Search

Background: The number and proportion of home deaths in the UK increased during the Covid-19 pandemic. It is not known whether these changes were experienced disproportionately by people from different socioeconomic groups., Aim: To examine the association between home death and socioeconomic position during the Covid-19 pandemic, and how this changed between 2019 and 2020., Design: Retrospective cohort study using population-based individual-level mortality data., Setting/participants: All registered deaths in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The proportion of home deaths between 28th March and 31st December 2020 was compared with the same period in 2019. We used Poisson regression models to evaluate the association between decedent's area-based level of deprivation and risk of home death, as well as the interaction between deprivation and year of death, for each nation separately., Results: Between the 28th March and 31st December 2020, 409,718 deaths were recorded in England, 46,372 in Scotland, 26,410 in Wales and 13,404 in Northern Ireland. All four nations showed an increase in the adjusted proportion of home deaths between 2019 and 2020, ranging from 21 to 28%. This increase was lowest for people living in the most deprived areas in all nations, with evidence of a deprivation gradient in England., Conclusions: The Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated a previously described socioeconomic inequality in place of death in the UK. Further research to understand the reasons for this change and if this inequality has been sustained is needed.

Background: Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach., Methods: We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined., Results: In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died., Conclusions: IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Little consideration has been given to how the provision of palliative and end-of-life care in care homes was affected by COVID-19. The aims of this study were to: (i) investigate the response of UK care homes in meeting the rapidly increasing need for palliative and end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic and (ii) propose policy recommendations for strengthening the provision of palliative and end-of-life care within care homes., Materials and Methods: A mixed methods observational study was conducted, which incorporated (i) an online cross-sectional survey of UK care homes and (ii) qualitative interviews with care home practitioners. Participants for the survey were recruited between April and September 2021. Survey participants indicating availability to participate in an interview were recruited using a purposive sampling approach between June and October 2021. Data were integrated through analytic triangulation in which we sought areas of convergence, divergence, and complementarity., Results: There were 107 responses to the survey and 27 interviews. We found that (i) relationship-centered care is crucial to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care within care homes, but this was disrupted during the pandemic. (ii) Care homes' ability to maintain high-quality relationship-centered care required key "pillars" being in place: integration with external healthcare systems, digital inclusion, and a supported workforce. Inequities within the care home sector meant that in some services these pillars were compromised, and relationship-centered care suffered. (iii) The provision of relationship-centered care was undermined by care home staff feeling that their efforts and expertise in delivering palliative and end-of-life care often went unrecognized/undervalued., Conclusion: Relationship-centered care is a key component of high-quality palliative and end-of-life care in care homes, but this was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identify key policy priorities to equip care homes with the resources, capacity, and expertise needed to deliver palliative and end-of-life care: (i) integration within health and social care systems, (ii) digital inclusivity, (iii) workforce development, (iv) support for care home managers, and (v) addressing (dis)parities of esteem. These policy recommendations inform, extend, and align with policies and initiatives within the UK and internationally., Competing Interests: KS is funded by a National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CS-2015-15-005) and is the Laing Galazka Chair in Palliative Care at King's College London, funded by an endowment from Cicely Saunders International and the Kirby Laing Foundation. CE is funded by a Health Education England/NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship (ICA-SCL-2015-01-001). CG is an NIHR Senior Investigator. SB is part-funded by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration East of England (ARC EoE). IH is an NIHR Emeritus Senior Investigator, is supported by the NIHR ARC South London (SL) at King's College Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, and leads the Palliative and End-of-Life Care theme of the NIHR ARC South London and co-leads the national theme in this with SB. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Bradshaw, Ostler, Goodman, Batkovskyte, Ellis-Smith, Tunnard, Bone, Barclay, Vernon, Higginson, Evans and Sleeman.)

Objectives: To describe multinational prescribing practices by palliative care services for symptom management in patients dying with COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of medicines., Methods: We surveyed specialist palliative care services, contacted via relevant organisations between April and July 2020. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages. Content analysis explored free text responses about symptom management in COVID-19. Medicines were classified using British National Formulary categories. Perceptions on effectiveness of medicines were grouped into five categories; effective, some, limited or unclear effectiveness, no effect., Results: 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world, 1 missing country. 358 services had managed patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 289 services had protocols for symptom management in COVID-19. Services tended to prescribe medicines for symptom control comparable to medicines used in people without COVID-19; mainly opioids and benzodiazepines for breathlessness, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation, opioids and cough linctus for cough, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fever, and opioids and paracetamol for pain. Medicines were considered to be mostly effective but varied by patient's condition, route of administration and dose., Conclusions: Services were largely consistent in prescribing for symptom management in people dying with COVID-19. Medicines used prior to COVID-19 were mostly considered effective in controlling common symptoms., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Volunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are unknown. The aim of this study is to understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Multi-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach., Results: 458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19 across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient facing support (58.7%), indirect support (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (odds ratio [OR]=0.15, 95% CI=0.07-0.3, P <.001). This reduction in volunteers was felt to protect potentially vulnerable volunteers, with policy changes preventing volunteer support. However, adapting was also seen where new roles were created, or existing roles pivoted to provide virtual support., Conclusion: Volunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19., (© 2022 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

Background: Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data., Results: 143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services., Conclusion: Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Context: Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant., Objectives: To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival., Methods: Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version., Results: We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival., Conclusion: Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design: Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis., Setting: Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting., Participants: Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience., Main Outcome Measures: Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants' ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a 'crescendo effect' in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided 'moral comfort' for some., Conclusions: This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.

Objectives: To identify factors associated with palliative care services being busier during Covid-19. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services (April to July 2020) (CovPall). Ethical approval was received from King's College London Research Ethics committee (LRS-19/20-18541). The primary outcome was change in busyness (five-point ordinal scale). Ordinal logistic regression investigated factors associated with the primary outcome. Results: Of 277 responses, 71 (26%) reported being a lot more busy, 62 (22%) slightly more, 53 (19%) about the same, 50 (18%) slightly less, and 28 (10%) much less busy. Increased business was associated with homecare services (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-3.25), nursing care at home (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.70-6.19), publicly managed services (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.11-4.34), Covid-19 cases (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01), and staff shortages (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64-4.48). Conclusion: Services providing community care, and publicly managed services, may have been better able to respond to escalating needs during Covid-19. This has potential implications for both service delivery and funding models.

Background: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients' symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic., Aim: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision., Design: Cross-sectional national online survey., Setting/participants: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020., Findings: 61 completed responses (England, n  = 55; Scotland, n  = 4; Wales, n  = 1; and Northern Ireland, n  = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation., Conclusion: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

Background: Understanding patterns of mortality and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to help provide appropriate services and resources., Aims: To analyse patterns of mortality including place of death in the United Kingdom (UK) (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) during the COVID-19 pandemic to date., Design: Descriptive analysis of UK mortality data between March 2020 and March 2021. Weekly number of deaths was described by place of death, using the following definitions: (1) expected deaths: average expected deaths estimated using historical data (2015-19); (2) COVID-19 deaths: where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate; (3) additional non-COVID-19 deaths: above expected but not attributed to COVID-19; (4) baseline deaths: up to and including expected deaths but excluding COVID-19 deaths., Results: During the analysis period, 798,643 deaths were registered in the UK, of which 147,282 were COVID-19 deaths and 17,672 were additional non-COVID-19 deaths. While numbers of people who died in care homes and hospitals increased above expected only during the pandemic waves, the numbers of people who died at home remained above expected both during and between the pandemic waves, with an overall increase of 41%., Conclusions: Where people died changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in deaths at home during and between pandemic waves. This has implications for planning and organisation of palliative care and community services. The extent to which these changes will persist longer term remains unclear. Further research could investigate whether this is reflected in other countries with high COVID-19 mortality.

Background: People from ethnic minority groups and deprived socioeconomic backgrounds have worse outcomes from COVID-19., Aim: To examine associations between ethnicity and deprivation with timing of palliative care referral for inpatients with COVID-19., Design: Service evaluation of consecutive patients with COVID-19 referred to palliative care. Sociodemographic (including age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity coded as White/non-White) and clinical variables were described. The primary outcome was timing of referral to palliative care. Associations between ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation with the primary outcome were explored using multivariable regression., Setting/participants: Patients with COVID-19 referred to a hospital palliative care service across two London hospitals February-May 2020., Results: A total of 334 patients were included. 119 (36%) were from a non-White ethnic group; most commonly Black British (77, 23%) and Asian British (26, 8%). A longer time between admission and palliative care referral was associated with male gender (IRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.34) and lower levels of socioeconomic deprivation (IRR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36-1.90) but not ethnicity (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06)., Conclusions: This large service evaluation showed no evidence that patients from ethnic minority or more deprived socioeconomic groups had longer time to palliative care referral. Ongoing data monitoring is essential for equitable service delivery.

Context: Systematic data on the care of people dying with COVID-19 are scarce., Objectives: To understand the response of and challenges faced by palliative care services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and identify associated factors., Methods: We surveyed palliative care and hospice services, contacted via relevant organizations. Multivariable logistic regression identified associations with challenges. Content analysis explored free text responses., Results: A total of 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world; 81% cared for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 77% had staff with suspected or confirmed COVID-19; 48% reported shortages of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 40% staff shortages, 24% medicines shortages, 14% shortages of other equipment. Services provided direct care and education in symptom management and communication; 91% changed how they worked. Care often shifted to increased community and hospital care, with fewer admissions to inpatient palliative care units. Factors associated with increased odds of PPE shortages were: charity rather than public management (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.81-5.20), inpatient palliative care unit rather than other settings (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.46-3.75). Being outside the UK was associated with lower odds of staff shortages (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.76). Staff described increased workload, concerns for their colleagues who were ill, whilst expending time struggling to get essential equipment and medicines, perceiving they were not a front-line service., Conclusion: Palliative care services were often overwhelmed, yet felt ignored in the COVID-19 response. Palliative care needs better integration with health care systems when planning and responding to future epidemics/pandemics., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest IJH is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Emeritus Senior Investigator and is supported by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London (SL) at King's College Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust. IJH leads the Palliative and End of Life Care theme of the NIHR ARC SL and co-leads the national theme in this. MM is funded by a NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2017-10-009) and NIHR ARC SL. LF is funded by a NIHR Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2018-11-ST2-002). KS is funded by a NIHR Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CS-2015-15-005). RC is funded by Cicely Saunders International. FEM is a NIHR Senior Investigator. MBH is supported by the NIHR ARC SL. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care., Aim: To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19., Design: Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach., Setting/participants: Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country., Results: Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership., Conclusions: Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use. ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.

Context: Palliative care is an essential component of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic response but is overlooked in national and international preparedness plans. The preparedness and capacity of African palliative care services to respond to COVID-19 is unknown., Objectives: To evaluate the preparedness and capacity of African palliative care services to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We developed, piloted, and conducted a cross-sectional online survey guided by the 2005 International Health Regulations. It was electronically mailed to the 166 African Palliative Care Association's members and partners. Descriptive analyses were conducted., Results: About 83 participants from 21 countries completed the survey. Most services had at least one procedure for the case management of COVID-19 or another infectious disease (63%). Respondents reported concerns over accessing running water, soap, and disinfectant products (43%, 42%, and 59%, respectively) and security concerns for themselves or their staff (52%). Two in five services (41%) did not have any or make available additional personal protective equipment. Most services (80%) reported having the capacity to use technology instead of face-to-face appointment, and half (52%) reported having palliative care protocols for symptom management and psychological support that could be shared with nonspecialist staff in other health care settings., Conclusion: Our survey suggests that African palliative care services could support the wider health system's response to the COVID-19 pandemic with greater resources such as basic infection control materials. It identified specific and systemic weaknesses impeding their preparedness to respond to outbreaks. The findings call for urgent measures to ensure staff and patient safety., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)