The PRISMA symposium 3: Lessons from beyond Europe. Why invest in research and service development in palliative care? An Australian perspective

Currow, DC

The PRISMA symposium 3: Lessons from beyond Europe. Why invest in research and service development in palliative care? An Australian perspective

Currow, DC

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2011, 42 (4), pp. 505 - 510
Issue Date:: 2011-10-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	penh.pdf	Published Version	57.89 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Currow, DC https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1988-1250	en_US
dc.date.available	2011-06-23	en_US
dc.date.issued	2011-10-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2011, 42 (4), pp. 505 - 510	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0885-3924	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118230
dc.description.abstract	Hospice and palliative care services need to be able to compete with finite health care resources. To compete for such funding, the sector needs to continuously improve the evidence base that demonstrates improved outcomes, or else funding will continue to be at the level of a "social good" rather than as services that deliver improved health outcomes. Three questions need to be answered for policy makers and health funders: 1) Why invest health care spending in hospice and palliative care?, 2) Why invest research monies in hospice and palliative care clinical research and health service development?, and 3) How can emerging evidence be more effectively implemented to improve patient outcomes? No single measure captures the net benefit of hospice and palliative care services. By patient-defined parameters, hospice and palliative care services have demonstrated benefits, including physical symptom control. To meet patients' concerns, greater emphasis needs to be placed on maintaining physical independence for a longer period of time. Targeted investment of research funding can deliver further improvements in patient outcomes and models of service delivery. Rigorous studies are feasible and necessary if each patient is going to receive the best possible support. Benchmarking and service development strategies can deliver improved patient outcomes. With routine point-of-care data collection and feedback loops to individual services, patient-valued outcomes and resourcing can be improved in hospice and palliative care. Public-good investments in hospice and palliative care research are vital to building the evidence base for improving the quality of care offered. © 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee Published by Elsevier Inc. All Rights reserved.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Pain and Symptom Management	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.06.007	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Anesthesiology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Palliative Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Hospice Care	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Biomedical Research	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Hospices	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Health Services Accessibility	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Australia	en_US
dc.title	The PRISMA symposium 3: Lessons from beyond Europe. Why invest in research and service development in palliative care? An Australian perspective	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	42	en_US
utslib.for	1110 Nursing	en_US
utslib.for	11 Medical and Health Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health/IMPACCT
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	42	en_US

Abstract:

Hospice and palliative care services need to be able to compete with finite health care resources. To compete for such funding, the sector needs to continuously improve the evidence base that demonstrates improved outcomes, or else funding will continue to be at the level of a "social good" rather than as services that deliver improved health outcomes. Three questions need to be answered for policy makers and health funders: 1) Why invest health care spending in hospice and palliative care?, 2) Why invest research monies in hospice and palliative care clinical research and health service development?, and 3) How can emerging evidence be more effectively implemented to improve patient outcomes? No single measure captures the net benefit of hospice and palliative care services. By patient-defined parameters, hospice and palliative care services have demonstrated benefits, including physical symptom control. To meet patients' concerns, greater emphasis needs to be placed on maintaining physical independence for a longer period of time. Targeted investment of research funding can deliver further improvements in patient outcomes and models of service delivery. Rigorous studies are feasible and necessary if each patient is going to receive the best possible support. Benchmarking and service development strategies can deliver improved patient outcomes. With routine point-of-care data collection and feedback loops to individual services, patient-valued outcomes and resourcing can be improved in hospice and palliative care. Public-good investments in hospice and palliative care research are vital to building the evidence base for improving the quality of care offered. © 2011 U.S. Cancer Pain Relief Committee Published by Elsevier Inc. All Rights reserved.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118230