Periodic evaluation of end-of- life (EOL) palliative care is important to maintain and improve quality of EOL palliative care. We conducted a cross-sectional, anonymous, self-report questionnaire survey for bereaved family members of cancer patients in 2010. This was the second time nationwide survey. This study aimed to evaluate EOL cancer care from the perspective of bereaved family members in nationwide general hospitals, inpatient palliative care units (PCUs), and home hospices in Japan and to explore whether there is any change of quality of palliative care over the last nationwide survey conducted in 2007. Among member facilities of Hospice Palliative Care Japan, 25 general hospitals, 103 PCUs, 14 clinics participated in this study and 7797 bereaved family members answered the questionnaire. Overall, bereaved family members were satisfied with EOL care in all places of death, as in the last survey. Although results indicated that coordination of care and physical care of nurse were warranted to improve in general hospitals, drawback of PCUs were availability and the potential deficits of clinics were the environment. Through the years, there is no clinically significant change from the last survey. We should continue to make efforts to evaluate and monitor palliative care in Japan for quality control.

Aims: The aim of this study was to clarify practical use of feedback report in each institution participated the nationwide bereavement survey (J-HOPE3). Methods: After a nationwide bereavement survey (J-HOPE3) conducted in 2014, we sent a feedback report to each participated institution (20 general wards, 133 inpatient palliative care units, and 22 home hospice services). The feedback report included the results from quality of care, bereaved family’s mental status, and free comments from the participant of their own institution. We sent a questionnaire 4 month following to the feedback report for all institutions regarding the practical use of results from the feedback report. Results: The analysis included 129 (response rate 74%) returned questionnaires. The institutions that they passed around the report was 90%, discussed about their results at a staff meeting was 54%, and reported the results to manager/chief of the institution was 65%. Around 80% of the institutions responded positively to receive the feedback report of their own institution such as “It was good that they could understand the strengths and weakness of their own institutions” which reported that they worked on to improve care were 48%. Conclusions: Current study had shown data about practical use of the feedback report of bereavement study. It is important to feedback the results and encourage the institution to make use of the results in their daily practice, especially to discuss the results in staff meetings.

Previous study reported that patients of institutions with religious background are more likely to achieve ‘good death’ than patients in non-religious institutions, although the reasons are unclear. This study aims to examine the reasons for this difference using a national survey of religious and non-religious institutions. We sent a self-administered questionnaire to 10,715 bereaved family caregiver and 133 hospice and palliative care units which cared for their family members prior to death. The questionnaire for bereaved families included the Good Death Inventory (GDI). The questionnaire for institutions included their religious affiliation and their subjective and objective provided care. In total, 7,286 bereaved families (68%) and 127 (95%) institutions including 23 religious end-of-life care institutions responded. We performed t-test and χ-square test to compare the GDI scores and provided care for religious and non-religious end-of-life care institutions. The GDI total score was significantly higher (p=0.01) in religious institutions compared to non-religious institutions. Items such as “providing many activities for seasonal events to the patients”, “providing more bereavement care”, “having facilities to practice their religion”, and “having regular visits from religious leaders”, were all reported more frequently in the religious institutions, and significantly associated with achievement of ‘good death’ (p<0.05 for all items). This study suggests that factors for achieving ‘good death’ are not only limited to providing religious care but also providing other forms of care, services, and activities that can enhance the patients’ ‘good death’.

Palliative care outreach in communities without specialists is important, but its effectiveness has not yet been clarified in Japan. The current study aimed to identify interventional targets of palliative care outreach in home care in a community without specialists. We conducted a questionnaire survey (five-point scale) of home care nurses’ attitudes, difficulties, and practices for palliative care among 39 nurses working at five visiting nurse stations in Tome city. Difficulties in “symptom palliation” and “communication with medical practitioners” were high. Nurses tended to have low confidence and high motivation. Items with particularly low confidence were “communication with home care physicians” and “staff support”. Practices in “communication with physicians” and “coordination with care person” were low. Our survey identified enhancement of face to face relationships and support for home care nurses to improve their skills and confidence as interventional targets for palliative care outreach.

Objective: The aims of this study were to (i) clarify whether there are differences between bereaved families and medical staffs in their preferences for life-prolonging treatments, and (ii) investigate the factors associated with preferences for life-prolonging treatments. Methods: Cross-sectional internet survey was conducted in October 2019. Participants are bereaved families(n=618), physicians(n=206), nurses(n=206), and care workers(n=206) who registered with the internet survey company. We asked the subjects about the relative importance of 36 components of a good death in dementia and their preferences for 7 treatment items that they might need at the end of life. Results: Statistically significant differences in end-of-life medical preference between bereaved families and medical professionals included “Nutrition from gastrostomy when oral intake is difficult” (p<0.01), “Surgery for life-threatening disease” (p<0.01). As a result of logistic regression analysis, a surrogate decision-maker among bereaved family members tended to wish intravenous infusion (OR: 1.62, p=0.02) and continuation of oral medicine (OR: 1.74, p<0.01). The medical professionals who regarded good relationships with people as a requirement of good end-of-life care tended to wish surgery (OR: 2.15, p<0.01) and life-prolonging treatment (OR: 2.00, p=0.01). Conclusions: This result suggest that since the medical preferences between medical staff and the family members don’t necessarily correspond, medical professionals need to take it into consideration when they discuss the treatment options.

Purpose: To examine the feasibility of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS), a comprehensive palliative care scale, for non-cancer patients. Methods: Twenty non-cancer patients and 20 healthcare providers who provide care to the participating patients were asked to complete the IPOS questionnaire, and cognitive interviews were conducted with them. The interviews were analysed using content analysis, a qualitative analysis method. Results: About half to 90% of both patients and healthcare providers answered that they did not find it difficult to answer or understand all items of the IPOS. Therefore, we confirmed its surface validity, and the content validity of the IPOS was confirmed. Conclusion: The surface validity and content validity of the IPOS for non-cancer patients were confirmed, and it became clear that the IPOS can be used as a comprehensive assessment tool for the palliative care of non-cancer patients.

The aims of this study were (1) to develop and validate the scale to measure evidence-based nursing practice in cancer pain management and (2) to identify associated factors. We developed potential items based on the 2014 version of Japanese Clinical Guidelines for Cancer Pain Management and administered anonymous questionnaire for 189 oncology nurses in a designated cancer center. We conducted a re-test to test reliability.167 nurses participated in the study. As a result of item analysis and exploratory factor analysis, we developed a nursing practice scale of cancer pain management and its shortened version. This scale consists of 1 domain 50 items The Cronbach’s α coefficient showing internal consistency was 0.98 (shortened version 0.88). The intra-class correlation coefficient of reliability was 0.52 (shortened version 0.77). Concurrent validity was confirmed by the correlation between the total score of the whole scale and the total score of the practice of palliative care, knowledge, difficulty, self-confidence scale. We concluded that this scale was valid and reliable. Factors related to the nursing practice of cancer pain management were years of experience in cancer nursing, opportunities of postgraduate education, and satisfaction with postgraduate education. This scale can be used for evaluation of daily clinical practice and practice evaluation after educational efforts such as cancer pain nursing training.

The purposes of this study were to compare the response distribution of the result of using “nurse’s difficulty scale with cancer care” to nurses engaged in cancer nursing with 2010 survey at Tohoku University Hospital. Self-reported questionnaires were distributed to 512 nurses in 2010 and to 524 nurses in 2016. Responses from 356 (70%) nurses in 2010 and from 332 (63%) nurses in 2016 were analyzed. As a result of comparing the surveys of 2010 and 2016, the rate of correct answer in each items of the knowledge scale rose significantly (all p<0.05). From the items regarding their own knowledge and skills, difficulty in collaboration with the community, and end-of-life care decreased (both p<0.05). Despite the increase in the correct answer rate of the knowledge scale, the difficulty has become high. This may reflect the complexity in cancer care due to development of treatment.

A secondary analysis of data from national bereavement surveys conducted in 2014, 2016, and 2018 was conducted with the aim of identifying the contribution of various patient and bereavement backgrounds to the outcomes of the Bereavement Survey. The data were evaluated in terms of structure and process of care (CES), achievement of a desirable death (GDI), complexity grief (BGQ), and depression (PHQ-9). The large data set and comprehensive analysis of bereavement survey outcomes clarified the need for adjustment of confounding variables and which variables should be adjusted for in future analyses. Overall, the contribution of the background factors examined in this study to the CES (Adj-R2=0.014) and overall satisfaction (Adj-R2=0.055) was low. The contribution of the GDI (Adj-R2=0.105) was relatively high, and that of the PHQ-9 (Max-rescaled R2=0.200) and BGQ (Max-rescaled R2=0.207) was non-negligible.