4.1 Review

Early Palliative Care: Pro, but Please Be Precise!

Journal

ONCOLOGY RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
Volume 42, Issue 1-2, Pages 11-18

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000496184

Keywords

Comprehensive cancer care; Early integration; Early palliative care; Palliative care; Palliative medicine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: By definition, palliative care (PC) is applicable already in early stages of incurable and life-threatening diseases, in conjunction with therapies that are intended to prolong life, such as for example chemo-or radiotherapy. Many patients suffer from distressing symptoms or problems in early phases of such illness. Therefore, it is not a question of if PC should be integrated early into oncology, but how. General PC is defined as an approach that should be delivered by healthcare professionals regardless of their discipline. This is often referred to as general or primary PC. For this, routine symptom assessment, expertise concerning basic symptom management, and communication skills are basic requirements. Communication skills include the willingness to engage in discussions concerning patients' fears, worries and end-of-life issues without the fear of destroying hope. Specialist PC is provided by specialist teams regardless of the patients' disease, be it cancer or non-cancer. Such teams should be integrated in the care of PC patients depending on the availability of these services and the patients' needs. Key messages: Early PC must not be used synonymously with early specialist PC because much of the PC is delivered as basic oncology PC. For the integration of specialist PC, the identification of triggers is warranted in different institutions to facilitate a meaningful and effective cooperation. Such cooperations should be based on patients' needs, but must also account for questions of availability and resources. (C) 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available