CONTEXT:During the last decade, numerous in-patient Palliative Care Consultation Service (PCCS) units were established throughout Germany.OBJECTIVE:To provide an epidemiological overview on a whole year cohort of palliative patients in terms of demography, complaints, and therapy on admission to PCCS and the impact of PCCS treatment, and identify differences and similarities in different palliative patient subgroups.METHODS:Chi-square, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis followed by Games-Howell analysis of HOspice and Palliative care Evaluation (HOPE 2013) data on 4 PCCS centers and in total 919 patients, with solid tumors (237), metastatic cancer (397), leukemia and lymphoma (99), neurological (109, mostly multiple sclerosis [MS]), and noncancer, nonneurological disease (NCNND, 77).RESULTS:A mostly uniform block of 3 cancer subgroups in terms of demographics, admission complaints, and initial pharmacological treatment diverged from the neurologic/MS disease subgroup. The "intermediate," NCNND subgroup coalesced with the cancer or the neurologic/MS subgroups in part of the demographics, complaint, and drug parameters. Tetraparesis, requirement for nursing, and help with daily living were more, and pain, dyspnea, weakness, appetite loss, and fatigue were less frequent in neurologic patients compared with the cancer subgroups. Neurologic patients also showed more common use of coanalgetics and antidepressives, less opiates and nonopiate analgetics, corticosteroids, and antiemetics and antacids. NCNND patients had a particularly high rate of disorientation (48%) and death during PCCS (39%). In the 3 cancer subgroups, dyspnea, weakness, appetite loss, and anxiolytic use were less frequent in solid tumor patients. Palliative Care Consultation Service treatment was associated with reduction in symptom severity independent of subgroup entity. All listed differences were significant at P < .05 level.CONCLUSION:Despite divergence in demographics, symptoms, and medication, the data underline general usefulness of PCCS care in all end-stage patients and not only the cancer subgroups. Nevertheless, the strong differences revealed in the current study also underscore the need for a carefully tuned, disease-specific therapeutic approach to these subgroups of palliative patients.

IntroductionAnxiety is one of the most common psychological symptoms in patients in a palliative care situation. This study aims to develop a predictive model for anxiety using data from the standard documentation routine.MethodsData sets of palliative care patients collected by the German quality management benchmarking system called Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) from 2007 to 2011 were randomly divided into a training set containing two-thirds of the data and a test set with the remaining one-third. We dichotomized anxiety levels, proxy rated by medical staff using the validated HOPE Symptom and Problem Checklist, into two groups with no or mild anxiety versus moderate or severe anxiety. Using the training set, a multivariable logistic regression model was developed by backward stepwise selection. Predictive accuracy was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) based on the test set.ResultsAn analysis of 9924 data sets suggests a predictive model for anxiety in patients receiving palliative care which contains gender, age, ECOG, living situation, pain, nausea, dyspnea, loss of appetite, tiredness, need for assistance with activities of daily living, problems with organization of care, medication with sedatives/anxiolytics, antidepressants, antihypertensive drugs, laxatives, and antibiotics. It results in a fair predictive value (AUC = 0.72).ConclusionsRoutinely collected data providing individual-, disease-and therapy-related information contain valuable information that is useful for the prediction of anxiety risks in patients receiving palliative care. These findings could thus be advantageous for providing appropriate support for patients in palliative care settings and should receive special attention in future research.

Background Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom in patients with advanced life-limiting disease. The aim of this study was to describe demographical and clinical characteristics of patients with breathlessness in Germany. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of hospice and palliative care inpatient data from 2006 to 2008. The Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) is an annual prospective German survey, that includes a validated 16-item symptom-and-problem checklist (severity score 0 - 3). Characteristics of patients with or without breathlessness were compared in a pure descriptive manner. Interpretation of given p-values takes the error inflation due to multiple testing into account. Results Breathlessness was recorded in 2860/5320 (53.8 %) patients (mean age 67.2 years (SD 12.4), 51.4 % female, 93.6 % malignant disease (female/male lung cancer 15.7/29.5 %, breast cancer 20.3/0.3 %, colon 10.3/8.7 %). Breathless patients compared with those without breathless ness had a significantly worse functional status (ECOG 3 - 4: 78.4 % vs. 70.8 %, p < 0.001), suffered from a larger number (11.1 vs. 9.5, p < 0.001) of symptoms and the symptoms were of higher intensity (except confusion). Breathless patients had a higher risk to die during inpatient stay (43.5 % vs. 32.4 %, p < 0.001). Conclusion Based on this large sample of hospice and palliative care inpatients, breathlessness is associated with a high symptom burden and shortened survival. Breathless patients need more attention in health care.

ContextIn clinical practice, some symptoms and problems frequently occur in combination, which may have consequences for symptom management.ObjectivesFacing a growing number of non-cancer patients in palliative care, this study aimed to differentiate symptom clusters in the non-cancer population from those in cancer patients.MethodsInpatient data from the German Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation between 2007 and 2011 were used for a cluster analysis of a 16-item symptom and problem checklist. An agglomerative hierarchical method was chosen. Coefficients from distance matrix ranging between 0 and 1 were calculated to indicate the interrelationship of clustered symptoms.ResultsThe analysis identified five clusters in cancer patients: 1) nausea and vomiting (d = 0.000); 2) anxiety, tension, and feeling depressed (d = 0.125); 3) wound care and disorientation/confusion (d = 0.229); 4) organization of care and overburdening of family (d = 0.202); and 5) weakness, tiredness, need for assistance with activities of daily living, and loss of appetite (d = 0.207). Five comparable clusters were identified in non-cancer patients: 1) nausea and vomiting (d = 0.000); 2) anxiety, tension, and feeling depressed (d = 0.166); 3) organization of care and overburdening of family (d = 0.187); 4) weakness and need for assistance with activities of daily living (d = 0.139); and 5) tiredness and loss of appetite (d = 0.182).ConclusionAs symptom clusters do not significantly differ between cancer and non-cancer patients, specific frequent symptoms in non-cancer patients should be assessed. Identification of symptom clusters may help to target therapies and focus the use of medications to improve patients' quality of life.

Introduction: The proportion of non-cancer patients (NCs) admitted to palliative care (PC) services increases steadily. Nevertheless, little is known not only about their specific problems, needs that have to be met, but also about improvements that have taken place already. This analysis focuses on developments seen in NC management concerning end-of-life care.Methods: The German Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) is a national long-term quality assurance project providing information on PC patients. Data from yearly evaluation periods between 2007 and 2011 are used to investigate differences between NC patients documented from 2002 to 2005 in symptoms, treatment and general condition.Results: The proportion of NC patients increased from 3.5% (147 / 4182) to 8.1% (558 / 6854). NC patients, which are now referred to PC services, are younger, show less need for nursing support, die less often during inpatient stay. Overall a greater variety of diagnoses were found and patients suffer from less complex symptoms and problems at admission.Conclusions: Despite the continuously growing number of patients with non-malignant diseases, their number in PC services is still low. As small steps in the right direction have been taken, integrating PC ideas earlier into treatment of chronic diseases to improve quality of life of NCs during the final stages of their diseases will continue to challenge the health care systemin terms of workload, need of more staff and further training of medical professionals dealing with NCs in the future. (C) 2013 European Federation of Internal Medicine. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Breathlessness is a common and distressing symptom in patients with advanced disease. Patients’ self-report is deemed to be the most valid method of symptom assessment. When patients are not capable of self-assessment, professionals’ assessment is often used as alternative but evidence on the validity is conflicting. The aim of this study was to compare self- and professionals’ assessment of breathlessness regarding presence and severity in patients with advanced disease.

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced lung cancer constitute a special focus in palliative care not only for epidemiological or prognostic reasons, but also because their symptom burden is felt to be widespread and difficult to treat. This study describes disease-specific characteristics and the symptom burden of patients with advanced incurable lung cancer, comparing them with patients suffering from other diseaseentities. METHODS A secondary analysis of the nationwide Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) was performed, by focussing on inpatient hospice and palliative care unit patients and by using descriptive methods. RESULTS From 2006 to 2008, 5487 inpatients were registered, 874 of which were diagnosed with lung cancer and 1884 with pulmonary metastases. Symptoms such as weakness, tiredness, or pain were most prevalent in all subgroups. Dyspnea was significantly more prevalent in all patients with different kinds of pulmonary tumor manifestations; confusion was significantly more prevalent in patients with lung cancer. Dyspnea could not be treated as effectively as pain or nausea. Confusion and nursing problems worsened during the observation period. Dyspnea and confusion were associated with increased risk of death during the observational period. CONCLUSION The symptom pattern of patients with lung cancer is characterized by dyspnea and confusion--symptoms that are difficult to treat until discharge and that imply a worse prognosis. Therefore, increased research on the pathophysiology and treatment of dyspnea and confusion is required, and efforts in advance care planning and anticipation of dyspnea and confusion as a critical symptom in patients with lung cancer should be reinforced.

BACKGROUND:Little is known about the practice of palliative sedation (PS) in Germany. This paper presents an analysis of sedation-related data obtained from the German standardized core documentation system (HOPE) for palliative care patients.METHODS:HOPE was complemented by an optional module on ethical decision making (EDM) which was pretested in 2004, data was collected in 2005-6 during the annual 3-month census. Data was analyzed descriptively from palliative care units (PCU - representative) and inpatient hospice (H - non-representative control group). Chi(2) test was used to test for differences between the reported data per item and year within one kind of setting (significance level p ≤ 0.05). Free-text entries were categorized inductively.RESULTS:Datasets were obtained for 1,944 patients (P) with EDM. PS was performed in 13.0/11.8% (2005/2006) P in palliative care units (PCU) and 25.5/22.9% in hospices (H). Main reasons for PS in PCU were dyspnea, pain, fear or anxiety, in H reasons were inconsistent, high prevalence of psychosocial reasons. Most PS in PCU and about half of the PS in H were intermittent. Sedated P were younger than non-sedated. Only 7 P received PS after asking for euthanasia. The most used medication was midazolam.CONCLUSIONS:This study reveals a first insight into the use and practice of PS in German PCU and H. For a more detailed systematic survey into the course of decision-making and procedures, a new complementary optional module on PS is being developed by the HOPE group.

Context. The German Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) is a national, long-term quality assurance project. Every year, German hospice and palliative care institutions document a core data set for their patients for a period of three months.Objectives. To validate the multidimensional symptom and problem checklist (HOPE-SP-CL) of the core data set and report details on reliability and validity.Methods. Data from yearly evaluation periods between 2002 and 2009 were used to calculate construct and convergent validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and documentation discipline and acceptance of the core documentation system.Results. The HOPE-SP-CL includes items on physical, nursing, psychological, and social symptoms and problems. Factor analysis extracted four low to moderately intercorrelating factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 explaining 56% of the total variance. Discriminant validity of the HOPE-SP-CL showed good properties in detecting patient groups with different symptom intensities and overall symptom burden using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status and primary cancer diagnosis as external validation criteria. The global sum score of the HOPE-SP-CL correlated most closely with the Palliative Outcome Scale staff version (r = 0.750). Internal consistencies ranged between alpha = 0.768-0.801 at three different times of assessment. Test-retest coefficients showed moderate to high correlations at one-week intervals.Conclusion. Analyses of reliability and validity of the HOPE-SP-CL showed satisfactory to good psychometric properties; therefore, the HOPE-SP-CL can be recommended for standard implementation in German hospice and palliative care institutions. J Pain Symptom Manage 2012;43:593-605. (C) 2012 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background Data from the core data set of the Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) from 1999 to 2001 demonstrated considerable variance in the incidence of patients’ symptoms and problems between participating services. This paper aims to investigate these differences more closely. Methods During the evaluation period of HOPE in 2002 a telephone survey with a representative of each participating unit was performed. Telephone interviews assessed the professionals’ definitions of selected symptoms and estimates of problem and symptom incidences. Content analysis was used to evaluate qualitative answers. Results Staff members rated pain, weakness, nausea/emesis as the most frequent physical symptoms; anxiety, depression and amentia as most frequent psychological symptoms; wound treatment, mobilisation and weakness as nursing problems and organisation of care settings, loneliness, demands of relatives the most common social needs. Staff members used a wide range of definitions for cachexia, weakness and depression. Discussion Standard definitions of symptoms and problems were lacking in the articulation of subjective staff members’ perspectives. Meaningful evaluation of multicentre surveys would require training in symptom assessment and classification in order to produce a common basis for documentation. Even though definitions differed widely, underlying concepts seemed to be compatible.

BACKGROUND:Patients with advanced cancer are highly susceptible to infections. The decision whether to treat an active or suspected infection or to withhold or withdraw an antibiotic treatment in end-of-life care may be difficult. In order to quantify the antimicrobial prescribing practices and decision-making processes in palliative care units in Germany, a survey was performed as part of the Hospice and Palliative Evaluation in 2006.METHOD:With a specifically designed questionnaire, 448 patients for whom an active or suspected infection and antibiotic treatment was discussed were documented. Data on the use of and indication for antibiotic treatment and the decision-making on withdrawal or withholding of antibiotic therapy were collected.RESULTS:286 (63.8%) received an antibiotic therapy. In 88 cases, withdrawal of an ongoing treatment was documented. The most frequent reasons for withdrawal were: deterioration of general status (41.4%), inefficiency of therapy (25.7%), and explicit wish of patient (14.3%; multiple answers possible). Outcome of antimicrobial therapy was rated poor or very poor for a fifth of the cases and accordingly, antibiotics were more likely to be withdrawn if the clinical success was considered to be poor. The initiation of therapy was often decided by physicians solely, whereas withdrawing and withholding therapy demanded more often involvement of other team members in the decision-making process.CONCLUSION:The initiation of therapy seems to be easier than withdrawing and withholding, as involvement of other team members in the decision-making process was then sought more often. When antibiotics were given until death, the indication should be reconsidered because of a possibly undesirable prolongation of the dying process. Clinical practice may benefit from clear definitions of treatment goals and outcome criteria to better evaluate the necessity for and success of antimicrobial treatment.

To determine the role of non-cancer palliative care in inpatient services in Germany, data from the Hospice and Palliative Care Evaluation (HOPE) were analysed. Since 1999, a three-month census has been conducted annually in German palliative care units. Pooled data from 2002–2005 were tested for differences between non-cancer patients (NCs) and cancer patients (Cs). A total of 4182 patients (NC: 3.5%; C: 96.5%) were documented; functional status (using Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) measures) in NCs was lower compared to Cs ( p = 0.009). NCs suffered more often from dyspnoea (40%; C: 29%; p = 0.004), weakness (92,3%; C: 84,5%; p = 0.011) and tiredness (75.4%; C: 66.7%; p = 0.03) and less from nausea (17.1%; C: 28.9%; p = 0.002), vomiting (8.2%; C: 19.4%; p = 0.001) or loss of appetite (55.5%; C: 67.9%; p = 0.002). There were no differences in pain and constipation. Other problems (nursing, psychological) were more frequent for NCs, in particular the need for support in the activities of daily life (90.3%; C: 72.8%; p < 0.001) and disorientation/confusion (32.1%; C: 17.2%; p < 0.001). There were no differences in social problems. NCs are still rare in specialized inpatient palliative care institutions in Germany. The palliative care needs in patients with non-malignant disease will challenge the health care system as the workload for these services will grow over proportionally.

Cancer may affect the central nervous system either by primary or secondary brain tumours (PBT/SBT). Specific needs of these patients and special requirements of services caring for them have not been adequately addressed so far.

Quality assurance has been started in palliative care units since 1999, using a documentation project based on yearly documentation periods. The project was developed by a working party of palliative care specialists in cooperation with the German Cancer Society and the German Association for Palliative Medicine. The aim was a concise but meaningful standard documentation, able to describe the special therapeutic situation of palliative care patients and the interdisciplinary and multi-professional care they receive. In this paper, data of 4693 in-patient treatment periods relating to structural, procedural and outcome quality of palliative care units are presented from the beginning of the core documentation in 1999 through 2001. In 2002, data from palliative care units were compared with those from oncologic and geriatric wards, as well as hospices. Palliative care units show constant traits since the beginning of the core documentation in 1999, in spite of the rising number of participants. At the same time, there are distinct differences among the groups of participants due to the scope of their therapeutic setting. These relate to structure quality in the functional status of the patients (ECOG), which is worst in hospices (> palliative care units > geriatric wards > oncologic wards); to process quality in intensified pain treatment concerning incidence and intensity of pain, which is most frequent and severe in palliative care units (> hospices > geriatric > oncologic wards); and outcome quality in the rate of discharge home, which is highest in oncologic wards (> geriatric > palliative care units > hospices). Quality assurance in palliative care is difficult due to complex indicators, which should be assessed in a standardised documentation. The core documentation was established as a quality assurance programme for palliative care patients. The results of the previous evaluations have enabled the development of a standard documentation. The continuous application of such a standard documentation will prove the quality improvement and development of the participating units.

Gabriele Lindena, Friedemann Nauck, Claudia Bausewein, Karl Neuwöhner, Oliver Heine, Dieter Schulenberg, Lukas Radbruch und die Arbeitsgruppe Kerndokumentation für Palliativeinrichtungen in Deutschland 1 Clinical Analysis, Research and Application, CLARA Kleinmachnow 2 Abteilung für Anästhesiologie und Palliativmedizin, Malteser Krankenhaus Universität Bonn 3 Interdisziplinäre Einrichtung für Palliativmedizin, Universität München 4 Palliativstation, Dr. Hancken Klinik Stade 5 Medizinische Abteilung Mundipharma GmbH Limburg 6 Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Frankfurt/Main 7 Klinik für Palliativmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Aachen

The development of palliative medicine in inpatient units in Germany has been impressive in the last years. As a first step of quality assurance, a core documentation form was developed in 1996. In 2001, 55 of the 83 palliative inpatient units in Germany and one unit each in Switzerland and Austria participated in the third phase of the evaluation of the core documentation. A total of 1304 patients were documented consecutively in the 57 units for a period of up to three months. This study investigates the frequency of drugs used in palliative care units in Germany. During inpatient treatment, the most common drug classes were strong opioids (68% of the patients), nonopioids (59%), corticosteroids (32%), laxatives (31%), antiemetics (27%), gastric protection agents (24%), neuroleptics (19%), sedatives/anxiolytics (18%), antidepressants (16%) and diuretics (15%). These ten drug classes made up for 72% of all prescriptions in the palliative care units. The substances used most frequently were dipyrone (47% of the patients), morphine (42%), fentanyl (28%), dexamethasone (27%), metoclopramide (21%), sodium picosulfate (15%), haloperidol (13%), pantoprazole (11%), macrogol (11%), amtriptyline (11%), furosemide (10%), omeprazole (9%), lactulose (8%), rofecoxib (8%) and lorazepam (7%). The 15 most commonly used drugs accounted for 54% of the prescriptions in the palliative care units in Germany. Drug treatment was related to sex, age and functional status of the patients. Patients who died in a palliative care unit had received significantly more frequent doses of neuroleptics (PB / 0.001), corticosteroids (PB / 0.001), sedatives/anxiolytics (PB / 0.001) and strong opioids (PB / 0.001). This study is the first representative and systematic evaluation of drug treatment in palliative care units in a European country. Many of the ’top 15‘ drugs were drugs included in the list of essential drugs of the World Health Organisation though availability and cultural differences have an effect on the use of drugs, e.g., the high usage of dipyrone in Germany. Age and sex-related differences in drug therapy were seen, and more research is needed to recognize possible undertreatment of symptoms in subgroups of patients, e.g., treatment of depression in older or male patients.