Delphi multi-round survey is a procedure that has been widely and successfully used to aggregate experts’ opinions about some previously established statements or questions. Such opinions are usually expressed as real numbers and some commentaries. The evolution of the consensus can be shown by an increase in the agreement percentages, and a decrease in the number of comments made. A consensus is reached when this percentage exceeds a certain previously set threshold. If this threshold has not been reached, the moderator modifies the questionnaire according to the comments he/she has collected, and the following round begins. In this paper, a new fuzzy Delphi method is introduced. On the one hand, the experts’ subjective judgments are collected as fuzzy numbers, enriching the approach. On the other hand, such opinions are collected through a computerized application that is able to interpret the experts’ opinions as fuzzy numbers. Finally, we employ a recently introduced fuzzy ranking methodology, satisfying many properties according to human intuition, in order to determine whether the expert’s fuzzy opinion is favorable enough (comparing with a fixed fuzzy number that indicates Agree or Strongly Agree). A cross-cultural validation was performed to illustrate the applicability of the proposed method. The proposed approach is simple for two reasons: it does not need a defuzzification step of the experts’ answers, and it can consider a wide range of fuzzy numbers not only triangular or trapezoidal fuzzy numbers.

Background: Nursing homes are likely to become increasingly important as end-of-life care facilities. Previous studies indicate that individuals residing in these facilities have a high prevalence of end-of-life symptoms and a significant need for palliative care. The aim of this study was to develop an end-of-life care program for nursing homes in Spain based on previous models yet adapted to the specific context and the needs of staff in nursing homes in the country. Methods: A descriptive study of a complex intervention procedure was developed. The study consisted of three phases. The first phase was a prospective study assessing self-efficacy in palliative care (using the SEPC scale) and attitudes towards end-of-life care (using the FATCOD-B scale) among nursing home staff before and after the completion of a basic palliative care training program. In the second phase, objectives were selected using the Delphi consensus technique, where nursing home and primary care professionals assessed the relevance, feasibility, and level of attainment of 42 quality standards. In phase 3, interventions were selected for these objectives through two focus group sessions involving nursing home, primary care, and palliative care professionals. Results: As a result of the training, an improvement in self-efficacy and attitudes towards end-of-life care was observed. In phase 2, 14 standards were selected and grouped into 5 objectives: to conduct a comprehensive assessment and develop a personalized care plan adapted to the palliative needs detected; to provide information in a clear and accessible way; to request and record advance care directives; to provide early care with respect to loss and grief; to refer patients to a specialized palliative care unit if appropriate, depending on the complexity of the palliative care required. Based on these objectives, the participants in the focus group sessions designed the 22 interventions that make up the program. Conclusions: The objectives and interventions of the NUHELP program constitute an end-of-life care program which can be implemented in nursing homes to improve the quality of end-of-life care in these facilities by modifying their clinical practice, organization, and relationship with the health system as well as serving as an example of an effective health intervention program.

Background: Proper planning of Palliative Care in nursing homes requires advanced knowledge of the care needs that residents show. The aim of the study was to evaluate Palliative Needs and other conditions such as fragility, complexity, and prognosis and also to suggest new indicators for the establishment of the resident’s advanced chronic condition. Methods: Cross-sectional study conducted in 149 nursing homes Complex Chronic residents evaluated by trained professionals. Palliative Care Needs, assessed by the NECPAL ICO-CCOMS© tool, and fragility, case and palliative complexity and prognosis were evaluate through a comprehensive assessment. Descriptive analyses and association measures were performed setting the statistical significance at 0.05. Results: More than 50% of the residents had positive Surprise Question and other Palliative Needs and were classified as Advanced Chronic Patients. Distress and/or Severe Adaptative Disorder was the most frequent need shown by the residents and significant differences in levels of frailty and other characteristics, were found between the Positive and the Negative Surprise Question Groups. Statistically significant correlations were also found between aspects of both groups. Conclusions: Nursing homes residents show Palliative Needs regardless of the response to the Surprise Question of the NECPAL tool. Other characteristics such as presence of an intermediate level of frailty are suggested as a new perspective to identify advanced chronic patients among nursing homes residents.

Background: a lack of adequate training in palliative care leads to a greater emotional burden on nurses. Purpose: to assess the effect of a simulation using standardized patients on self-efficacy in palliative care, ability to cope with death, and emotional intelligence among nursing students. Methods: a randomized clinical trial and qualitative study. A total of 264 nursing students in a palliative care module completed the Bugen, trait meta-mood, and self-efficacy in palliative care scales after active participation in the simulation (n = 51), watching the simulation (n = 113), and the control group (n = 100). An ANOVA with a multi-comparative analysis and McNemar’s tests for paired samples were calculated. Active participants were interviewed, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Results: there was an improvement after the assessment in all three groups assessed for coping with death (p < 0.01), emotional intelligence (p < 0.01), and self-efficacy (p < 0.01). In addition, the active group improved more than the observer group and the control group in coping with death, attention, and repair. The students in the interviews identified sadness and an emotional lack of control. Conclusions: the simulation improved nursing students’ self-efficacy in palliative care. This effect was partially stronger in the active group.

Background and objectives: This study aimed to determine the frailty, prognosis, complexity, and palliative care complexity of nursing home residents with palliative care needs and define the characteristics of the cases eligible for receiving advanced palliative care according to the resources available at each nursing home. Materials and Methods: In this multi-centre, descriptive, and cross-sectional study, trained nurses from eight nursing homes in southern Spain selected 149 residents with palliative care needs. The following instruments were used: the Frail-VIG index, the case complexity index (CCI), the Diagnostic Instrument of Complexity in Palliative Care (IDC-Pal), the palliative prognosis index, the Barthel index (dependency), Pfeiffer’s test (cognitive impairment), and the Charlson comorbidity index. A consensus was reached on the complexity criteria of the Diagnostic Instrument of Complexity in Palliative Care that could be addressed in the nursing home (no priority) and those that required a one-off (priority 2) or full (priority 1) intervention of advanced palliative care resources. Non-parametric tests were used to compare non-priority patients and patients with some kind of priority. Results: A high percentage of residents presented frailty (80.6%), clinical complexity (80.5%), and palliative care complexity (65.8%). A lower percentage of residents had a poor prognosis (10.1%) and an extremely poor prognosis (2%). Twelve priority 1 and 14 priority 2 elements were identified as not matching the palliative care complexity elements that had been previously identified. Of the studied cases, 20.1% had priority 1 status and 38.3% had priority 2 status. Residents with some kind of priority had greater levels of dependency (p < 0.001), cognitive impairment (p < 0.001), and poorer prognoses (p < 0.001). Priority 1 patients exhibited higher rates of refractory delirium (p = 0.003), skin ulcers (p = 0.041), and dyspnoea (p = 0.020). Conclusions: The results indicate that there are high levels of frailty, clinical complexity, and palliative care complexity in nursing homes. The resources available at each nursing home must be considered to determine when advanced palliative care resources are required.

The aim of this study was to compare the symptomatology, palliative care outcomes, therapeutic procedures, diagnostic tests, and pharmacological treatments for people with dementia (PWD) and without dementia (PW/OD) admitted to Spanish nursing homes. Design: This was a cross-sectional study which is part of a long-term prospective follow-up of elderly people performed in nursing homes to measure end-of-life care processes. Participants: 107 nursing home patients with advanced or terminal chronic diseases were selected according to the criteria of the Palliative Care Spanish Society. Setting: Two trained nurses from each nursing home were responsible for participant selection and data collection. They must have treated the residents and had a minimum seniority of 6 months in the nursing home. Measurements: Sociodemographic data; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale; Palliative Care Outcome Scale; and prevalence of diagnostic tests, pharmacological treatments, and therapeutic procedures were evaluated. Results: Pain, fatigue, and nausea were found to be significantly higher in the nondementia group and insomnia, poor appetite, and drowsiness were significantly higher in the dementia group. Patient anxiety, support, feeling that life was worth living, self-worth, and practical matters management were higher in the nondementia group. Regarding drugs, use of corticoids was higher in the nondementia group, while use of anxiolytics was higher in the dementia group. Diagnostic procedures such as urine analysis and X-ray were higher in the dementia group. Conclusions: Differences in symptom perception, diagnostic tests, and pharmacological procedures were found between patients with and without dementia. Specific diagnostic tools need to be developed for patients with dementia.