Search

Objectives: Patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers can be mutually supportive. However, what facilitates and/or restricts supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in palliative care remains unclear. We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of supportive relationships between people with advanced illness and family caregivers in specialist palliative care., Methods: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients with advanced illness and 21 family caregivers purposively and theoretically sampled from a large regional specialist palliative care service. Verbatim transcripts were analysed in line with grounded theory coding procedures., Results: Mutual support was underpinned by mutual concern and understanding. Facilitators of supportive relationships included patients and family caregivers already having a close relationship, caregivers assuming caregiving duties by choice, caregivers feeling competent in a caregiving role, patients valuing caregiver efforts, availability of respite for the caregiver and direct support from healthcare professionals to help both patients and caregivers adjust to advanced illness. Barriers to supportive relationships included absence of support from the wider family, prior mutual conflict between the patient and caregiver, caregivers feeling constrained in their caregiving role and patient and caregiver distress induced by mutual loss., Conclusions: Multiple factors at both a micro (eg, relationship based) and mesolevel (eg, assistance from services) impact patient and family caregiver ability to support one another in specialist palliative care. Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers are mediated by feelings pertaining to both control and loss., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: ' Early' specialist palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with advanced cancer, yet patients are often referred late. 'Enhanced supportive care' (ESC) aims to facilitate earlier integrated supportive care for those with incurable cancer. This study aimed to explore clinicians' understanding of ESC/SPC delivery through description of current service provision., Methods: This national cross-sectional survey of 53 cancer centres had two parts. Part 1: Service details, was directed to lead ESC/SPC nurses or consultants about service configuration, and Part 2: Clinician understanding, targeting conceptual understanding of service aims including ESC/SPC teams and oncology consultants (n=262 surveys). Multiple-choice questions explored service provision, referral triggers and evidence of integration with oncology, with free-text responses. Quantitative results were analysed with Fischer's exact test. Qualitative free text was line-by-line coded by two authors independently to derive themes., Results: 56% (30/53) of SPC and ESC teams and 14% (14/100) of oncologists responded. Those involved in ESC self-reported greater integration with oncology compared with non-ESC teams, for example, joint case discussions (64.3%, 9/14 vs 23.1%, 3/13, p=0.05), and timelier patient referral ((>6 months before death vs <6 months) (10/14 vs 4/13, p=0.06)). Qualitative themes described ambiguity in definitions of supportive and palliative terms and a perception of timelier identification of patients when ESC was involved., Conclusion: Providers of ESC perceive greater integration with oncology and potentially timelier referral for patients compared with teams not delivering ESC. Terminology around SPC and ESC remains uncertain across England., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Decision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and function between patients and family caregivers in palliative care is not well understood., Objectives: To identify key factors and/or processes which underpin concordance and/or discordance between patients and family caregivers with respect to their preferences for and decisions about palliative care; and ascertain how patients and family caregivers manage discordance in decision-making in palliative care., Methods: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of original studies published in full between January 2000 and June 2021 was conducted using the following databases: Embase; Medline; CINAHL; AMED; Web of Science; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES; and Social Sciences Full Text., Results: After full-text review, 39 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies focused primarily on end-of-life care and on patient and family caregiver preferences for patient care. We found that discordance between patients and family caregivers in palliative care can manifest in relational conflict and can result from a lack of awareness of and communication about each other's preferences for care. Patients' advancing illness and impending death together with open dialogue about future care including advance care planning can foster consensus between patients and family caregivers., Conclusions: Patients and family caregivers in palliative care can accommodate each other's preferences for care. Further research is needed to fully understand how patients and family caregivers move towards consensus in the context of advancing illness., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Evidence-based communication skills training for health and social care professionals is essential to improve the care of seriously ill patients and their families. We aimed to evaluate the self-reported impact of 'Difficult Conversations', a multidisciplinary half-day interactive workshop, and gain feedback to inform future development and evaluation., Methods: Service evaluation using questionnaire data collected before and immediately after workshops from February 2015 to August 2016 regarding participant self-assessed confidence, knowledge and skills. Qualitative free-text comments provided feedback about the workshop and were subjected to content analysis., Results: Of 886 workshop participants, 655 completed baseline questionnaires and 714 postworkshop questionnaires; 550 were matched pairs. Participants were qualified or trainee general practitioners (34%), community nurses and care coordinators (32%), social care professionals (7%), care home staff (6%), advanced practice/specialist nurses (5%), care workers (5%) and allied health professionals (3%). All groups demonstrated significant increases in mean self-assessed confidence (2.46, 95% CI 2.41 to 2.51; to 3.20, 95% CI 3.17 to 3.24; P<0.001), knowledge (2.22, 95% CI 2.17 to 2.27; to 3.18, 95% CI 3.14 to 3.22; P<0.001) and skills (2.37, 95% CI 2.32 to 2.42; to 3.09, 95% CI 3.05 to 3.12; P<0.001). Qualitative findings showed participants valued role play, the communication framework acronym and opportunities for discussion. They commended workshop facilitators' skills, the safe atmosphere and interprofessional learning. Suggested improvements included more prepared role play and greater coverage of the taught topics., Conclusions: 'Difficult Conversations' workshops were associated with improvements in participants' self-assessed confidence, knowledge, and skills. Our findings identify workshop characteristics that are acceptable to multidisciplinary trainees. Further testing is warranted to determine effectiveness and accurately identify workshop components leading to change., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LJB, LES, NG, KB and JK declare no competing interests. JN and CM-S developed the ‘Difficult Conversations’ workshop and have a small proportion of their time paid by the Social Enterprise Difficult Conversations., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)