatment of depression. We postulate the following five factors as impeding scientific progress regarding bereavement care interventions: 1) excessive theoretical heterogeneity, 2) stultifying between-study variation, 3) inadequate reporting of intervention procedures, 4) few published replication studies, and 5) methodological flaws of study design.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/3/3</link>		
			<dc:creator>Amanda L Forte, Malinda Hill, Rachel Pazder and Chris Feudtner</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2004, 3:3</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 242</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2004-07-26</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-3-3</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>3</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>3</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2004-07-26</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/4/7">
            
            <title>The Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scale: a revised scale for contemporary palliative care clinical practice [ISRCTN81117481]</title>
			<description>Background:
The Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) is a gold standard scale. The Thorne-modified KPS (TKPS) focuses on community-based care and has been shown to be more relevant to palliative care settings than the original KPS. The Australia-modified KPS (AKPS) blends KPS and TKPS to accommodate any setting of care.
Methods:
Performance status was measured using all three scales for palliative care patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in South Australia. Care occurred in a range of settings. Survival was defined from enrollment to death.
Results:
Ratings were collected at 1600 timepoints for 306 participants. The median score on all scales was 60. KPS and AKPS agreed in 87% of ratings; 79% of disagreements occurred within 1 level on the 11-level scales. KPS and TKPS agreed in 76% of ratings; 85% of disagreements occurred within one level. AKPS and TKPS agreed in 85% of ratings; 87% of disagreements were within one level. Strongest agreement occurred at the highest levels (70&#8211;90), with greatest disagreement at lower levels (&#8804;40). Kappa coefficients for agreement were KPS-TKPS 0.71, KPS-AKPS 0.84, and AKPS-TKPS 0.82 (all p &lt; 0.001). Spearman correlations with survival were KPS 0.26, TKPS 0.27 and AKPS 0.26 (all p &lt; 0.001). AKPS was most predictive of survival at the lower range of the scale. All had longitudinal test-retest validity. Face validity was greatest for the AKPS.
Conclusion:
The AKPS is a useful modification of the KPS that is more appropriate for clinical settings that include multiple venues of care such as palliative care.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/4/7</link>		
			<dc:creator>Amy P Abernethy, Tania Shelby-James, Belinda S Fazekas, David Woods and David C Currow</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2005, 4:7</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 191</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2005-11-12</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-4-7</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>4</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2005-11-12</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/2">
            
            <title>Information from physicians and retention of information by patients &#8211; Obstacles to the awareness of patients of progressing disease when life is near the end</title>
			<description>Background:
Discrepancies between the information that patients have received and the patients' awareness of their condition have frequently been observed in literature and given a number of different explanations. The chief contribution of this study is that by following patients over time it is possible not only to notice any changes in the patients' knowledge or awareness of their disease, but also to investigate the interview material for possible reasons for those changes. Since the study is based on two different groups of patients it will also be possible to notice if the category of disease matters for patients' awareness of their condition.
Methods:
Twelve patients with malign haematological diseases or lung cancer were followed with interviews from diagnosis to cure or death, or at most for two years. The method is qualitative. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, transcribed into written text, and then used for a qualitative content analysis.
Results:
During the process of analysis four different expressions (subcategories) emerged about the awareness of patients concerning their health status: informed and aware, not informed and not aware, aware though not informed, or not aware though informed. Then the search started for obstacles to the awareness of patients regarding their progressing disease and approaching death. Four kinds of obstacles were found: due to the physician, the patient, the physician and the patient in collusion, or neither to the physician nor the patient but the insidious way in which lung cancer (mostly) and haematological malignancies (occasionally) progress.
Conclusion:
To optimize the care of patients who wish to be informed and aware during their disease, it is important that the health care staff recognizes potential obstacles to the awareness of patients in order to minimize such obstacles. The physicians could improve their communication with patients with life-threatening diseases, and avoid having a narrow focus on the treatment calendar. The patients could be encouraged to have a more proactive attitude in their communication with their physician.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/2</link>		
			<dc:creator>Lena Hoff and G&#246;ran Hermer&#233;n</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:2</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 184</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-02-28</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-2</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>2</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-02-28</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/1">
            
            <title>Palliative care for cancer patients in a primary health care setting: Bereaved relatives' experience, a qualitative group interview study</title>
			<description>Background:
Knowledge about the quality and organisation of care to terminally ill cancer patients with a relatives' view in a primary health care setting is limited.The aim of the study is to analyse experiences and preferences of bereaved relatives to terminally ill cancer patients in a primary care setting to explore barriers and facilitators for delivery of good palliative home care.
Methods:
Three focus group interviews with fourteen bereaved relatives in Aarhus County, Denmark.
Results:
Three main categories of experience were identified: 1) The health professionals' management, where a need to optimize was found. 2) Shared care, which was lacking. 3) The relatives' role, which needs an extra focus.
Conclusion:
Relatives experience insufficient palliative care mainly due to organizational and cultural problems among professionals. Palliative care in primary care in general needs improvement and attention should be drawn to the "professionalization" of the relatives and the need to strike a balance between their needs, wishes and resources in end-of-life care and bereavement.</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/1</link>		
			<dc:creator>Mette Asbjoern Neergaard, Frede Olesen, Anders Bonde Jensen and Jens Sondergaard</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:1</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 180</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-01-15</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-1</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-01-15</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
	
		<item rdf:about="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/4">
            
            <title>Efficacy of a training intervention on the quality of practitioners' decision support for patients deciding about place of care at the end of life: A randomized control trial: Study protocol</title>
			<description>Background:
Most people prefer home palliation but die in an institution. Some experience decisional conflict when weighing options regarding place of care. Clinicians can identify patients' decisional needs and provide decision support, yet generally lack skills and confidence in doing so. This study aims to determine whether the quality of clinicians' decision support can be improved with a brief, theory-based, skills-building intervention.TheoryThe Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) guides an evidence based, practical approach to assist clinicians in providing high-quality decision support. The ODSF proposes that decisional needs [personal uncertainty, knowledge, values clarity, support, personal characteristics] strongly influence the quality of decisions patients make. Clinicians can improve decision quality by providing decision support to address decisional needs [clarify decisional needs, provide facts and probabilities, clarify values, support/guide deliberation, monitor/facilitate progress].Methods/DesignThe efficacy of a brief education intervention will be assessed in a two-phase study. In phase one a focused needs assessment will be conducted with key informants. Phase two is a randomized control trial where clinicians will be randomly allocated to an intervention or control group. The intervention, informed by the needs assessment, knowledge transfer best practices and the ODSF, comprises an online tutorial; an interactive skills building workshop; a decision support protocol; performance feedback, and educational outreach. Participants will be assessed: a) at baseline (quality of decision support); b) after the tutorial (knowledge); and c) four weeks after the other interventions (quality of decision support, intention to incorporate decision support into practice and perceived usefulness of intervention components). Between group differences in the primary outcome (quality of decision support scores) will be analyzed using ANOVA.DiscussionFew studies have investigated the efficacy of an evidence-based, theory guided intervention aimed at assisting clinicians to strengthen their patient decision support skills. Expanding our understanding of how clinicians can best support palliative patients' decision-making will help to inform best practices in patient-centered palliative care. There is potential transferability of lessons learned to other care situations such as chronic condition management, advance directives and anticipatory care planning. Should the efficacy evaluation reveal clear improvements in the quality of decision support provided by clinicians who received the intervention, a larger scale implementation and effectiveness trial will be considered.Trial registrationThis study is registered as NCT00614003</description>
			<link>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-684X/7/4</link>		
			<dc:creator>Mary Ann Murray, Annette O'Connor, Dawn Stacey and Keith G Wilson</dc:creator>
			<dc:source>BMC Palliative Care 2008, 7:4</dc:source>
			<dc:subject>Number of accesses: 168</dc:subject>
			<dc:date>2008-04-30</dc:date>
			<dc:identifier>doi:10.1186/1472-684X-7-4</dc:identifier>
			
			
							
					<prism:publicationName>BMC Palliative Care</prism:publicationName>
					
			
							
					<prism:issn>1472-684X</prism:issn>
					
			
							
					<prism:volume>7</prism:volume>
					
			
							
					<prism:startingPage>4</prism:startingPage>
					
			
							
					<prism:publicationDate>2008-04-30</prism:publicationDate>
					

            <cc:license rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/"/>
        </item>
		
	<cc:License rdf:about="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Reproduction"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#Distribution"/>
         <cc:permits rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/ns#DerivativeWorks"/>
	</cc:License>
</rdf:RDF>
