Constipation is one of the most common problems in patients receiving palliative care and can cause extreme suffering and discomfort. The aims of this study are to raise awareness of constipation in palliative care, provide clear, practical guidance on management and encourage further research in the area. A pan-European working group of physicians and nurses with significant experience in the management of constipation in palliative care met to evaluate the published evidence and produce these clinical practice recommendations. Four potentially relevant publications were identified, highlighting a lack of clear, practical guidance on the assessment, diagnosis and management of constipation in palliative care patients. Given the limited data available, our recommendations are based on expert clinical opinion, relevant research findings from other settings and best practice from the countries represented. Palliative care patients are at a high risk of constipation, and while general principles of prevention should be followed, pharmacological treatment is often necessary. The combination of a softener and stimulant laxative is generally recommended, and the choice of laxatives should be made on an individual basis. The current evidence base is poor and further research is required on many aspects of the assessment, diagnosis and management of constipation in palliative care.

Context Studies to determine the decisional control preferences (DCPs) in Hispanic patients receiving palliative care are limited. Objectives The aims of this study were to describe DCPs, disclosure of information, and satisfaction with decision making among Hispanics, and to determine the degree of concordance between patients’ DCPs and their self-reported decisions. Methods We surveyed 387 cancer patients referred to outpatient palliative care clinics in Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, and the U.S. DCPs were measured with the Control Preference Scale, disclosure preferences with the Disclosure of Information Preferences questionnaire, and satisfaction with care with the Satisfaction with Decision Scale. Results In this study, 182 patients (47.6%) preferred shared decisional control, 119 (31.2%) active decisional control, and 81 (21.2%) preferred a passive approach. Concerning diagnosis and prognosis, 345 (92%) patients wanted to know their diagnosis, and 355 (94%) wanted to know their prognosis. Three hundred thirty-seven (87%) patients were satisfied with the decision-making process. DCPs were concordant with the self-reported decision-making process in 264 (69%) patients (weighted kappa, 0.55). Patients’ greater satisfaction with the decision-making process was correlated with older age (P≤0.001) and with a preference for enhanced diagnostic disclosure (P≤0.024). Satisfaction did not correlate with concordance in the decision-making process. Conclusion The vast majority preferred a shared or active decision-making process and wanted information about their diagnosis and prognosis. Older patients and those who wanted to know their diagnosis seemed to be more satisfied with the way treatment decisions were made.

There is an increasing move to recognize palliative medicine as an area of certificated specialization. Drawing on a survey of palliative care provision in the World Health Organization European region, an overview of palliative care specialization and accreditation practices was presented. Within an international survey to key experts in palliative care carried out in 2005, conducted in 52 countries, a question about the certification for palliative care professionals was included. Information was obtained for 43 of the 52 countries surveyed and all 43 countries (83%) provided data on certification. Palliative medicine has specialty status in just two European countries: Ireland and the UK. In five countries it is considered as a sub-specialty, for which a second certification is required: Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Germany and, recently, France. Some 10 other countries have started the process of certification for palliative medicine, in all cases opting for sub-specialty status that follows full recognition in an established specialty. Across countries there is disparity in the certification criteria followed and considerable variability in the demands that are made in order to achieve certification. Further studies are needed to focus in depth on palliative medicine certification and accreditation across Europe. Establishing uniform approaches to certification for palliative medicine in different European countries will contribute to wider take-up of specialty status and the improved recognition of palliative care as a discipline.

Background. Although Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) is a successful tool for delirium evaluation and monitoring, it is nevertheless important to determine whether cutoff scores vary according to the studied population. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic sensitivity of the recently validated Spanish version of the MDAS. The secondary objective was to analyze possible diagnostic differences when used in a hospice or general hospital setting. Methodology. A prospective study was conducted with advanced cancer patients in two settings (hospice and general hospital). A diagnosis of delirium was established according to clinical criteria and the Confusion Assessment Method. Sensitivity (S), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were determined according to the receiver operating characteristics curve. The MDAS values for different centers were studied using nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney). Results. A total of 67 patients were included, 28 of whom had been diagnosed with delirium (15/40 hospice and 13/27 general hospital). The mean MDAS scores were 13.6 and 5.5 for the delirium and nondelirium groups, respectively. A cutoff score of 7 gave the optimal screening diagnosis balance (S 92.6%, Sp 71.8%, positive predictive value 70.1%, and negative predictive value 93.3%). Diagnoses of anxiety and depression were not related with delirium (P # 0.44). A diagnosis of dementia was related to delirium (P # 0.052) but did not influence the diagnostic sensitivity of MDAS (P # 0.26). No differences were found between hospice and general hospital settings as regards the diagnostic sensitivity of MDAS. Conclusion. A screening cutoff of 7 appears to be optimal for MDAS Spanish version. No differences were found between advanced cancer patients cared for in a hospice or general hospital. However, more research is required to define the MDAS cutoff for patients with advanced cancer and dementia.