Background: Effective symptom control is a stated goal of palliative care (PC) to improve quality of life for terminally ill patients. Virtual reality (VR) provides temporary escapes from pharmacologically resistant pain and allows for experiences and journeys patients may not access in any other way. Enabling wishes through virtual worlds may also offer additional benefits such as controlling psychological and physical symptoms. Aims: We investigated the feasibility of a single VR experience as a viable, satisfying, and effective tool for end-of-life pain relief for inpatients presenting palliative needs. Design: This is an observational, single-arm and national single-center feasibility trial. Methods: A one-time VR experience with a selection of several videos and games was offered to 45 inpatients receiving PC at Muenster University Hospital. Patients with brain tumors, brain metastases, seizures, motion sickness, claustrophobia, vertigo, hearing or visual impairment, or unable to consent were excluded. Primary outcome measured patient reported pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS). We also measured Karnofsky performance status, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire, and the Pain Out Questionnaire for postoperative pain. Results: We analyzed data from 21 women (52.5%) and 19 men (47.5%) at an average age of 51.9 (SD: 15.81) years. The mean Karnofsky score among the sample was 45.5 (SD: 14.97) and the HRQOL was 41.9 (SD: 23.08). While no serious side effects were reported during the intervention, three patients experienced nausea (7%), two headaches (5%), and three reported dry eyes (7%) afterwards. Significant pain reduction (baseline VAS 2.25 (SD: 0.4399)) was demonstrated during (VAS 0.7 (SD: 0.2983, p < 0.0001)), immediately after (VAS 0.9 (SD: 0.3354, p = 0.0001)) and one hour after the intervention (VAS 1.15 (SD: 0.4163, p = 0.0004)). More than 80% rated the VR experience as very good or good (85%, n = 34) and intended to make use of the device again (82.5%, n = 33). However, two participants (5%) also expressed sadness by becoming aware of old memories and previous opportunities that are gone. Discussion: The present pilot study suggests that VR seems to be a feasible and effective tool for pain relief in PC. Its use encompasses the approach of a total pain and symptom therapy and enhances patients’ dignity and autonomy. Future research ought to include if and to what extent VR could reduce the necessity of pharmacological pain relief.

(1) Background: As the number of people receiving specialized palliative care (PC) continues to rise, there is a need to ensure the transfer of this expertise from university-based PC departments to primary care hospitals without such in-house access. The present study examines the potential of telemedicine to bridge these gaps. (2) Methods: This is a prospective multi-center feasibility trial. All physicians were appropriately pre-equipped and instructed to conduct telemedical consultations (TCs), which took place within fixed meetings or on-call appointments either related or unrelated to individual patients (allowing TCs also for educational and knowledge exchange purposes). (3) Results: An inquiry for participation was submitted to 11 hospitals, with 5 external hospitals actively cooperating. In the first study section, a total of 57 patient cases were included within 95 patient-related TCs during 80 meetings. Other university disciplines were involved in 21 meetings (26.2%). Therapy adjustments resulted following 25 of 71 affected TCs (35.2%). In 20 cases (21.1%), an on-site consultation at the university hospital was avoided, and in 12 cases (12.6%), a transfer was avoided. Overall, TCs were considered helpful in resolving issues for 97.9% of the cases (n = 93). Yet, technical problems arose in about one-third of all meetings for at least one physician (36.2%; n = 29). Besides, in the second study section, we also conducted 43 meetings between physicians for education and knowledge exchange only. (4) Conclusions: Telemedicine has the potential to transfer university expertise to external hospitals through simple means. It improves collaboration among physicians, may prevent unnecessary transfers or outpatient presentations, and is thus likely to lower costs.

Background: Patients suffering from incurable diseases are more likely to die in the hospital than at home. Specialized outpatient palliative care (PC) may be able to counteract this tendency. Similarly, potential benefits of telemedicine in health care were scientifically reported. The aim of this research was to compare patients receiving specialized outpatient PC plus telemedicine with those receiving standard specialized outpatient PC only. In this study, telemedicine is assumed to decrease the number of home visits and therefore should not be considered a mere add-on. Methods: This is a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Recruitment lasted between January 2020 and October 2021. Quality of care was evaluated using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) at day 0, 7, and 14 after randomization. Change from day 0 to 7 was defined as the primary outcome (noninferiority margin = 4 points). This study was conducted in an urban setting in collaboration with a university hospital and a local specialized outpatient PC service. Results: A total of 196 patients were screened with 34 patients included (18 telemedicine/16 standard care). The mean change in the total score of the IPOS from day 0 to 7 amounted to −1.8 ± 3.9 (telemedicine) versus 1.2 ± 5.7 (standard care). The telemedicine group was statistically not relevantly inferior to the standard care group ( t -test for noninferiority, p  = 0.005). Conclusions: Although, due to COVID-19, the sample size remained rather small, our findings indicate that telemedical approaches offer a promising and equally effective option to provide specialized outpatient PC. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT06054048.

PURPOSE: Palliative care is recommended for patients with cancer with a life expectancy of <12 months. Machine learning (ML) techniques can help in predicting survival outcomes among patients with cancer and may help distinguish who benefits the most from palliative care support. We aim to explore the importance of several objective and subjective self-reported variables. Subjective variables were collected through electronic psycho-oncologic and palliative care self-assessment screenings. We used these variables to predict 1-year mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021, a total of 265 patients with advanced cancer completed a patient-reported outcome tool. We documented objective and subjective variables collected from electronic health records, self-reported subjective variables, and all clinical variables combined. We used logistic regression (LR), 20-fold cross-validation, decision trees, and random forests to predict 1-year mortality. We analyzed the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve—AUC, the precision-recall curve—AUC (PR-AUC)—and the feature importance of the ML models. RESULTS: The performance of clinical nonpatient variables in predictions (LR reaches 0.81 [ROC-AUC] and 0.72 [F1 score]) are much more predictive than that of subjective patient-reported variables (LR reaches 0.55 [ROC-AUC] and 0.52 [F1 score]). CONCLUSION: The results show that objective variables used in this study are much more predictive than subjective patient-reported variables, which measure subjective burden. These findings indicate that subjective burden cannot be reliably used to predict survival. Further research is needed to clarify the role of self-reported patient burden and mortality prediction using ML.

Purpose: Despite the multiprofessional concept surrounding palliative care patients (PCPs) and their high prevalence of oral issues, licensed dentists (LDs) are often not included in their treatment team. This study aimed to examine the current state of cooperation and to determine whether and how LDs should be included in the care for PCPs. Methods: This single-centre cross-sectional study was conducted at the University Hospital Muenster, Germany. We surveyed three participant groups: PCPs, LDs, and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Questionnaires were tailored for each group, with some questions common for comparison. Results: The study encompassed the results of 48 questionnaires from LDs, 50 from PCPs along with 50 from HCPs. Consensus was reached among all parties (LDs: 73% (n = 35/48); HCPs: 94%, n = 47/50; PCPs: 60%, n = 30/50) that involving LDs in the treatment concept is favourable. On the other hand, a significant discrepancy emerged in the perception of the dental treatment effort required by PCPs. While LDs (81%; n = 39/48) and HCPs (64%; n = 32/50) were convinced of increased effort, PCPs (34%; n = 17/50) largely did not share this perspective. To enhance patient care and formulate appropriate treatment plans, LDs consider both training (58%; n = 28/48) and guidebooks (71%; n = 34/48) to be valuable and would attend or use such resources. Conclusion: This study sheds light on the current gaps in including LDs in palliative care teams and emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration to address oral health needs effectively. Development of continuing education options and collaborative models between LDs and HCPs needs to be further expanded in future.

Vom 13.–17. August 2025 trafen sich in Münster zum zweiten Mal 34 junge Menschen zur multiprofessionellen Summer School Palliative Care der AG Junge DGP – ermöglicht durch eine großzügige Förderung der „schoberstiftung“. Das Franz-Hitze-Haus wurde fünf Tage lang zum Lern- und Begegnungsort für (angehende) Pflegefachpersonen, Ärzt:innen, Seelsorger:innen, Sozialarbeiter:innen, Wissenschaftler:innen sowie therapeutische Berufe. Die Teilnehmenden waren 20 bis 38 Jahre alt, rund die Hälfte unter 30 ([ Abb. 1 ]). ^* Sprecher:innen der AG Junge DGP Article published online: 10 November 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany