Purpose: The proportion of terminally ill cancer patients who were discharged home from a hospice/palliative care unit and subsequently died either at home or in the palliative care unit, whose final place of death was consistent with their intended place of care, remains unclear. This study aimed to clarify the consistency between the preferred and actual place of death. Methods: This study was a supplementary study to a multi-institutional bereavement survey conducted in 2018. Results: Responses were obtained from the bereaved families of 202 patients who died at home and 157 patients who died in a palliative care unit. Among them, 80% of home deaths and 82% of palliative care unit deaths were consistent with the stated end-of-life care preference. Among the 22 cases who preferred to die in a palliative care unit but died at home, the most common reason was the availability of physicians and nurses who could provide end-of-life care at home. Among the 11 cases who preferred to die at home but the patients died in a palliative care unit, the most common reason was insufficient pain management at home. Conclusion: Approximately 80% of patients died by their end-of-life care preference, suggesting that many were able to die in their preferred location.

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.

This case report demonstrates two different uprighting mechanics separately applied to mesially tipped mandibular first and second molars. The biomechanical considerations for application of these mechanisms are also discussed. For repositioning of the first molar, which was severely tipped and deeply impacted, a novel cantilever mechanics was used. The molar tube was bonded in the buccolingual direction to facilitate insertion of a cantilever from the buccal side. By twisting the distal end of the cantilever, sufficient uprighting moment was generated. The mesial end of the cantilever was hooked over the miniscrew placed between the canine and first premolar, which could prevent exertion of an intrusive force to the anterior portion of the dentition as a side effect. For repositioning of the second molar, an uprighting mechanics using a compression force with two step bends incorporated into a nickel-titanium archwire was employed. This generated an uprighting moment as well as a distal force acting on the tipped second molar to regain the lost space for the first molar and bring it into its normal position. This epoch-making uprighting mechanics could also minimize the extrusion of the molar, thereby preventing occlusal interference by increasing interocclusal clearance between the inferiorly placed two step bends and the antagonist tooth. Consequently, the two step bends could help prevent occlusal interference. After 2 years and 11 months of active treatment, a desirable Class I occlusion was successfully achieved without permanent tooth extraction.

The aims of this study are 1. to evaluate the usability of workshop to introduce and manage distress screening effectively and efficiently and to use it for cancer patients and their family and 2. to consider the appropriate subject of workshop. All of the participants answered the questionnaire on the site (n=51). Their knowledge about screening practice, various screening tools and how to use screening tools and data from screening tool were significantly improved after the workshop. The workshop was highly regarded by participants. Thirty-eight of fifty-one patients responded to web questionnaire three months later (Response rate: 75%). More than thirty percent of participants put into practice what they learned in the workshop. The workshop decreased factors to interfere screening practice three months later. Knowledge about how to use screening tools was negatively correlated to number of cancer patients at hospital where participants worked and number of their hospital beds. And factor to interfere screening practice was negatively correlated to how long participants were involved in palliative care team. This study indicated the usability of workshop to spread screening triage program regarding cancer patients’ distress. The workshop may be appropriate for medical staffs who have relatively much experience of palliative care team and who have difficulty in screening practice at designated cancer hospitals where number of cancer patients is relatively large.

Objectives: To explore background factors contributing to learning needs among physicians in palliative care specialty training. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey of physicians in specialty training in palliative care who were within 15 years after medical school graduation. The unmet learning needs (referred to as “needs”) were evaluated on a 5-point scale. Factor analysis was performed to identify underlying subscales of needs. Univariate analysis was performed using an average score of each subscale as a dependent variable and background factors as independent variables. Results: Of 284 physicians, 253 (89%) responded, and 229 were eligible after we had excluded resident physicians with less than 2 years of clinical experience and board-certified palliative care physicians. Factor analysis identified six subscales of the unmet learning needs: research, time, specialist, network, quality, and comprehensiveness. Background factors with significant between-group differences with the effect size of 0.4 or more included: 1) not working at a certified training facility, 2) not working or training at a big hospital, and 3) the number of palliative care physicians being 2 or less in the facility. Conclusion: Improvement of the training system is urgently needed for young physicians who are working at small or non-certified facilities for specialty training, or who have few palliative care colleagues.

Training system of palliative care in Japan has not been fully established, and young physicians’ needs for palliative care training are not nearly satisfied. We have recently conducted a nationwide survey to clarify unmet learning needs among Japanese physicians in specialty training in palliative care and the potential solutions they favored to meet those needs. Here we report findings of content analyses of free comments in the survey. Of 284 physicians, 253 (89%) responded, and 229 were eligible after we had excluded resident physicians with less than 2 years of clinical experience and board-certified palliative care physicians. The content analyses from 80 physicians (35%) identified 162 codes with respect to needs for improvement which were further classified into 24 subcategories and 9 categories (e.g., contents of subspecialty training, certified facilities, research capabilities, learning environment and methods, system of board certification, and networking). These findings may help improve specialty training in palliative care in Japan.

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’.

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.

The aim of this study was to clarify the prevalence and characteristics of breakthrough pain in cancer patients. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of consecutive patients older than 20 years of age admitted to a University Hospital with a cancer diagnosis Breakthrough pain was defined as meeting all of the following criteria： Pain 1）with background pain present most of the time, 2）which is well controlled, 3）with short-lived episodes of exacerbation. One hundred and sixty-nine patients were recruited and 118（69.8％）completed the survey. Of these 118 patients, 11％（95％CI：7–18％）had breakthrough pain. Breakthrough pain occurred in 23％（14–35％）of patients with cancer-related pain and 29％（17–45％）of patients with pain from the cancer itself. Patients reported episodes occurring up to three times a day,a time to peak intensity of within 5 minutes, and a duration of untreated episodes of up to 15 minutes are 54％（29–77％）, 54％（29–77％）, 54％（29–77％）, respectively.

The aim of the present study was to examine the current use of a palliative care manual, brochures for patients, and assessment tools designed for the regional intervention study. A questionnaire survey (706 physicians and 2,236 nurses) and interviews (80 health care professionals) were conducted. The tools health care professionals most frequently used were the manual and brochures for families of imminently dying patients. Health care professionals experienced [shared understanding as a region level despite the clinical experience and specialty] and [increased confidence in palliative care they had practiced without clear evidence]. The manual were positively evaluated because they “cover all necessary information”, “come in an easy-to-carry-around size”, and “provide specific and practical advice”. Health care professionals valued the brochures for families of imminently dying patients, because illustrations were very helpful as oral explanation was difficult. This study suggests that the manual and brochures for families of imminently dying patients could serve to improve region-based palliative care.