A postal survey was conducted among all 72 PSTs in general hospitals in Flanders. PSTs were recently regulated by law in Belgium. Little is known about the views held by PST-professionals on what they consider to be good practice of PC, PM and TC.
Objectives: To provide representative conclusions about the perception on good care for palliative patients of MDs, nurses and psychologists working in PSTs. We compare the three models PC, PM and TC as well as the consensus (or not) within and between groups of professions on these three models.
Method: A postal questionnaire was designed, tested and sent to 216 professionals working in one of the 72 PST’s. Respondents included MDs, nurses and psychologists. The postal questionnaire was designed following a profound study of the literature and in-depth interviews with 30 PC pioneers and experts. The questionnaire was put to a pilot study in 30 other PC experts. We asked whether there were differences between the curative model and PC, PM and TC. A battery of questions on perceptions of good practice were asked for the three models. There are 36 items on treatments, therapeutic choices, prognosis, diagnosis, definition of palliative and terminal patients, decisive factors in starting care, leadership, . . .
Results: 146 professionals (67.6%) provided us with a representative response. PC is considered to be different from curative care by 40% and complementary by 52%. We compared the three models. Most of the respondents perceive them as different from each other although a vast majority consider PC to be the umbrella of PM and TC. What is seen as good practice is different between the three models. The highest proportion of consensus for what is good practice exists in PC. Significant differences between MDs, nurses and psychologists will be discussed.
Conclusions: There is no consensus on good practice in PC, PM and TC. The clearest dimension of care is the physical one.