Teamwork is an integral part of the philosophy of palliative care. Cross‐functional, interdisciplinary teams offer benefits to patients, practitioners and specialist areas of care. Leadership of tea...

PURPOSE: People with advanced or metastatic cancer and their caregivers may have different care goals and face unique challenges compared with those with early-stage disease or those nearing the end of life. These Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC)-ASCO standards and practice recommendations seek to establish consistent provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer. METHODS: A MASCC-ASCO expert panel was formed. Standards and recommendations relevant to the provision of quality survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer were developed through conducting (1) a systematic review of unmet supportive care needs; (2) a scoping review of cancer survivorship, supportive care, and palliative care frameworks and guidelines; and (3) an international modified Delphi consensus process. RESULTS: A systematic review involving 81 studies and a scoping review of 17 guidelines and frameworks informed the initial standards and recommendations. Subsequently, 77 experts (including eight people with lived experience) across 33 countries (33% were low- to middle-resource countries) participated in the Delphi study and achieved ≥94.8% agreement for seven standards, (1) Person-Centered Care; (2) Coordinated and Integrated Care; (3) Evidence-Based and Comprehensive Care; (4) Evaluated and Communicated Care; (5) Accessible and Equitable Care; (6) Sustainable and Resourced Care; and (7) Research and Data-Driven Care, and ≥84.2% agreement across 45 practice recommendations. CONCLUSION: Standards of survivorship care for people affected by advanced or metastatic cancer are provided. These MASCC-ASCO standards support optimization of health outcomes and care experiences by providing guidance to stakeholders (health care professionals, leaders, and administrators; governments and health ministries; policymakers; advocacy agencies; cancer survivors and caregivers). Practice recommendations may be used to facilitate future research, practice, policy, and advocacy efforts. Additional information is available at www.mascc.org , www.asco.org/standards and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Objectives: Research on the experiences, coping mechanisms, and impact of death and dying on the lives of palliative medicine specialists is limited. Most research focuses on the multidisciplinary team or on nurses who work with the dying. Fewer studies consider medical professionals trained in palliative medicine. This study aimed to explore the experiences, coping mechanisms, and impact of death and dying on palliative medicine specialists when dealing with their patients at the end of life.Methods: A qualitative research approach guided the study, one-on-one interview data were analyzed thematically. A purposeful sampling technique was employed for participant recruitment. Seven palliative medicine specialists practicing in one city participated in open-ended, in-depth interviews.Results: The analysis of participants' accounts identified three distinct themes. These wereBeing with the dying,Being affected by death,and dyingandAdjusting to the impact of death and dying.Significance of results: This study further contributes to the understanding of the impact of death and dying on professionals who care for dying patients and their families. Despite the stressors and the potential for burnout and compassion fatigue, these participants employed strategies that enhanced meaning-making and emphasized the rewards of their work. However, the consequences of work stressors cannot be underestimated in the practice of palliative care.

Background: Virtual reality (VR) using head-mounted displays (HMDs) has demonstrated to be an effective tool for treating various somatic and psychological symptoms. Technological advances and increased affordability of VR technology provide an interesting option for delivering psychological interventions to patients in palliative care. The primary aim of this systematic review was to synthesise the available research on the use of VR for enhancing psychological and somatic outcomes for palliative care patients. Secondary aims included assessing general satisfaction and overall usability. Method: A pre-registered systematic literature search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines using OVID Emcare, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and PubMed Care Search: Palliative Care Knowledge Network. Peer-reviewed experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, case, and feasibility studies consisting of single or multiple VR sessions using HMDs that reported psychological and/or somatic outcomes were included. Results: Eight studies published between 2019 and 2021 were included, representing 138 patients. While the reported quantitative psychological and somatic outcomes were ambiguous, the qualitative outcomes were largely positive. Participants were generally satisfied with VR, and most studies reported the VR interventions as usable, feasible, and acceptable. Conclusions: VR shows promise in palliative care and generally addresses a range of symptoms with few adverse effects. Future research should consist of adequately powered RCTs evaluating dosage and focusing on providing meaningful activities to enhance outcomes further.

Prescribing practice in hospice/palliative care is largely extrapolated from other areas of clinical practice, with few studies of net medication effects (benefits and harms) in hospice/palliative care to guide prescribing decisions. Hospice/palliative care patients differ in multiple ways from better studied participant groups, hence the applicability of studies in other participant groups is uncertain. Haloperidol, a butyrophenone derivative and dopamine antagonist, is commonly prescribed for nausea, vomiting, and delirium in hospice/palliative care. Its frequent use in delirium occurs despite little evidence of the effect of antipsychotics on the untreated course of delirium. The aim of this study was to examine the immediate and short-term clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol for delirium in hospice/palliative care patients. A consecutive cohort of participants from 14 centers across four countries who had haloperidol commenced for delirium were recruited. Data were collected at three time points: baseline, 48 hours (clinical benefits), and day 10 (clinical harms). Investigators were also able to report clinical harms at any time up to 14 days after it was commenced. Of the 119 participants included, the average dose was 2.1 mg per 24 hours; 42 of 106 (35.2%) reported benefit at 48 hours. Harm was reported in 14 of 119 (12%) at 10 days, the most frequent being somnolence (n=11) and urinary retention (n=6). Seven participants had their medication ceased due to harms (2 for somnolence and 2 for rigidity). Approximately half (55/119) were still being treated with haloperidol after 10 days. Overall, 1 in 3 participants gained net clinical benefit at 10 days.