Search

BackgroundFrailty is associated with advancing age and increases the risk of adverse outcomes and death. Routine assessment of frailty is becoming more common in a number of healthcare settings, but not in palliative care, where performance scales (eg, the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status Scale (AKPS)) are more commonly employed. A shared understanding of performance and frailty measures could aid interspecialty collaboration in both end-of-life care research and clinical practice.AimsTo identify and synthesise evidence comparing measures of performance routinely collected in palliative care with the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and create a conversion chart to support interspecialty communication.MethodsA scoping literature review with comprehensive searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid SP, the Cochrane Library and reference lists. Eligible articles compared the CFS with the AKPS, Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Karnofsky Performance Scale or Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status or compared these performance scales, in patients aged >18 in any setting.ResultsSearches retrieved 3124 articles. Two articles directly compared CFS to the PPS. Thirteen studies translated between different performance scores, facilitating subsequent conversion to CFS, specifically: AKPS/PPS 10/20=very severe frailty, AKPS/PPS 30=severe frailty, AKPS/PPS 40/50=moderate frailty, AKPS/PPS60=mild frailty.ConclusionWe present a tool for converting between the CFS and performance measures commonly used in palliative care. A small number of studies provided evidence for the direct translation between CFS and the PPS. Therefore, more primary evidence is needed from a wider range of population settings, and performance measures to support this conversion.

ObjectivesFrailty is common and highly associated with morbidity and mortality, a fact that has been highlighted by COVID-19. Understanding how to provide palliative care for frail individuals is an international priority, despite receiving limited mention in Palliative Medicine curricula or examinations worldwide. This study aimed to synthesise evidence and establish expert consensus on what should be included in a Palliative-Medicine Specialist Training Curriculum for frailty.MethodsLiterature Meta-synthesis conducted by palliative medicine, frailty and education experts produced a draft curriculum with Bologna based Learning-Outcomes. A Delphi study asked experts to rate the importance of Learning-Outcomes for specialist-training completion and propose additional Learning-Outcomes. This process was repeated until 70% consensus was achieved for over 90% of Learning-Outcomes. Experts divided Learning-Outcomes into specific (for inclusion in a frailty subsection) or generic (applicable to other palliative conditions). The Delphi panel was Subject Matter Experts: Palliative-Medicine Consultants (n=14) and Trainees (n=10), representing hospital, community, hospice and care home services and including committee members of key national training organisations. A final reviewing panel of Geriatric Medicine Specialists including experts in research methodology, national training requirements and frailty were selected.ResultsThe meta-synthesis produced 114 Learning-Outcomes. The Delphi Study and Review by Geriatric Medicine experts resulted in 46 essential and 33 desirable Learning-Outcomes.ConclusionsThis frailty curriculum is applicable internationally and highlights the complex and unique palliative needs of frail patients. Future research is required to inform implementation, educational delivery and service provision.

BackgroundEffective training at medical school is essential to prepare new doctors to safely manage patients with palliative care (PC) and end of life care (EOLC) needs. The contribution of undergraduate PC course organisers is central but their collective views regarding role are unknown.ObjectiveTo survey attitudes of PC course organisers regarding their course, organisation, the adequacy of training provided and level of personal satisfaction.MethodsAn anonymised, multifactorial, web-based questionnaire was devised, tested, modified and then sent to lead PC course organisers at all UK medical schools.ResultsData were obtained from all 30 UK medical schools. Organisers agreed/strongly agreed (=agreed) that their PC course was highly rated by students (26, 87%). 25 (83%) agreed their course ‘enabled misconceptions and fears about PC, death, dying and bereavement to be addressed’, ‘delivered quality PC training’ (23, 77%), ‘fulfilled General Medical Council requirements’ (19, 63%), ‘prepared students well to care for patients with PC/EOLC needs’ (18, 60%) and ‘enabled students to visit a hospice and see the role of doctors in caring for the dying’ (17, 57%). Concerns were limited capacity to accommodate students (agreed 20, 66%) and variability in teaching according to location (15, 50%). Most agreed their institution recognised PC training as important (22, 73%), they felt supported by colleagues (21, 70%) and experienced cooperation between stakeholders (20, 67%). All agreed that PC training was essential for undergraduates, while 29 (97%) supported inclusion of a hospice visit in the curriculum. 27 agreed that their role was satisfying (90%), 3 disagreed (10%).ConclusionsApproximately two-thirds of organisers were generally positive about their PC course, institution and role. A minority expressed concerns; these may reflect suboptimal PC training at their medical school and poor preparation of new doctors.