A B S T R A C T PurposeTo offer evidence-based clinical recommendations concerning prognosis in advanced cancer patients. MethodsA Working Group of the Research Network of the European Association for Palliative Care identified clinically significant topics, reviewed the studies, and assigned the level of evidence. A formal meta-analysis was not feasible because of the heterogeneity of published studies and the lack of minimal standards in reporting results. A systematic electronic literature search within the main available medical literature databases was performed for each of the following four areas identified: clinical prediction of survival (CPS), biologic factors, clinical signs and symptoms and psychosocial variables, and prognostic scores. Only studies on patients with advanced cancer and survival Յ 90 days were included. ResultsA total of 38 studies were evaluated. Level A evidence-based recommendations of prognostic correlation could be formulated for CPS (albeit with a series of limitations of which clinicians must be aware) and prognostic scores. Recommendations on the use of other prognostic factors, such as performance status, symptoms associated with cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (weight loss, anorexia, dysphagia, and xerostomia), dyspnea, delirium, and some biologic factors (leukocytosis, lymphocytopenia, and C-reactive protein), reached level B. ConclusionPrognostication of life expectancy is a significant clinical commitment for clinicians involved in oncology and palliative care. More accurate prognostication is feasible and can be achieved by combining clinical experience and evidence from the literature. Using and communicating prognostic information should be part of a multidisciplinary palliative care approach.

When oncologists' survival estimates are used, the PaP score is able to identify accurately three isoprognostic patient groups, irrespective of the cancer type. The PaP score may help reduce the uncertainty of formulating a prognosis in patients with advanced cancer.

Background:Funding models influence provision and development of palliative care services. As palliative care integrates into mainstream health care provision, opportunities to develop funding mechanisms arise. However, little has been reported on what funding models exist or how we can learn from them.Aim:To assess national models and methods for financing and reimbursing palliative care.Design:Initial literature scoping yielded limited evidence on the subject as national policy documents are difficult to identify, access and interpret. We undertook expert consultations to appraise national models of palliative care financing in England, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Wales. These represent different levels of service development and a variety of funding mechanisms.Results:Funding mechanisms reflect country-specific context and local variations in care provision. Patterns emerging include the following:Provider payment is rarely linked to population need and often perpetuates existing inequitable patterns in service provision.Funding is frequently characterised as a mixed system of charitable, public and private payers.The basis on which providers are paid for services rarely reflects individual care input or patient needs.Conclusion:Funding mechanisms need to be well understood and used with caution to ensure best practice and minimise perverse incentives. Before we can conduct cross-national comparisons of costs and impact of palliative care, we need to understand the funding and policy context for palliative care in each country of interest.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Telemedicine in palliative care was initially developed in countries where geography or resources limit access to care services. Recently, largely owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, this technology is being increasingly used in highly urbanised countries such as Switzerland. However, there is still scepticism regarding whether these tools can be used effectively in palliative care, a relationship-based speciality that is generally highly dependent on compassion, communication and direct human interaction. The objective of this review was to analyse the needs, elements of feasibility, and reasons for acceptance or possible barriers before the implementation of a telemedicine intervention in Switzerland. METHODS: The method used was a scoping review, following the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Ovid SP, Medline, Cochrane and Scopus databases for relevant reports. Charting and analyses of the data were done by a single researcher. A total of 520 records were screened and assessed for eligibility. Finally, 27 studies and 4 registry entries were included. Main reasons for exclusion were wrong population and intervention. RESULTS: The prevailing study type was the single-arm intervention study. Most studies originated from countries with geographic barriers to access. Feasibility was good in 69% of all studies. Good acceptability (84.1–100%) was confirmed in the majority of the studies. The needs of the patients or the healthcare professionals were directly addressed in only five (16%) studies. Three needs were consistently reported: communication, coordination and technical reliability CONCLUSION: Despite a broad range of studies on telemedicine in palliative care, patients’ needs are rarely addressed. Therefore, especially in countries such as Switzerland, a needs assessment is recommended before the implementation of a new telemedicine intervention, to guarantee high feasibility and acceptability.