Eduardo Garralda Domezain

Dr. Eduardo Garralda Domezain


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
24 September 2015 in Palliative Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMelissa D Aldridge
Melissa D Aldridge
JHJeroen Hasselaar
Jeroen Hasselaar
EDEduardo Garralda Domezain
Eduardo Garralda Domezain
MEMarlieke van der Eerden
Marlieke van der Eerden
DSDavid Stevenson
David Stevenson
DMDiane E Meier
Diane E Meier
Background: Early integration of palliative care into the management of patients with serious disease has the potential to both improve quality of life of patients and families and reduce healthcare costs. Despite these benefits, significant barriers exist in the United States to the early integration of palliative care in the disease trajectory of individuals with serious illness. Aim: To provide an overview of the barriers to more widespread palliative care integration in the United States. Design and data sources: A literature review using PubMed from 2005 to March 2015 augmented by primary data collected from 405 hospitals included in the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s National Palliative Care Registry for years 2012 and 2013. We use the World Health Organization’s Public Health Strategy for Palliative Care as a framework for analyzing barriers to palliative care integration. Results: We identified key barriers to palliative care integration across three World Health Organization domains: (1) education domain: lack of adequate education/training and perception of palliative care as end-of-life care; (2) implementation domain: inadequate size of palliative medicine–trained workforce, challenge of identifying patients appropriate for palliative care referral, and need for culture change across settings; (3) policy domain: fragmented healthcare system, need for greater funding for research, lack of adequate reimbursement for palliative care, and regulatory barriers. Conclusion: We describe the key policy and educational opportunities in the United States to address and potentially overcome the barriers to greater integration of palliative care into the healthcare of Americans with serious illness.

13 February 2016 in BMC Palliative Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NSNaouma Siouta
Naouma Siouta
KBKaren van Beek
Karen van Beek
NPNancy Preston
Nancy Preston
JHJeroen Hasselaar
Jeroen Hasselaar
SHSean Hughes
Sean Hughes
JMJohan Menten
Johan Menten
Despite the positive impact of Palliative Care (PC) on the quality of life for patients and their relatives, the implementation of PC in non-cancer health-care delivery in the EU seems scarcely addressed. The aim of this study is to assess guidelines/pathways for integrated PC in patients with advanced Chronic Heart Failure (CHF) and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) in Europe via a systematic literature review. Search results were screened by two reviewers. Eligible studies of adult patients with CHF or COPD published between 01/01/1995 and 31/12/2013 in Europe in 6 languages were included. Nine electronic databases were searched, 6 journals were hand-searched and citation tracking was also performed. For the analysis, a narrative synthesis was employed. The search strategy revealed 26,256 studies without duplicates. From these, 19 studies were included in the review; 17 guidelines and 2 pathways. 18 out of 19 focused on suffering reduction interventions, 13/19 on a holistic approach and 15/19 on discussions of illness prognosis and limitations. The involvement of a PC team was mentioned in 13/19 studies, the assessment of the patients’ goals of care in 12/19 and the advance care planning in 11/19. Only 4/19 studies elaborated on aspects such as grief and bereavement care, 7/19 on treatment in the last hours of life and 8/19 on the continuation of goal adjustment. The results illustrate that there is a growing awareness for the importance of integrated PC in patients with advanced CHF or COPD. At the same time, however, they signal the need for the development of standardized strategies so that existing barriers are alleviated.

8 July 2016 in BMC Palliative Care
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
NSNaouma Siouta
Naouma Siouta
KBK. Van Beek
K. Van Beek
MEM. E. van der Eerden
M. E. van der Eerden
NPN. Preston
N. Preston
JHJ. G. Hasselaar
J. G. Hasselaar
JMJ. Menten
J. Menten
Integrated Palliative Care (PC) strategies are often implemented following models, namely standardized designs that provide frameworks for the organization of care for people with a progressive life-threatening illness and/or for their (in)formal caregivers. The aim of this qualitative systematic review is to identify empirically-evaluated models of PC in cancer and chronic disease in Europe. Further, develop a generic framework that will consist of the basis for the design of future models for integrated PC in Europe. Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, BNI, Web of Science, NHS Evidence. Five journals and references from included studies were hand-searched. Two reviewers screened the search results. Studies with adult patients with advanced cancer/chronic disease from 1995 to 2013 in Europe, in English, French, German, Dutch, Hungarian or Spanish were included. A narrative synthesis was used. 14 studies were included, 7 models for chronic disease, 4 for integrated care in oncology, 2 for both cancer and chronic disease and 2 for end-of-life pathways. The results show a strong agreement on the benefits of the involvement of a PC multidisciplinary team: better symptom control, less caregiver burden, improvement in continuity and coordination of care, fewer admissions, cost effectiveness and patients dying in their preferred place. Based on our findings, a generic framework for integrated PC in cancer and chronic disease is proposed. This framework fosters integration of PC in the disease trajectory concurrently with treatment and identifies the importance of employing a PC-trained multidisciplinary team with a threefold focus: treatment, consulting and training.

1 October 2015 in Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
JCJosé Miguel Carrasco
José Miguel Carrasco
TLThomas J. Lynch
Thomas J. Lynch
EDEduardo Garralda Domezain
Eduardo Garralda Domezain
KWKathrin Woitha
Kathrin Woitha
FEFrank Elsner
Frank Elsner
CCCarlos Centeno
Carlos Centeno
The lack of palliative medicine (PM) education has been identified as a barrier to the development of the discipline. A number of international institutions have called for its implementation within undergraduate medical curricula. The objectives are to describe the situation of undergraduate PM education in Europe and to propose a scoring system to evaluate its status. This descriptive study was conducted with data provided by key experts from countries of the World Health Organization European Region (n = 53). A numerical scoring system was developed through consensus techniques. Forty-three countries (81%) provided the requested information. In 13 countries (30%), a PM course is taught in all medical schools, being compulsory in six of them (14%). In 15 countries (35%), PM is taught in at least one university. In 14 countries (33%), PM is not taught within medical curricula. A full professor of PM was identified in 40% of countries. Three indicators were developed to construct a scale (rank 0-100) of educational development: 1) proportion of medical schools that teach PM (weight = 32%); 2) proportion of medical schools that offer PM as a compulsory subject (weight = 40%); 3) total number of PM professors (weight = 28%). The highest level of PM educational development was found in Israel, Norway, the U.K., Belgium, France, Austria, Germany, and Ireland. PM is taught in a substantial number of undergraduate medical programs at European universities, and a qualified teaching structure is emerging; however, there is a wide variation in the level of PM educational development between individual countries.

31 July 2015 in Palliative Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
CCCarlos Centeno
Carlos Centeno
TLThomas Lynch
Thomas Lynch
EDEduardo Garralda Domezain
Eduardo Garralda Domezain
JCJosé Miguel Carrasco
José Miguel Carrasco
Francisco Guillen-GrimaFrancisco Guillen-Grima
Francisco Guillen-Grima
DCDavid Clark
David Clark
Background: The evolution of the provision of palliative care specialised services is important for planning and evaluation. Aim: To examine the development between 2005 and 2012 of three specialised palliative care services across the World Health Organization European Region – home care teams, hospital support teams and inpatient palliative care services. Design and setting: Data were extracted and analysed from two editions of the European Association for Palliative Care Atlas of Palliative Care in Europe. Significant development of each type of services was demonstrated by adjusted residual analysis, ratio of services per population and 2012 coverage (relationship between provision of available services and demand services estimated to meet the palliative care needs of a population). For the measurement of palliative care coverage, we used European Association for Palliative Care White Paper recommendations: one home care team per 100,000 inhabitants, one hospital support team per 200,000 inhabitants and one inpatient palliative care service per 200,000 inhabitants. To estimate evolution at the supranational level, mean comparison between years and European sub-regions is presented. Results: Of 53 countries, 46 (87%) provided data. Europe has developed significant home care team, inpatient palliative care service and hospital support team in 2005–2012. The improvement was statistically significant for Western European countries, but not for Central and Eastern countries. Significant development in at least a type of services was in 21 of 46 (46%) countries. The estimations of 2012 coverage for inpatient palliative care service, home care team and hospital support team are 62%, 52% and 31% for Western European and 20%, 14% and 3% for Central and Eastern, respectively. Conclusion: Although there has been a positive development in overall palliative care coverage in Europe between 2005 and 2012, the services available in most countries are still insufficient to meet the palliative care needs of the population.

1 September 2016 in Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
KWKathrin Woitha
Kathrin Woitha
EDEduardo Garralda Domezain
Eduardo Garralda Domezain
JMJose María Martin-Moreno
Jose María Martin-Moreno
DCDavid Clark
David Clark
CCCarlos Centeno
Carlos Centeno
There is growing interest in monitoring palliative care (PC) development internationally. One aspect of this is the ranking of such development for comparative purposes. To generate a ranking classification and to compare scores for PC development in the countries of the European Union, 2007 and 2013. PC "development" in this study is understood as a combination of the existence of relevant services in a country ("resources") plus the capacity to develop further resources in the future ("vitality"). "Resources" comprise indicators of three types of PC services per population (inpatient palliative care units and inpatient hospices, hospital support teams, and home care teams). "Vitality" of PC is estimated by numerical scores for the existence of a national association, a directory of services, physician accreditation, attendances at a key European conference and volume of publications on PC development. The leading country (by raw score) is then considered as the reference point against which all other countries are measured. Different weightings are applied to resources (75%) and vitality (25%). From this, an overall ranking is constructed. The U.K. achieved the highest level of development (86% of the maximum possible score), followed by Belgium and overall The Netherlands (81%), and Sweden (80%). In the resources domain, Luxembourg, the U.K., and Belgium were leading. The top countries in vitality were Germany and the U.K. In comparison to 2007, The Netherlands, Malta, and Portugal showed the biggest improvements, whereas the positions of Spain, France, and Greece deteriorated. The ranking method permitted a comparison of palliative care development between countries and shows changes over time. Recommendations for improving the ranking include improvements to the methodology and greater explanation of the levels and changes it reveals.