An Interdisciplinary Working Group to Advocate Universal Palliative Care and Pain Relief Access

The Relevance of State Laws Regulating Opioid Prescribing for People Living With Serious Illness

CONTEXT

Opioids are commonly used to relieve symptoms such as pain and dyspnea in people living with serious illness. In recent years, 36 states enacted limitations for opioid prescriptions to mitigate the impact of the opioid overdose crisis. Palliative care clinicians have been vocal about the unintended consequences of opioid policies, yet little is known about how state policies apply to opioid prescribing in non-cancer-related serious illness.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize current state-level limitations to opioid prescribing and exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

METHODS

Investigators searched publicly available laws ("[state] + opioid legislation") to extract information on opioid prescribing and exemptions. Laws were examined for application to palliative care, hospice, non-cancer-related serious illness, and language about specific symptoms was documented when applicable (e.g., pain, dyspnea).

RESULTS

Most state laws focused on acute pain and/or initial opioid prescriptions. Thirty-three of the thirty-six states with opioid-limiting legislation exempt situations applicable to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness. Three states did not have any exemptions relevant to people living with non-cancer-related serious illness.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that while most states recognize the importance of timely opioid access for palliation of pain, clinically relevant exemptions for people living with non-cancer-related serious illness may be lacking. When present, language describing palliative care, hospice, and terminal illness exemptions is often broad and may generate confusion between primary and specialty palliative care.

International consensus-based policy recommendations to advance universal palliative care access from the American Academy of Nursing Expert Panels

The purpose of this consensus paper was to convene leaders and scholars from eight Expert Panels of the American Academy of Nursing and provide recommendations to advance nursing's roles and responsibility to ensure universal access to palliative care. On behalf of the Academy, these evidence-based recommendations will guide nurses, policy makers, government representatives, professional associations, and interdisciplinary and community partners to integrate palliative nursing services across health and social care settings. Through improved palliative nursing education, nurse-led research, nurse engagement in policy making, enhanced intersectoral partnerships with nursing, and an increased profile and visibility of palliative care nurses worldwide, nurses can assume leading roles in delivering high-quality palliative care globally, particularly for minoritized, marginalized, and other at-risk populations. Part II herein provides a summary of international responses and policy options that have sought to enhance universal palliative care and palliative nursing access to date. Additionally, we provide ten policy, education, research, and clinical practice recommendations based on the rationale and background information found in Part I. The consensus paper's 43 authors represent eight countries (Australia, Canada, England, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia, South Africa, United States of America) and extensive international health experience, thus providing a global context for the subject matter.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Palliative Care Workers: An International Cross-sectional Study

Objectives:

The COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken to mitigate spread have affected countries in different ways. Healthcare workers, in particular, have been impacted by the pandemic and by these measures. This study aims to explore how COVID-19 has impacted on palliative care (PC) workers around the world.

Materials and Methods:

Online survey to members of the International Association for Hospice and PC during the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Convenience sampling was used. Statistical descriptive and contingency analyses and Chi-square tests with P < 0.05 were conducted.

Results:

Seventy-nine participants (RR = 16%) from 41 countries responded. Over 93% of those who provide direct patient care reported feeling very or somewhat competent in PC provision for patients with COVID-19. Eighty-four felt unsafe or somewhat safe when caring for patients with COVID-19. Level of safety was associated with competence (P ≤ 0.000). Over 80% reported being highly or somewhat affected in their ability to continue working in their PC job, providing care to non-COVID patients and in staff availability in their workplace. About 37% reported that availability and access to essential medicines for PC were highly or somewhat affected, more so in low-income countries (P = 0.003).

Conclusion:

The results from this study highlight the impact of COVID-19 on the provision of PC. It is incumbent on government officials, academia, providers and affected populations, to develop and implement strategies to integrate PC in pandemic response, and preparedness for any similar future events, by providing appropriate and comprehensive education, uninterrupted access to essential medicines and personal protective equipment and ensure access to treatment and care, working together with all levels of society that is invested in care of individuals and populations at large. The long-term effects of the pandemic are still unknown and future research is needed to monitor and report on the appropriateness of measures.