Search

Background: The requirement to meet the palliative needs of acute hospital populations has grown in recent years. With increasing numbers of frail older people needing hospital care as a result of both malignant and nonmalignant conditions, emphasis is being placed upon understanding the physical, psychological and social burdens experienced by patients. This study explores the extent of burden in two large UK hospitals, focusing upon those patients who meet palliative care criteria. Furthermore, the paper explores the use of palliative services and identifies the most significant clinical diagnostic and demographic factors which determine physical and psychological burden. Methods: Two hospital surveys were undertaken to identify burden using the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care (SPARC). The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) is used to identify those patients meeting palliative care criteria. Participants were identified as being in-patients during a two-week data collection phase for each site. Data was gathered using face-to-face interviews or self-completion by patients or a proxy. Descriptive analyses highlight prevalence and use of palliative care provision. Binary logistic regression assesses clinical diagnostic predictor variables of physical and psychological burden. Results: The sample consisted of 514 patients and elevated physical, psychological and social burden is identified amongst those meeting palliative care criteria (n = 185). Tiredness (34.6%), pain (31.1%), weakness (28.8%) and psychological discomfort (low mood 19.9%; anxiety 16.1%) are noted as being prevalent. A small number of these participants accessed Specialist Palliative Care (8.2%). Dementia was identified as a predictor of physical (OR 3.94; p < .05) and psychological burden (OR 2.88; p < .05), being female was a predictor of psychological burden (OR 2.00; p < .05). Conclusion: The paper highlights elevated levels of burden experienced by patients with palliative care requirements. Moreover, the paper also indicates that a large proportion of such patients are not in receipt of palliative approaches to their care. Furthermore, the paper identifies that those with non-malignant illnesses, especially dementia, may experience high levels of physical and psychological burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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: There is clear evidence that the full range of services required to support people dying at home are far from being implemented, either in England or elsewhere. No studies to date have attempted to identify the proportion of hospital admissions that could have been avoided amongst patients with palliative care needs, given existing and current local services. This study aimed to examine the extent of potentially avoidable admissions amongst hospital patients with palliative care needs. Methods: A cross sectional survey of palliative care needs was undertaken in two acute hospitals in England. Appropriateness of admission was assessed by two Palliative Medicine Consultants using the following data collected from case notes: reasons for admission; diagnosis and co-morbidities; age and living arrangements; time and route of admission; medical and nursing plan on admission; specialist palliative care involvement; and evidence of cognitive impairment. Results: A total of 1359 inpatients were present in the two hospitals at the time of the census. Of the 654 consenting patients/consultees, complete case note data were collected for 580 patients; the analysis in this paper relates to these 580 patients. Amongst 208 patients meeting diagnostic and prognostic criteria for palliative care need in two acute settings in England, only 6.7% were identified as 'potentially avoidable' hospitalisations. These patients had a median age of 84. Half of the patients lived in residential or nursing homes and it was concluded that most could have received care in this setting in place of hospital. Conclusion: Our findings challenge assumptions that, within the existing configuration of palliative and end of life health and social care services, patients with palliative care needs experience a high level of potentially avoidable hospitalisations. [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]