Abstract
Objective: Psychological distress is common in palliative care patients. The 2004 National Institute of Healthcare and Excellence (NICE) guidance for supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer, which remains contemporary, recognised that access to psychological support was inconsistent and often inadequate. Their 4-tier model requires multidisciplinary psychological assessment at key points. Implicit is the need for improved training and support for staff and equity in service provision. This survey was designed to determine the levels of self-reported competence amongst healthcare staff in the psychological assessment and screening of patients in adult hospices in England and their awareness of the NICE guidelines. Methods: A short anonymised online questionnaire was sent to 164 hospices to determine perceptions of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on their own competence in screening and assessment of distress, provision of therapies and levels of training and supervision. Results: Responses were received from 140 HCPs in approximately thirty-eight hospices. Key findings included self-reported needs for training and supervision. Over a quarter of nurses (28.8%) and AHPs (27.8%) had no level 2 training, and only half of nurses, AHPs and physicians were aware of the NICE guidelines. Access to level 3 specialist psychological services was lacking and some HCPs felt unable to screen and assess patients for referral to specialist services. Conclusions: Consistent, standardised training in assessment of psychological needs is required to ensuring delivery of high-quality care for psychological needs. Areas for future development identified include essential communication skills and high-quality supervision for those delivering psychotherapeutic interventions.
Disclaimer statements
Conflict of interest No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.
Ethics declaration Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Leeds School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee (MREC19-027).
Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/09699260.2023.2286418.