Background:To enable coordinated palliative care delivery, all clinicians should have basic palliative care skill sets (‘generalist palliative care’). Specialists should have skills for managing complex and difficult cases (‘specialist palliative care’) and co-exist to support generalists through consultation care and transfer of care. Little information exists about the actual mixes of generalist and specialist palliative care.Aim:To describe the models of physician-based palliative care services delivered to patients in the last 12 months of life.Design:This is a population-based retrospective cohort study using linked health care administrative data.Setting/participants:Physicians providing palliative care services to a decedent cohort in Ontario, Canada. The decedent cohort consisted of all adults (18+ years) who died in Ontario, Canada between April 2011 and March 2015 (n = 361,951).Results:We describe four major models of palliative care services: (1) 53.0% of decedents received no physician-based palliative care, (2) 21.2% received only generalist palliative care, (3) 14.7% received consultation palliative care (i.e. care from both specialists and generalists), and (4) 11.1% received only specialist palliative care. Among physicians providing palliative care (n = 11,006), 95.3% had a generalist palliative care focus and 4.7% a specialist focus; 74.2% were trained as family physicians.Conclusion:We examined how often a coordinated palliative care model is delivered to a large decedent cohort and identified that few actually received consultation care. The majority of care, in both the palliative care generalist and specialist models, was delivered by family physicians. Further research should evaluate how different models of care impact patient outcomes and costs.

Context. Based on the clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care (PC), a published analytic framework (AF) formulated research questions in key domains and recommended a scoping review to identify evidence gaps. Objectives. To produce a literature map for key domains of the published AF: screening, prognosis and diagnosis, management, and the health-related outcomes. Methods. A standard scoping review framework was used by an interdisciplinary study team of nurse-and physiciandelirium researchers, an information specialist, and review methodologists to conduct the review. Knowledge user engagement provided context in refining 19 AF questions. A peer-reviewed search strategy identified citations in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL databases between 1980 and 2018. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion using explicit study eligibility criteria for the population, design, delirium diagnosis, and investigational intent. Results. Of 104 studies reporting empirical data and meeting eligibility criteria, most were conducted in patients with cancer (73.1%) and in inpatient PC units (52%). The most frequent study design was a one or more group, nonrandomized trial or cohort (67.3%). Evidence gaps were identified: delirium risk prediction; comparative effectiveness and harms of prevention, variability in delirium management across PC settings, advanced directive and substitute decision-maker input, and transition of care location; and estimating delirium reversibility. Future rigorous primary studies are required to address these gaps and preliminary concerns regarding the quality of extant literature.

Background: There is evidence that psychosocial and spiritual interventions of short duration, such as reminiscence therapy, provide positive impacts on quality of life and emotional and existential well-being in adults receiving palliative care. Aim: To determine (1) the feasibility of integrating ‘LIFEView’, a video-based software with >1600 videos of world destinations, in palliative care settings, and (2) positive, neutral or harmful effects of using ‘LIFEView’ videos. Design: A mixed-methods pre–post intervention pilot study was conducted to collect feasibility and preliminary data on physical and psychological symptoms, physiological indicators, spiritual well-being and aspects of quality of life. Setting/participants: Adult patients on an inpatient palliative care unit or receiving care from a community palliative care consultation team who were capable of providing consent and completing the outcome measures were eligible participants. Results: Overall, 27/41 (66%) participants took part in the study. Feasibility criteria, including participant acceptability, low participant burden, tool completion rate and retention rate, were fulfilled, though challenges were experienced with recruitment. Modest improvements, though non-significant, were shown on preliminary data collected on physical and psychological symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System–revised, spiritual well-being assessed by the 12-item Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy – Spiritual Well-Being scale and physiological measurements. Qualitative analysis revealed five themes: motivations for using ‘LIFEView’, perceptions of the technology, reminiscence, ‘LIFEView’ as an adaptable technology and ongoing or future use. Conclusion: A future adequately powered study to investigate the impacts of ‘LIFEView’ on patient well-being and quality of life appears to be feasible.