Context. Approximately 170,000 children in need of palliative care die every year in Europe without access to it. This field remains an evolving specialty with unexplored development. Objectives. To conduct the first regional assessment of pediatric palliative care (PPC) development and provision using data from the European Association for Palliative Care atlas of palliative care 2019. Methods. Two surveys were conducted. The first one included a single question regarding PPC service provision and was addressed by European Association for Palliative Care atlas informants. The second one included 10 specific indicators derived from an open-ended interview and rating process; a specific network of informants was enabled and used as respondents. Data were analyzed and presented in the map of the figure. Results. Data on PPC service provision were gathered from 51 of 54 (94%) European countries. Additional data were collected in 34 of 54 (62%) countries. A total of 680 PPC services were identified including 133 hospices, 385 home care services, and 162 hospital services. Nineteen countries had specific standards and norms for the provision of PPC. Twenty-two countries had a national association, and 14 countries offered education for either pediatric doctors or nurses. In seven countries, specific neonatal palliative care referral services were identified. Conclusion. PPC provision is flourishing across the region; however, development is less accentuated in low-to-middleincome countries. Efforts need to be devoted to the conceptualization and definition of the models of care used to respond to the unmet need of PPC in Europe. The question whether specialized services are required or not should be further explored. Strategies to regulate and cover patients in need should be adapted to each national health system. J Pain Symptom Manage 2020;60:746e753.

Background: Service provision is a key domain to assess national-level palliative care development. Three editions of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Atlas of Palliative Care monitored the changes in service provision across Europe since 2005. Aim: To study European trends of specialized service provision at home care teams, hospital support teams, and inpatient palliative care services between 2005 and 2019. Design: Secondary analysis was conducted drawing from databases on the number of specialized services in 2005, 2012, and 2019. Ratios of services per 100,000 inhabitants and increase rates on number of services for three periods were calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) analyses were conducted to determine significant changes and chi-square to identify countries accounting for the variance. Income-level and sub-regional ANOVA analysis were undertaken. Setting: 51 countries. Results: Forty-two countries (82%) increased the number of specialized services between 2005 and 2019 with changes for home care teams (104% increase-rate), inpatient services (82%), and hospital support teams (48%). High-income countries showed significant increase in all types of services ( p < 0.001), while low-to-middle-income countries showed significant increase only for inpatient services. Central–Eastern European countries showed significant improvement in home care teams and inpatient services, while Western countries showed significant improvement in hospital support and home care teams. Home care was the most prominent service in Western Europe. Conclusion: Specialized service provision increased throughout Europe, yet ratios per 100,000 inhabitants fell below the EAPC recommendations. Western Europe ratios’ achieved half of the suggested services, while Central–Eastern countries achieved only a fourth. High-income countries and Western European countries account for the major increase. Central–Eastern Europe and low-to-middle-income countries reported little increase on specialized service provision.

No abstract

Context. International consensus on indicators is necessary to standardize the global assessment of palliative care (PC) development.Objectives. To identify the best indicators to assess current national-level PC development.Methods. Experts in PC development were invited to rate 45 indicators organized by domains of the World Health Organization Public Health Strategy in a two-round RAND/UCLA-modified Delphi process. In the first round, experts rated indicators by relevance, measurability, and feasibility (1e9). Ratings were used to calculate a global score (1e9). Indicators scoring >7 proceeded to the second round for fine-tuning of global scores. Median, confidence interval, Content Validity Index, and Disagreement Index were calculated. Indicators scoring a lower limit 95% confidence interval of $7 and a Content Validity Index of $0.30 were selected.Results. 24 experts representing five continents and several organizations completed the study. 25 indicators showed a high content validity and level of agreement. Policy indicators (n ¼ 8) included the existence of designated staff in the National Ministry of Health and the inclusion of PC services in the basic health package and in the primary care level list of services. Education indicators (n ¼ 4) focused on processes of official specialization for physicians, inclusion of teaching at the undergraduate level, and PC professorship. Use of medicines indicators (n ¼ 4) consisted of opioid consumption, availability, and prescription requirements. Services indicators (n ¼ 6) included number and type of services for adults and children. Additional indicators for professional activity (n ¼ 3) were identified.Conclusion. The first list including 25 of the best indicators to evaluate PC development at a national level has been identified.

No abstract