Search

Infants, children and young people with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions often experience acute, transient pain episodes known as breakthrough pain. There is currently no established way to assess breakthrough pain in paediatric palliative care. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it is frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated, resulting in reduced quality of life. The development of a standardised paediatric breakthrough pain assessment, based on healthcare professionals' insights, could improve patient outcomes. This study aimed to explore how healthcare professionals define and assess breakthrough pain in paediatric palliative care and their attitudes towards a validated paediatric breakthrough pain assessment. This was a descriptive qualitative interview study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 healthcare professionals working in paediatric palliative care across the UK. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted on the data. Five themes were generated: 'the elusive nature of breakthrough pain', 'breakthrough pain assessment', 'positive attitudes towards', 'reservations towards' and 'features to include in' a paediatric breakthrough pain assessment. The definition and assessment of breakthrough pain is inconsistent in paediatric palliative care. There is a clear need for a validated assessment questionnaire to improve assessment, diagnosis and management of breakthrough pain followed by increased healthcare professional education on the concept. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Day care services support older people living with long-term conditions (LTC's). Aims: The aims of the study were to determine outcomes in terms of loneliness and health-related quality of life for older people with LTCs attending day care services in the United Kingdom. Methods: Newly referred older people with LTCs to day care services in North West of England and Wales were invited to participate. The EQ-5D-3L and De Jong Loneliness questionnaires were completed at recruitment, 6 and 12 weeks. Results: Ninty-four older people (64% female), age range 65–99 years; mean number of LTCs 4.3 (range: 2–9) were recruited. About 52% lived alone and 36% lived in one of the 20% most deprived local authorities in England and Wales. Outcomes over 12 weeks were comparable for paid, blended, and for volunteer-led services. Conclusion: Following the Covid-19 pandemic, it is increasingly urgent to support older people with LTCs who may have lost physical and cognitive function during lockdown and to support their recovery. Our study suggests that volunteers can provide services and complement the care provided by paid staff, freeing up resources and enabling increasing numbers of older people to be supported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary care physicians (General Practitioners (GPs)) play a pivotal role in providing end of life care (EoLC). However, many lack confidence in this area, and the quality of EoLC by GPs can be problematic. Evidence regarding educational needs, learning preferences and the acceptability of evaluation methods is needed to inform the development and testing of EoLC education. This study therefore aimed to explore GPs' EoLC educational needs and preferences for learning and evaluation. Methods: A qualitative focus group study was conducted with qualified GPs and GP trainees in the UK. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically. Expert review of the coding frame and dual coding of transcripts maximised rigour. Results: Twenty-eight GPs (10 fully qualified, 18 trainees) participated in five focus groups. Four major themes emerged: (1) why education is needed, (2) perceived educational needs, (3) learning preferences, and (4) evaluation preferences. EoLC was perceived as emotionally and clinically challenging. Educational needs included: identifying patients for palliative care; responsibilities and teamwork; out-of-hours care; having difficult conversations; symptom management; non-malignant conditions; and paediatric palliative care. Participants preferred learning through experience, working alongside specialist palliative care staff, and discussion of real cases, to didactic methods and e-learning. 360° appraisals and behavioural assessment using videoing or simulated interactions were considered problematic. Self-assessment questionnaires and patient and family outcome measures were acceptable, if used and interpreted correctly. Conclusions: GPs require education and support in EoLC, particularly the management of complex clinical care and counselling. GPs value mentoring, peer-support, and experiential learning alongside EoLC specialists over formal training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]