Search

Funder: national institute for health research; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, Funder: Cicely Saunders International, Funder: marie curie; FundRef: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000654, Funder: Kirby Laing Foundation, 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.

ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative 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.SettingOrganisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting.ParticipantsStaff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience.Main outcome measuresExperiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsFive 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.ConclusionsThis 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.

Background: Malignant bowel obstruction occurs in up to 50% of people with advanced ovarian and 15% of people with gastrointestinal cancers. Evaluation and comparison of interventions to manage symptoms are hampered by inconsistent evaluations of efficacy and lack of agreed core outcomes. The patient perspective is rarely incorporated. Aim: To synthesise the qualitative data regarding patient, caregiver and healthcare professionals’ views and experience of malignant bowel obstruction to inform the development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of malignant bowel obstruction. Design: A qualitative systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero , CRD42020176393). Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2021. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed. Results: Nine papers were included, reporting on seven studies which described the views and experiences of malignant bowel obstruction through the perspectives of 75 patients, 13 caregivers and 62 healthcare professionals. Themes across the papers included symptom burden, diverse experiences of interventions, impact on patient quality of life, implications and trajectory of malignant bowel obstruction, mixed experience of communication and the importance of realistic goals of care. Conclusion: Some of the most devastating sequelae of malignant bowel obstruction, such as pain and psychological distress, are not included routinely in its clinical or research evaluation. These data will contribute to a wider body of work to ensure the patient and caregiver perspective is recognised in the development of a core outcome set.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to quantify the incidence rates of common mental and physical health conditions in mothers of children with a life-limiting condition.MethodsComparative national longitudinal cohort study using linked primary and secondary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink in England. Maternal–child dyads were identified in these data. Maternal physical and mental health outcomes were identified in the primary and secondary care datasets using previously developed diagnostic coding frameworks. Incidence rates of the outcomes were modelled using Poisson regression, adjusting for deprivation, ethnicity and age and accounting for time at risk.ResultsA total of 35 683 mothers; 8950 had a child with a life-limiting condition, 8868 had a child with a chronic condition and 17 865 had a child with no long-term condition.The adjusted incidence rates of all of the physical and mental health conditions were significantly higher in the mothers of children with a life-limiting condition when compared with those mothers with a child with no long-term condition (eg, depression: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.30; cardiovascular disease: IRR 1.73, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.36; death in mothers: IRR 1.59, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.18).ConclusionThis study clearly demonstrates the higher incidence rates of common and serious physical and mental health problems and death in mothers of children with a life-limiting condition. Further research is required to understand how best to support these mothers, but healthcare providers should consider how they can target this population to provide preventative and treatment services.

Summary Background Many patients prefer to avoid hospital-based care towards the end of life, yet hospitalisation is common and more likely for people with low socioeconomic position. The reasons underlying this socioeconomic inequality are not well understood. This study investigated health, service access, and social support as potential mediating pathways between socioeconomic position and receipt of hospital-based care towards the end of life. Methods For this observational cohort study, we included deceased participants from the nationally representative English Longitudinal Study of Ageing of people aged 50 years or older in England. We used a multiple mediation model with age-adjusted and gender-adjusted probit regression to estimate the direct effect of socioeconomic position (measured by wealth and education) on death in hospital and three or more hospital admissions in the last 2 years of life, and the indirect effects of socioeconomic position via three mediators: health and function, access to health-care services, and social support. Findings 737 participants were included (314 [42·6%] female, 423 [57·4%] male), with a median age at death of 78 years (IQR 71–85). For death in hospital, higher wealth had a direct negative effect (probit coefficient −0·16, 95% CI −0·25 to −0·06), which was not mediated by any of the pathways tested. For frequent hospital admissions, health and function mediated the effect of wealth (−0·04, −0·08 to −0·01), accounting for 34·6% of the total negative effect of higher wealth (−0·13, −0·23 to −0·02). Higher wealth was associated with better health and function (0·25, 0·18 to 0·33). Education was associated with the outcomes only indirectly via wealth. Interpretation Our findings suggest that worse health and function could partly explain why people with lower wealth have more hospital admissions, highlighting the importance of socioeconomically driven health differences in explaining patterns of hospital use towards the end of life. The findings should raise awareness about the related risk factors of low wealth and worse health for patients approaching the end of life, and strengthen calls for resource allocation to be made on the basis of health need and socioeconomic profile. Funding Dunhill Medical Trust Fellowship Grant (RTF74/0116).

Background15%–20% of critical care patients die during their hospital admission. This service evaluation assesses quality of palliative care in intensive care units (ICUs) compared with national standards.MethodsRetrospective review of records for all patients who died in four ICUs (irrespective of treatment limitation) between 1 June and 31 July 2019. Descriptive statistics reported for patient characteristics, length of stay, admission route, identification triggers and palliative care delivery.ResultsForty-five patients died, two records were untraced, thus N=43. The dying process was recognised in 88% (n=38). Among those where dying was recognised (N=35), 97% (34) had documented family discussion before death, 9% (3) were offered religious/spiritual support, 11% (4) had review of hydration/nutrition and 6% (2) had documented preferred place of death. Prescription of symptom control medications was complete in 71% (25) opioids, 34% (12) haloperidol, 54% (19) midazolam and 43% (15) hyoscine. Combining five triggers—length of stay >10 days prior to ICU admission 7% (3), multiorgan failure ≥3 systems 33% (14), stage IV malignancy 5% (2), post-cardiac arrest 23% (10) and intracerebral haemorrhage requiring mechanical ventilation 12% (5)—identified 60% (26) of patients. Referral to the palliative care team was seen in 14% (5), and 8% (3) had specialist palliative care team review.ConclusionsRecognition of dying was high but occurred close to death. Family discussions were frequent, but religious/spiritual needs, hydration/nutrition and anticipatory medications were less often considered. The ICUs delivered their own palliative care in conjunction with specialist palliative care input. Combining five triggers could increase identification of palliative care needs, but a larger study is needed.

This study aims to identify the symptoms, concerns, and care priorities of children with life-limiting conditions and their families. A semi-structured qualitative interview study was conducted, seeking perspectives from multiple stakeholders on symptoms, other concerns, and care priorities of children and young people with life limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families. Participants were recruited from six hospitals and three children’s hospices in the UK. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. A total of 106 participants were recruited: 26 children (5–17 years), 40 parents (of children 0–17 years), 13 siblings (5–17 years), 15 health and social care professionals, 12 commissioners. Participants described many inter-related symptoms, concerns, and care priorities impacting on all aspects of life. Burdensome symptoms included pain and seizures. Participants spoke of the emotional and social impacts of living with life-limiting conditions, such as being able to see friends, and accessing education and psychological support. Spiritual/existential concerns included the meaning of illness and planning for an uncertain future. Data revealed an overarching theme of pursuing ‘normality’, described as children’s desire to undertake usual childhood activities. Parents need support with practical aspects of care to help realise this desire for normality.Conclusion: Children with life-limiting conditions and their families experience a wide range of inter-related symptoms, concerns, and care priorities. A holistic, child-centred approach to care is needed, allowing focus on pursuit of normal childhood activities. Improvements in accessibility, co-ordination, and availability of health services are required to achieve this. What is Known:• Existing evidence regarding symptoms, concerns, and care priorities for children with life-limiting conditions is largely limited to proxy-reported data and those with a cancer diagnosis.• Child-centred care provision must be directed by children’s perspectives on their priorities for care. What is New:• Social and educational activities are more important to children with life-limiting conditions than their medical concerns.• A holistic approach to care is required that extends beyond addressing medical needs, in order to support children with life-limiting conditions to focus on pursuit of normal childhood activities.

Background: Despite evidence demonstrating the utility of using Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care settings, implementing them into routine practice is challenging. Most research has described barriers to, without explaining the causal mechanisms underpinning, implementation. Implementation theories explain how, why, and in which contexts specific relationships between barriers/enablers might improve implementation effectiveness but have rarely been used in palliative care outcomes research. Aim: To use Normalisation Process Theory to understand and explain the causal mechanisms that underpin successful implementation of Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care. Design: Exploratory qualitative study. Data collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using a Framework approach. Setting/participants: 63 healthcare professionals, across 11 specialist palliative care services, were purposefully sampled by role, experience, seniority, and settings (inpatient, outpatient/day therapy, home-based/community). Results: Seven main themes were developed, representing the causal mechanisms and relationships underpinning successful implementation of outcome measures into routine practice. Themes were: Subjectivity of measures; Frequency and version of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; Training, education, and peer support; Building and sustaining community engagement; Electronic system readiness; The art of communication; Reinforcing use through demonstrating value. Conclusions: Relationships influencing implementation resided at individual and organisational levels. Addressing these factors is key to driving the implementation of outcome measures into routine practice so that those using palliative care services can benefit from the systematic identification, management, and measurement of their symptoms and concerns. We provide key questions that are essential for those implementing and using outcome measures to consider in order to facilitate the integration of outcome measures into routine palliative care practice.

Death from stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD 5) in childhood or adolescence is rare, but something that all paediatric renal physicians and most paediatricians will encounter. In this paper, we present the literature on three key areas of palliative care practice essential to good clinical management: shared decision-making, advance care planning, and symptom management, with particular reference to CKD 5 where kidney transplant is not an option and where a decision has been made to withdraw or withhold dialysis. Some areas of care, particularly with regard to symptom management, have not been well-studied in children and young people (CYP) with CKD 5 and recommendations with regard to drug choice and dose modification are based on adult literature, known pharmacokinetics, and clinical experience.

Aims: We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for people with dementia-based case studies to improve the caring quality for people with dementia in nursing homes by frontline staff and family members. Background: Swiss nursing homes mostly care for people with dementia. This population is at high risk of receiving little to no palliation for their complex needs. The majority of Swiss frontline healthcare staff do not systematically report on the needs of their residents. Additionally, family members do not routinely participate in assessment processes. Design We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of repeated assessment using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for people with dementia (IPOS-Dem) and subsequent case studies. Clusters will consist of Swiss nursing homes randomly assigned to one of three sequential intervention time points. Methods: The study population will consist of people with dementia living in nursing homes with and without specialized dementia care facilities. Over 16 months, staff working at the frontline and family members will assess the needs and concerns of people with dementia using IPOS-Dem. Depending on sequence allocation, facilitated case studies will start after 3, 6 or 9 months. The primary outcome will be caring quality measured by QUALIDEM. The secondary outcome will be symptoms and concerns, as indicated by the IPOS-Dem sum-score. The Zürich Ethics Committee approved the study in 2019 (2019-01847). Impact: The results of this study will contribute to improving the effectiveness of person-centred care for people with dementia. Collaboration between healthcare staff and family members will be systematically developed and built upon thorough assessment using the IPOS-Dem and related case studies. The use of IPOS-Dem will offer all frontline staff a systematic approach to have an independent voice within the nursing process, regardless of their qualification or grade.

Background End-stage cardiac and respiratory diseases are common in the UK. People with these end-stage conditions experience similar, or even worse, symptomatic suffering to cancer patients but are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services. The objective of this study is to explore health professional perceptions and current practices in relation to specialist palliative care for patients with end-stage cardiac and respiratory disease. Methods Qualitative study using in-depth interviews with health professionals, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim for thematic analysis. The study was conducted with doctors and nurses from cardiology, respiratory, and palliative care specialities in the UK. The participants had to be involved clinically in providing care to people with end-stage cardiac or respiratory diseases. Results A total of 16 health professionals participated (5 cardiology, 5 respiratory, and 6 palliative care). Participants reported variable disease trajectories in these diseases making deciding on timing of palliative care involvement difficult. This was complicated by lack of advance care planning discussions, attributed to poor communication, and lack of health professional time and confidence. Participants reported poor interdepartmental education and limited specialist palliative care involvement in multidisciplinary teams. Conclusions Palliative care for end-stage cardiac and respiratory diseases needs more attention in research and practice. Better integration of advance care planning discussions and early patient education/professional awareness are needed to enable timely referral to palliative care. Moreover, increased interdepartmental working for health professionals via joint educational and clinical meetings is perceived as likely to support earlier and increased referral to specialist palliative care services.

Background: Access to palliative care in the community enables people to live in their preferred place of care, which is often home. Community palliative care services struggle to provide timely 24-h services to patients and family. This has resulted in calls for ‘accessible and flexible’ models of care that are ‘responsive’ to peoples’ changing palliative care needs. Digital health technologies provide opportunities to meet these requirements 24-h a day. Aim: To identify digital health technologies that have been evaluated for supporting timely assessment and management of people living at home with palliative care needs and/or their carer(s), and the evidence-base for each. Design: A systematic review of systematic reviews (‘meta-review’). Systematic reviews evaluating evidence for virtual models of palliative or end-of-life care using one or more digital health technologies were included. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool for Systematic Reviews. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results. Data sources: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were searched for English-language reviews published between 2015 and 2020. Results: The search yielded 2266 articles, of which 12 systematic reviews met criteria. Sixteen reviews were included in total, after four reviews were found via handsearching. Other than scheduled telehealth, video-conferencing, or after-hours telephone support, little evidence was found for digital health technologies used to deliver virtual models of palliative care. Conclusions: There are opportunities to test new models of virtual care, beyond telehealth and/or video conferencing, such as 24-h command centres, and rapid response teams. Systematic review registration number: Prospero CRD42020200266

Background: Increasing numbers of older adults are living with kidney disease. For those with comorbidities, conservative management of end-stage kidney disease is a viable option: dialysis may afford limited or no survival benefit, and perceived burdens may outweigh benefits. Conservative management focuses on: maintaining remaining kidney function; symptom management; and quality of life. Common symptoms in conservatively managed kidney disease include: fatigue, anorexia, nausea and vomiting, pain and pruritis. Chronic disease is associated with biographical disruption and a loss of sense of self. Coping strategies are shaped by illness perceptions, but little is known of illness perceptions of people living with conservatively managed kidney disease. This study aimed to explore the experience, impact and understanding of conservatively managed end-stage kidney disease among older adults. Methods: Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. Twenty people with conservatively managed end-stage kidney disease were recruited from 3 UK renal units: median age was 82 (range 69-95); 9 women, 11 men.Results: Participants described the invisibility and intangibility of kidney disease, and challenges in attributing symptoms to the disease. They described a spectre-like presence, sapping their energy and holding them down. For some, it was hard to differentiate symptoms of the illness from characteristics of aging, resulting in challenges in illness attribution, and disconnectedness from the illness. Conclusions: Participants described challenges in attributing their symptoms to kidney disease which negatively impacted upon their wellbeing, and ability to accept an adjusted sense of self. Understanding these challenges is critical in the management conditions such as end-stage kidney disease where prognosis may be poor, and where an increase in symptom distress may suggest a marked deterioration in their condition, or a change in phase of illness. Clinical services need to recognize the illness experience (alongside more symptom led approaches), including the invisibility, intangibility, and disconnectedness, and address this through specific interventions focused on improving clinical assessment, communication and education, alongside peer and professional support.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, specialist palliative care services have an important role to play conducting high-quality and individualised Advance Care Planning discussions. Little is known about the challenges to Advance Care Planning in this context, or the changes services have made in adapting to them.AimTo describe the challenges experienced, and changes made to support, Advance Care Planning at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignCross-sectional on-line survey of UK palliative and hospice services’ response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach.Respondents277 UK palliative and hospice care services.Results37.9% of services provided more Advance Care Planning directly. 58.5% provided more support to others. Some challenges to Advance Care Planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst other were COVID-19 specific or exacerbated by COVID-19. Six themes demonstrated challenges at different levels of the Social Ecological Model, including: complex decision making in the face of a new disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support Advance Care Planning, including: adapting local processes and adapting local structures.ConclusionsProfessionals and healthcare providers need to ensure Advance Care Planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic, cultural, and religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider carefully how high-quality, person-centred Advance Care Planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves.Key StatementsWhat is already known about the topic?–An important part of palliative care’s response to COVID-19 is ensuring that Advance Care Planning discussions occur with patients and their care networks–High quality Advance Care Planning is viewed as a process that adopts a holistic, collaborative, and individualised approach–Prior to COVID-19, challenges to Advance Care Planning included time constraints, lack of training, fears of taking away hope, limited resources, and insufficient knowledgeWhat this paper adds?–The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated already-existing challenges to conducting high-quality, individualised Advance Care Planning, including the ability to maintain a personalised approach and sharing information between services–COVID-specific challenges to Advance Care Planning exist, including the complexities of decision-making for a novel disease, communication issues, and workload pressures–In responding to these challenges, services adapted local processes (prioritising specific components, normalisation and integration into everyday practice) and structures (using technology, shifting resources, collaboration) of careImplications for practice, theory or policy–COVID-19 has provided an opportunity to re-think Advance Care Planning in which the starting point to any discussion is always the values and priorities of patients themselves–Providers and policymakers need to urgently consider how high-quality Advance Care Planning can be resourced and normalised as a part of standard care across the health sector, ahead of future or recurrent pandemic waves and in routine care more generally–We provide questions for health professionals, services, and policy makers to consider in working towards this

Introduction Self-report is the gold standard for measuring children’s health-related outcomes. Design of such measures is complex and challenging. This review aims to systematically appraise the evidence on recall period, response scale format, mode of administration and approaches needed to enable children and young people Method PsycInfo, Medline, CINAHL and Embase were searched from 1 January 1990 to 15 March 2020, and citation searching undertaken in Scopus. Articles were included if they were primary research or case reports of ≥ 3 participants reporting the following: recall period, response scale selection, administration modality. Quality was assessed using QualSyst, and results synthesised narratively. This review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Results 81 of 13,215 retrieved articles met the inclusion criteria. Children 8 years old can reliably use a 3-point scale. Conclusion The results of this review have both clinical and research implications. They can be used to inform appropriate choice of PROM for use with CYP in the clinical setting. We also give eight recommendations for future development of self-reported outcome measures for children and young people.

IntroductionReported outcomes for older people with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) often focus on survival and mortality and little attention is paid to symptom burden and health-related quality of life. Recognising frailty and providing interventions that may improve outcomes have been studied in the general population with a growing research interest within CKD.Methods and analysisA scoping review will be undertaken following a recommended process to understand relevant research and priorities for older people living with frailty and advanced CKD. Databases will be searched and following a systematic process by a core team, a final list of included studies will be analysed. Focus groups will then be conducted with older people with advanced CKD to incorporate stakeholder views.Ethics and disseminationOur scoping review will use robust methodology to identify relevant literature focused on outcomes and care priorities for older people with advanced CKD. Ethical approval will be sought to conduct the focus groups. The result of this review will be disseminated through patient networks and national conferences. The interdisciplinary team collaborating plan to continue work in this area to improve the care and management of older people with advanced CKD.

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.

BackgroundAdvance Care Planning is recommended for people with end-stage kidney disease but evidence is limited. Robust clinical trials are needed to investigate the impact of advance care planning in this population. There is little available data on cost-effectiveness to guide decision makers in allocating resources for advance care planning. Therefore we sought to determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial and to test methods for assessing cost-effectiveness.MethodsA deferred entry, randomised controlled feasibility trial, incorporating economic and process evaluations, with people with end-stage kidney disease, aged 65 years or older, receiving haemodialysis, in two renal haemodialysis units in Northern Ireland, UK. A nurse facilitator helped the patient make an advance care plan identifying: a surrogate decision-maker; what the participant would like to happen in the future; any advance decision to refuse treatment; preferred place of care at end-of-life.ResultsRecruitment lasted 189 days; intervention and data collection 443 days. Of the 67 patients invited to participate 30 (45%) declined and 36 were randomised to immediate or deferred advance care plan groups. Twenty-two (61%) made an advance care plan and completed data collection at 12 weeks; 17 (47.2%) were able to identify a surrogate willing to be named in the advance care plan document. The intervention was well-received and encouraged end-of-life conversations, but did not succeed in helping patients to fully clarify their values or consider specific treatment choices. There was no significant difference in health system costs between the immediate and deferred groups.ConclusionsA trial of advance care planning with participants receiving haemodialysis is feasible and acceptable to patients, but challenging. A full trial would require a pool of potential participants five times larger than the number required to complete data collection at 3 months. Widening eligibility criteria to include younger (under 65 years of age) and less frail patients, together with special efforts to engage and retain surrogates may improve recruitment and retention. Traditional advance care planning outcomes may need to be supplemented with those that are defined by patients, helping them to participate with clinicians in making medical decisions.Trial registrationRegistered December 16, 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02631200.

BackgroundSerious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital‐based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co‐ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.Data collection and analysisWe used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random‐effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table.Our primary outcomes were patient health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost‐effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.Main resultsWe identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty‐one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non‐cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non‐cancer populations (mixed diagnoses).HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward‐based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital‐at‐home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain.Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low‐quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person‐centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of ‐0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI ‐0.41 to ‐0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low‐quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low‐quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low‐quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD ‐0.16, 95% CI ‐0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low‐quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low‐quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low‐quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost‐effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low‐quality evidence).Quality of the evidenceThe quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Authors' conclusionsVery low‐ to low‐quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person‐centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person‐centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non‐malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward‐based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out‐of‐hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost‐effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person‐centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

BackgroundPatient preferences are integral to person-centred care, but preference stability is poorly understood in older people, who may experience fluctuant illness trajectories with episodes of acute illness. We aimed to describe, and explore influences on the stability of care preferences in frail older people following recent acute illness.MethodsMixed-methods prospective cohort study with dominant qualitative component, parallel data collection and six-month follow up. Study population: age ≥ 65, Rockwood Clinical Frailty score ≥ 5, recent acute illness requiring acute assessment/hospitalisation. Participants rated the importance of six preferences (to extend life, improve quality of life, remain independent, be comfortable, support ‘those close to me’, and stay out of hospital) at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks using a 0–4 scale, and ranked the most important. A maximum-variation sub-sample additionally contributed serial in-depth qualitative interviews. We described preference stability using frequencies and proportions, and undertook thematic analysis to explore influences on preference stability.Results90/192 (45%) of potential participants consented. 82/90 (91%) answered the baseline questionnaire; median age 84, 63% female. Seventeen undertook qualitative interviews. Most participants consistently rated five of the six preferences as important (range 68–89%). ‘Extend life’ was rated important by fewer participants (32–43%). Importance ratings were stable in 61–86% of cases. The preference ranked most important was unstable in 82% of participants.Preference stability was supported by five influences: the presence of family support; both positive or negative care experiences; preferences being concordant with underlying values; where there was slowness of recovery from illness; and when preferences linked to long term goals. Preference change was related to changes in health awareness, or life events; if preferences were specific to a particular context, or multiple concurrent preferences existed, these were also more liable to change.ConclusionsPreferences were largely stable following acute illness. Stability was reinforced by care experiences and the presence of family support. Where preferences were unstable, this usually related to changing health awareness. Consideration of these influences during preference elicitation or advance care planning will support delivery of responsive care to meet preferences. Obtaining longer-term data across diverse ethnic groups is needed in future research.

Shared decision making in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) requires unbiased information on survival and person-centred outcomes known to matter to patients: quality of life, symptom burden and support from family and healthcare professionals. To date, when deciding between dialysis and conservative care, patients have had to rely on evidence from small observational studies. Clinicians recognize that like is not being compared with like in these studies, and interpret the results differently. Furthermore, support differs considerably between renal units. What patients choose therefore depends on which renal unit they attend. To address this, a programme of work has been underway in the UK. After reports on survival and symptoms from a small number of renal units, a national, mixed-methods study—the Conservative Kidney Management Assessment of Practice Patterns Study—mapped out conservative care practices and attitudes in the UK. This led to the Prepare for Kidney Care study, a randomized controlled trial comparing preparation for dialysis versus preparation for conservative care. Although powered to detect a positivist 0.345 difference in quality-adjusted life years between the two treatments, this trial also takes a realist approach with a range of person-centred secondary outcomes and embedded qualitative research. To understand generalizability, it is nested in an observational cohort study, which is nested in a CKD registry. Challenges to recruitment and retention have been rapidly identified and addressed using an established embedded mixed methods approach—the QuinteT recruitment intervention. This review considers the background to and progress with recruitment to the trial.

Background: Despite increasing evidence of the benefits of early access to palliative care, many patients do not receive palliative care in a timely manner. A systematic approach in primary care can facilitate earlier identification of patients with potential palliative care needs and prompt further assessment. Aim: To identify existing screening tools for identification of patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary healthcare and evaluate their accuracy. Design: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019111568). Data sources: Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2019 Results: From 4,127 unique articles screened, 25 reported the use or development of 10 screening tools. Most tools use prediction of death and/or deterioration as a proxy for the identification of people with potential palliative care needs. The tools are based on a wide range of general and disease-specific indicators. The accuracy of five tools was assessed in eight studies; these tools differed significantly in their ability to identify patients with potential palliative care needs with sensitivity ranging from 3% to 94% and specificity ranging from 26% to 99%. Conclusion: The ability of current screening tools to identify patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary care is limited. Further research is needed to identify standardised screening processes that are based not only on predicting mortality and deterioration but also on anticipating the palliative care needs and predicting the rate and course of functional decline. This would prompt a comprehensive assessment to identify and meet their needs on time.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about dialysis for advanced kidney disease are often strongly shaped by sociocultural and system-level factors rather than the priorities and values of individual patients. We examined international variation in the uptake of conservative approaches to the care of patients with advanced kidney disease, in particular discontinuation of dialysis. METHODS: We employed an observational cohort study design using data collected from patients maintained on long-term hemodialysis between 1996 and 2015 in facilities across 12 developed countries participating in the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS). The main outcome was discontinuation of dialysis therapy. We analyzed the association between several patient characteristics and time to dialysis discontinuation by country and phase of study entry. RESULTS: A total of 259 343 DOPPS patients contributed data to the study, of whom 48 519 (18.7%) died during the study period. Of the decedents, 5808 (12.0%) discontinued dialysis before death. Rates of discontinuation were higher within the first few months after initiation of dialysis, among older adults, among those with a greater number of comorbidities and among those living in an institution. After adjustment for age, sex, dialysis duration, diabetes and dialysis era, rates of discontinuation were highest in Canada, the United States and Australia/New Zealand (33.8, 31.4 and 21.5 per 1000/yr, respectively) and lowest in Japan and Italy (< 0.1 per 1000/yr). Crude discontinuation rates were highest in dialysis facilities that were more likely to offer comprehensive conservative renal care to older adults. INTERPRETATION: We found persistent international variation in average rates of dialysis discontinuation not explained by differences in patient case-mix. These differences may reflect physician-, facility- and society-level differences in clinical practice. There may be opportunities for international cross-collaboration to improve support for patients with end-stage renal disease who prefer a more conservative approach.

Background People living with HIV experience burdensome multidimensional symptoms and concerns requiring person-centred care. Routine use of patient reported outcome measures can improve outcomes. There is no brief patient reported outcome measure (PROM) that currently reflects the breadth of concerns for people living with HIV. This study aimed to develop and cognitively test a brief novel patient reported outcome measure for use within routine adult HIV care– the “Positive Outcomes” HIV PROM. Methods Development followed the COSMIN taxonomy and guidance for relevance and comprehensiveness, and Rothrock guidance on development of valid patient reported outcome measures. The Positive Outcomes HIV PROM was developed by a steering group (people living with HIV, HIV professionals and health services researchers) using findings from a previously reported qualitative study of priority outcomes for people living with HIV. The prototype measure was cognitively tested with a purposive sample of people living with HIV. Results The Positive Outcomes HIV PROM consists of 23 questions (22 structured, and one open question) informed by the priorities of key stakeholders (n = 28 people living with HIV, n = 21 HIV professionals and n = 8 HIV commissioners) to ensure face and content validity, and refined through cognitive testing (n = 6 people living with HIV). Cognitive testing demonstrated high levels of acceptability and accessibility. Conclusions The Positive Outcomes HIV PROM is the first brief patient reported outcome measure reflecting the diverse needs of people living with HIV designed specifically for use in the clinical setting to support patient assessment and care, and drive service quality improvement. It is derived from primary data on the priority outcomes for people living with HIV and is comprehensive and acceptable. Further psychometric testing is required to ensure reliability and responsiveness.

Background: Paediatric life-limiting and life-threatening conditions (life-limiting conditions) place significant strain on children, families and health systems. Given high service use among this population, it is essential that care addresses their main symptoms and concerns. Aim: This study aimed to identify the symptoms, concerns and other outcomes that matter to children with life-limiting conditions and their families in sub-Saharan Africa. Setting and participants: Cross-sectional qualitative study in Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Uganda. Children/caregivers of children aged 0–17 years with life-limiting conditions were purposively sampled by age, sex and diagnosis. Children aged 7 and above self-reported; caregiver proxies reported for children below 7 and those aged 7 and above unable to self-report. Results: A total of 120 interviews were conducted with children with life-limiting conditions ( n = 61; age range: 7–17 years), and where self-report was not possible, caregivers ( n = 59) of children (age range: 0–17) were included. Conditions included advanced HIV (22%), cancer (19%), heart disease (16%) endocrine, blood and immune disorders (13%), neurological conditions (12%), sickle cell anaemia (10%) and renal disease (8%). Outcomes identified included physical concerns – pain and symptom distress; psycho-social concerns – family and social relationships, ability to engage with age-appropriate activities (e.g. play, school attendance); existential concerns – worry about death, and loss of ambitions; health care quality – child- and adolescent-friendly services. Priority psycho-social concerns and health service factors varied by age. Conclusion: This study bridges an important knowledge gap regarding symptoms, concerns and outcomes that matter to children living with life-limiting conditions and their families and informs service development and evaluation.

Background: Evaluations of complex interventions compared to usual care provided in palliative care are increasing. Not describing usual care may affect the interpretation of an intervention’s effectiveness, yet how it can be described remains unclear. Aim: To demonstrate the feasibility of using multi-methods to describe usual care provided in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions, shown within a feasibility cluster RCT. Design: Multi-method approach comprising usual care questionnaires, baseline case note review and focus groups with ward staff completed at study end. Thematic analysis of qualitative data, descriptive statistics of quantitative data, followed by methodological triangulation to appraise approach in relation to study aim. Setting/participants: Four general medical wards chosen from UK hospitals. Purposive sampling of healthcare professionals for usual care questionnaires, and focus groups. Review of 20 patients’ notes from each ward who died during admission or within 100 days of discharge. Results: Twenty-three usual care questionnaires at baseline, two focus groups comprising 20 healthcare professionals and 80 case note reviews. Triangulation of findings resulted in understanding the usual care provided to the targeted population in terms of context, structures, processes and outcomes for patients, families and healthcare professionals. Usual care was described, highlighting (1) similarities and embedded practices, (2) heterogeneity and (3) subtle changes in care during the trial within and across sites. Conclusions: We provide a feasible approach to defining usual care that can be practically adopted in different settings. Understanding usual care enhances the reliability of tested complex interventions, and informs research and policy priorities.

PurposeTo examine the use of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to establish if, and in what ways, the AMBER care bundle can be successfully normalised into acute hospital practice, and to identify necessary modifications to optimise its implementation.MethodMulti-method process evaluation embedded within a mixed-method feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in two district general hospitals in England. Data were collected using (i) focus groups with health professionals (HPs), (ii) semi-structured interviews with patients and/or carers, (iii) non-participant observations of multi-disciplinary team meetings and (iv) patient clinical note review. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, with interpretation guided by NPT components (coherence; cognitive participation; collective action; reflexive monitoring). Data triangulated across sources.ResultsTwo focus groups (26 HPs), nine non-participant observations, 12 interviews (two patients, 10 relatives), 29 clinical note reviews were conducted. While coherence was evident, with HPs recognising the value of the AMBER care bundle, cognitive participation and collective action presented challenges. Specifically: (1) HPs were unable and unwilling to operationalise the concept of 'risk of dying' intervention eligibility criteria (2) integration relied on a 'champion' to drive participation and ensure sustainability; and (3) differing skills and confidence led to variable engagement with difficult conversations with patients and families about, for example, nearness to end of life. Opportunities for reflexive monitoring were not routinely embedded within the intervention. Reflections on the use of the AMBER care bundle from HPs and patients and families, including recommended modifications became evident through this NPT-driven analysis.ConclusionTo be successfully normalised, new clinical practices, such as the AMBER care bundle, must be studied within the wider context in which they operate. NPT can be used to the aid identification of practical strategies to assist in normalisation of complex interventions where the focus of care is on clinical uncertainty in acute hospital settings.

Background To measure health-related and care-related quality of life among informal caregivers of older people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and to determine the association between caregiver quality of life and care recipient’s treatment type. Methods A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Three renal units in the UK and Australia were included. Informal caregivers of people aged ≥75 years with ESKD managed with dialysis or comprehensive conservative non-dialytic care (estimated glomerular filtration (eGFR) ≤10 mL/min/1.73m2) participated. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed using Short-Form six dimensions (SF-6D, 0–1 scale) and care-related quality of life was assessed using the Carer Experience Scale (CES, 0–100 scale). Linear regression assessed associations between care-recipient treatment type, caregiver characteristics and the SF-6D utility index and CES scores. Results Of 63 caregivers, 49 (78%) were from Australia, 26 (41%) cared for an older person managed with dialysis, and 37 (59%) cared for an older person managed with comprehensive conservative care. Overall, 73% were females, and the median age of the entire cohort was 76 years [IQR 68–81]. When adjusted for caregiver sociodemographic characteristics, caregivers reported significantly worse carer experience (CES score 15.73, 95% CI 5.78 to 25.68) for those managing an older person on dialysis compared with conservative care. However, no significant difference observed for carer HRQoL (SF-6D utility index − 0.08, 95% CI − 0.18 to 0.01) for those managing an older person on dialysis compared with conservative care. Conclusions Our data suggest informal caregivers of older people on dialysis have significantly worse care-related quality of life (and therefore greater need for support) than those managed with comprehensive conservative care. It is important to consider the impact on caregivers’ quality of life when considering treatment choices for their care recipients.

Background: No systematic review has focused on conceptual models underpinning advance care planning for patients with advanced cancer, and the mechanisms of action in relation to the intended outcomes. Aim: To appraise conceptual models and develop a logic model of advance care planning for advanced cancer patients, examining the components, processes, theoretical underpinning, mechanisms of action and linkage with intended outcomes. Design: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted, and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Narrative synthesis was used for data analysis. Data sources: The data sources were MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PROSPERO, CareSearch, and OpenGrey with reference chaining and hand-searching from inception to 31 March 2017, including all randomised controlled trials with advance care planning for cancer patients in the last 12 months of life. Cochrane quality assessment tool was used for quality appraisal. Results: Nine randomised controlled trials were included, with only four articulated conceptual models. Mechanisms through which advance care planning improved outcomes comprised (1) increasing patients’ knowledge of end-of-life care, (2) strengthening patients’ autonomous motivation, (3) building patients’ competence to undertake end-of-life discussions and (4) enhancing shared decision-making in a trustful relationship. Samples were largely highly educated Caucasian. Conclusion: The use of conceptual models underpinning the development of advance care planning is uncommon. When used, they identify the individual behavioural change. Strengthening patients’ motivation and competence in participating advance care planning discussions are key mechanisms of change. Understanding cultural feasibility of the logic model for different educational levels and ethnicities in non-Western countries should be a research priority.

Background: Older people with multimorbidities are projected to be the main recipients of palliative care in the coming decades. However, because their specific palliative care needs are poorly understood and service response is underdeveloped, older people with multimorbidity are less likely to receive palliative care. Innovative specialist palliative care services are developing to address this gap, but with little underpinning evidence. Therefore the aim of this paper is to describe the clinical characteristics, symptoms and other concerns of older people with multi-morbidity referred to a new community palliative care service; and to explore possible implications for service delivery by comparing this service population with people receiving standard community-based specialist palliative care. Methods: Cross-sectional study comparing routinely collected demographic, clinical, and point-of-care patient-level outcomes data [Phase of Illness, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale] across an innovative palliative service—Bromley Care Coordination (BCC) with patients in the standard specialist community palliative care (SC). Composite case studies of BCC patients provide more in-depth illustration of results. Results: Compared with patients who received Standard Care, patients seen by BCC were more often female, older and with a non-malignant diagnosis (16% cancer in BCC versus 72% cancer in SC). Patients across the two services had a similar symptom profile at first contact in the pairwise complete case analysis. SC patients reported more frequently pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, anxiety and family concern, and BCC patients reported more frequently mobility concerns. Functional status was lower for BCC patients on entry into the service (AKPS 40 median versus SC AKPS of 50). BCC patients stayed longer in each phase of illness (56 days median versus SC 41 days), with a more unpredictable subsequent phase. Conclusions: The population of older people with multimorbidity has not been routinely recognized as having specialist palliative care needs. However, this evaluation shows that, at first contact, the symptoms and concerns across both service populations was surprisingly similar. Nevertheless, patterns of symptoms may differ between populations over time. Longitudinal prospective data are needed to examine these changes overtime, and the relationship with multimorbidity.

Comparisons of survival between dialysis and nondialysis care for older adults with kidney failure have been limited to those managed by nephrologists, and are vulnerable to lead and immortal time biases. So we compared time to all-cause mortality among older adults with kidney failure treated vs. not treated with chronic dialysis. Our retrospective cohort study used linked administrative and laboratory data to identify adults aged 65 or more years of age in Alberta, Canada, with kidney failure (2002-2012), defined by two or more consecutive outpatient estimated glomerular filtration rates less than 10 mL/min/1.73m2, spanning 90 or more days. We used marginal structural Cox models to assess the association between receipt of dialysis and all-cause mortality by allowing control for both time-varying and baseline confounders. Overall, 838 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 79.1; 48.6% male; mean estimated glomerular filtration rate 7.8 mL/min/1.73m2). Dialysis treatment (vs. no dialysis) was associated with a significantly lower risk of death for the first three years of follow-up (hazard ratio 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.46-0.77]), but not thereafter (1.22 [0.69-2.17]). However, dialysis was associated with a significantly higher risk of hospitalization (1.40 [1.16-1.69]). Thus, among older adults with kidney failure, treatment with dialysis was associated with longer survival up to three years after reaching kidney failure, though with a higher risk of hospital admissions. These findings may assist shared decision-making about treatment of kidney failure.

Context The significant symptom burden in advanced renal disease is often poorly recognized by clinicians. Recently, the Integrated Palliative Outcome Score (IPOS)–renal survey was developed from pre-existing tools to capture these symptoms and other common concerns. Objectives We studied the validity and reliability of the IPOS-renal survey (patient and staff versions) in an Australian population. Methods Adult patients with advanced renal disease and nurses caring for them were participated. We initially administered the IPOS-renal survey simultaneously with other validated surveys and then retested the IPOS-renal after seven to 14 days. We tested the construct validity of 1) IPOS-renal patient version in relation to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Survey–revised and the Kidney Diseases quality of life–short form version 1.3 questionnaire and 2) IPOS-renal staff version in relation to the Support Team Assessment Schedule survey. Results Eighty-one patients (65 hemodialysis, 10 peritoneal dialysis, and six on supportive care; average age 64.9 years) and 53 nurses (average renal nursing experience 10.9 years) were participated. Intraclass coefficients for test-retest reliability were >0.7 for most queries; Cronbach's alphas for internal consistency were 0.84 (patient version) and 0.91 (staff version). In tests of construct validity, Spearman's coefficient of correlation between surveys and their comparators for similar questions was significant, at 0.61 to 0.77 (patients) and 0.24 to 0.76 (staff). As expected, symptom scores and total symptom burden were negatively correlated with summary scores of quality of life. Conclusion The IPOS-renal surveys, patient and staff versions, have good test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity in patients with advanced kidney disease and their nurses. We recommend their use in symptom assessment.

Background: Patient empowerment, defined as ‘a process through which people gain greater control over decisions and actions affecting their health’ (World Health Organization) is a key theme within global health and social care strategies. The benefits of incorporating empowerment strategies in care are well documented, but little is known about their application or impact for patients with advanced, life-limiting illness(s). Aim: To identify and synthesise the international evidence on patient empowerment for adults with advanced, life-limiting illness(s). Design: Systematic review (PROSPERO no. 46113) with critical interpretive synthesis methodology. Data sources: Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO and Cochrane) were searched from inception to March 2018. Grey literature and reference list/citation searches of included papers were undertaken. Inclusion criteria: empirical research involving patients with advanced life-limiting illness including descriptions of, or references to, patient empowerment within the study results. Results: In all, 13 papers met inclusion criteria. Two qualitative studies explored patient empowerment as a study objective. Six papers evaluated interventions, referencing patient empowerment as an incidental outcome. The following themes were identified from the interpretive synthesis: self-identity, personalised knowledge in theory and practice, negotiating personal and healthcare relationships, acknowledgement of terminal illness, and navigating continued losses. Conclusion: There are features of empowerment, for patients with advanced life-limiting illness distinct to those of other patient groups. Greater efforts should be made to progress the empowerment of patients nearing the end of their lives. We propose that the identified themes may provide a useful starting point to guide the assessment of existing or planned services and inform future research.

When patients face advanced illness, their experience of care is especially important. In palliative care, we often rely on the accounts of bereaved relatives to report the quality of end-of-life care, and there are no validated patient-reported measures of the experience of care. We report therefore on a new questionnaire, Views on Care (VOC), to address this gap. It consists of four questions (see the following link for full questionnaire: www.pos-pal.org) selected/refined from St Christopher’s Index of Patient Priorities (SKIPP)1, which address patients’ evaluation of (1) change in their main concerns, (2) benefit from palliative services, (3) previous and (4) current quality of life (3 and 4 adapted from EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL – well-validated in advanced illness2).

IntroductionPerson-centred outcome measures improve quality of care and patient outcomes but are used inconsistently in palliative care practice. To address this implementation gap, we developed the ‘RESOLVE Implementation Strategy’. This protocol describes a process evaluation to explore mechanisms through which this strategy does, or does not, support the implementation of outcome measures in routine palliative care practice.Methods and analysisMultistrand, mixed-methods process evaluation. Strand one will collect routine outcomes data (palliative Phase of Illness, Integrated Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status) to map the changes in use of outcome measures over 12 months (July 2021–July 2022). Strand two will collect survey data over the same 12-month period to explore how professionals’ understandings of, skills in using and ability to build organisational practices around, outcome measures change over time. Strand three will collect interview data to understand the mechanisms underpinning/affecting our implementation strategy. Thematic framework analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively.Ethics and disseminationFor strand one, ethical approval has been obtained (Cambridge REC, REF: 20/EE/0188). For strands two and three, ethical approval has been obtained from Hull York Medical School ethics committee (2105). Tailored feedback of study findings will be provided to participating sites. Abstracts and papers will be submitted to national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Lay and policy briefings and newsletters will be shared through patient and public involvement and project networks, plus via the project website.

Background: Population ageing represents a global challenge for future end-of-life care. Given new trends in place of death, it is vital to examine where the rising number of deaths will occur in future years and implications for health and social care. Aim: To project where people will die from 2015 to 2040 across all care settings in England and Wales. Design: Population-based trend analysis and projections using simple linear modelling. Age- and gender-specific proportions of deaths in hospital, care home, home, hospice and ‘other’ were applied to numbers of expected future deaths. Setting/population: All deaths (2004–2014) from death registration data and predicted deaths (2015–2040) from official population forecasts in England and Wales. Results: Annual deaths are projected to increase from 501,424 in 2014 (38.8% aged 85 years and over) to 635,814 in 2040 (53.6% aged 85 years and over). Between 2004 and 2014, proportions of home and care home deaths increased (18.3%–22.9% and 16.7%– 21.2%) while hospital deaths declined (57.9%–48.1%). If current trends continue, numbers of deaths in care homes and homes will increase by 108.1% and 88.6%, with care home the most common place of death by 2040. If care home capacity does not expand and additional deaths occur in hospital, hospital deaths will start rising by 2023. Conclusion: To sustain current trends, end-of-life care provision in care homes and the community needs to double by 2040. An infrastructure across care settings that supports rising annual deaths is urgently needed; otherwise, hospital deaths will increase.

Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have symptoms and concerns which are inadequately addressed. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can potentially improve the identification and management of advanced symptoms and palliative concerns. However, these have not been used in CHF.OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a PROM-the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)-together with heart failure nurse education and training to improve the identification and management of symptoms and concerns among patients with CHF.METHODS: A parallel, mixed methods design with an embedded qualitative component was used to examine the feasibility of recruitment, retention, intervention adherence/compliance and follow-up assessment completion (symptom burden, quality of life, psychological well-being). Patient and nurse qualitative semistructured interviews explored intervention and study design feasibility and its acceptability.RESULTS: Conversion to consent was 46.9% (372 screened, 81 approached, 38 recruited). 66% of patient participants completed the IPOS; 6% of IPOS questionnaire items were missing (non-response). Over two-thirds (65.6%) of these missing items related to three patients. No item was consistently missing; appetite was the most frequent missing item (1.4%). 92% of participants who completed the IPOS completed all follow-up assessments (1-2 days, 1-2 weeks and 4-6 weeks post-IPOS completion) with no missing data. The a priori feasibility objectives were met. Patients and nurses reported the intervention and study design feasible and acceptable.CONCLUSIONS: A palliative-specific PROM-based intervention is feasible and acceptable to both patients with CHF and nurses in nurse-led disease management clinics for the purposes of both clinical care and research.

Background: Phase of Illness describes stages of advanced illness according to care needs of the individual, family and suitability of care plan. There is limited evidence on its association with other measures of symptoms, and health-related needs, in palliative care. Aims: The aims of the study are as follows. (1) Describe function, pain, other physical problems, psycho-spiritual problems and family and carer support needs by Phase of Illness. (2) Consider strength of associations between these measures and Phase of Illness. Design and setting: Secondary analysis of patient-level data; a total of 1317 patients in three settings. Function measured using Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale. Pain, other physical problems, psycho-spiritual problems and family and carer support needs measured using items on Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale. Results: Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale items varied significantly by Phase of Illness. Mean function was highest in stable phase (65.9, 95% confidence interval = 63.4–68.3) and lowest in dying phase (16.6, 95% confidence interval = 15.3–17.8). Mean pain was highest in unstable phase (1.43, 95% confidence interval = 1.36–1.51). Multinomial regression: psycho-spiritual problems were not associated with Phase of Illness ( χ2 = 2.940, df = 3, p = 0.401). Family and carer support needs were greater in deteriorating phase than unstable phase (odds ratio (deteriorating vs unstable) = 1.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.01–1.49). Forty-nine percent of the variance in Phase of Illness is explained by Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale. Conclusion: Phase of Illness has value as a clinical measure of overall palliative need, capturing additional information beyond Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale. Lack of significant association between psycho-spiritual problems and Phase of Illness warrants further investigation.

Background: Funding models influence provision and development of palliative care services. As palliative care integrates into mainstream health care provision, opportunities to develop funding mechanisms arise. However, little has been reported on what funding models exist or how we can learn from them. Aim: To assess national models and methods for financing and reimbursing palliative care. Design: Initial literature scoping yielded limited evidence on the subject as national policy documents are difficult to identify, access and interpret. We undertook expert consultations to appraise national models of palliative care financing in England, Germany, Hungary, Republic of Ireland, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States and Wales. These represent different levels of service development and a variety of funding mechanisms. Results: Funding mechanisms reflect country-specific context and local variations in care provision. Patterns emerging include the following: Provider payment is rarely linked to population need and often perpetuates existing inequitable patterns in service provision. Funding is frequently characterised as a mixed system of charitable, public and private payers. The basis on which providers are paid for services rarely reflects individual care input or patient needs. Conclusion: Funding mechanisms need to be well understood and used with caution to ensure best practice and minimise perverse incentives. Before we can conduct cross-national comparisons of costs and impact of palliative care, we need to understand the funding and policy context for palliative care in each country of interest.

Context Opioids are prescribed to manage moderate-to-severe pain and can be used with older adults; however, they may lead to several adverse effects, including cognitive impairment. Objectives To identify, appraise, and synthesize evidence on the impact of opioids on cognition in older adults with cancer/chronic noncancer pain, and screening tools/neuropsychological assessments used to detect opioid-induced cognitive impairment. Methods A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (international prospective register of systematic reviews registration: CRD42018092943). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and observational studies of adults aged 65 years and older with cancer/chronic noncancer pain taking opioids were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Results From 4036 records, 10 met inclusion criteria. Five studies used one screening tool, and five studies used a range of neuropsychological assessments; assessing 14 cognitive domains. Most studies demonstrated no effect of opioid use on cognitive domains, whereas four studies showed mixed effects. In particular, attention, language, orientation, psychomotor function, and verbal working/delayed episodic memory were worsened. Changes to cognitive function were predominantly observed in studies with higher mean doses of opioids (120–190.7mg oral morphine equivalent daily dose). Conclusion Both improvements and impairments to cognition were observed in studies with higher mean opioid doses. In clinical practice, a brief screening tool assessing attention, language, orientation, psychomotor function, and verbal working/delayed episodic memory may be beneficial to detect worsening cognition in older adults with chronic pain using opioids.

Background: When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden. Aim: To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured. Design: An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1–5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants’ rationales for their choices were analysed thematically. Setting/participants: In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016. Results: Participants’ years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were ‘overall wellbeing/quality of life’ (2.75), ‘pain’ (2.06), and ‘information needs/preferences’ (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure ‘Phase of Illness’ was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured. Conclusion: The domains of ‘overall wellbeing/quality of life’, ‘pain’, and ‘information needs/preferences’ are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using ‘Phase of Illness’. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care.

Background: Specialist palliative care services have various configurations of staff, processes and interventions, which determine how care is delivered. Currently, there is no consistent way to define and distinguish these different models of care. Aim: To identify the core components that characterise and differentiate existing models of specialist palliative care in the United Kingdom. Design: Mixed-methods study: (1) semi-structured interviews to identify criteria, (2) two-round Delphi study to rank/refine criteria, and (3) structured interviews to test/refine criteria. Setting/participants: Specialist palliative care stakeholders from hospice inpatient, hospital advisory, and community settings. Results: (1) Semi-structured interviews with 14 clinical leads, from eight UK organisations (five hospice inpatient units, two hospital advisory teams, five community teams), provided 34 preliminary criteria. (2) Delphi study: Round 1 (54 participants): thirty-four criteria presented, seven removed and seven added. Round 2 (30 participants): these 34 criteria were ranked with the 15 highest ranked criteria, including setting, type of care, size of service, diagnoses, disciplines, mode of care, types of interventions, ‘out-of-hours’ components (referrals, times, disciplines, mode of care, type of care), external education, use of measures, bereavement follow-up and complex grief provision. (3) Structured interviews with 21 UK service leads (six hospice inpatients, four hospital advisory and nine community teams) refined the criteria from (1) and (2), and provided four further contextual criteria (team purpose, funding, self-referral acceptance and discharge). Conclusion: In this innovative study, we derive 20 criteria to characterise and differentiate models of specialist palliative care – a major paradigm shift to enable accurate reporting and comparison in practice and research.

Background: Few measures capture the complex symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care. Aim: To validate the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale, a measure underpinned by extensive psychometric development, by evaluating its validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. Design: Concurrent, cross-cultural validation study of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale – both (1) patient self-report and (2) staff proxy-report versions. We tested construct validity (factor analysis, known-group comparisons, and correlational analysis), reliability (internal consistency, agreement, and test–retest reliability), and responsiveness (through longitudinal evaluation of change). Setting/participants: In all, 376 adults receiving palliative care, and 161 clinicians, from a range of settings in the United Kingdom and Germany Results: We confirm a three-factor structure (Physical Symptoms, Emotional Symptoms and Communication/Practical Issues). Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale shows strong ability to distinguish between clinically relevant groups; total Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale subscale scores were higher – reflecting more problems – in those patients with ‘unstable’ or ‘deteriorating’ versus ‘stable’ Phase of Illness (F = 15.1, p w > 0.60). Longitudinal validity in form of responsiveness to change is good. Conclusion: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a valid and reliable outcome measure, both in patient self-report and staff proxy-report versions. It can assess and monitor symptoms and concerns in advanced illness, determine the impact of healthcare interventions, and demonstrate quality of care. This represents a major step forward internationally for palliative care outcome measurement.

Background: The AMBER (Assessment, Management, Best Practice, Engagement, Recovery Uncertain) care bundle is a complex intervention used in UK hospitals to support patients with uncertain recovery. However, it has yet to be evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to identify potential benefits or harms. The aim of this trial was to investigate the feasibility of a cluster RCT of the AMBER care bundle. Methods: This is a prospective mixed-methods feasibility cluster RCT. Quantitative data collected from patients (or proxies if patients lack capacity) were used (i) to examine recruitment, retention and follow-up rates; (ii) to test data collection tools for the trial and determine their optimum timing; (iii) to test methods to identify the use of financial resources; and (iv) to explore the acceptability of study procedures for health professionals and patients. Descriptive statistical analyses and thematic analysis used the framework approach. Results: In total, 894 patients were screened, of whom 220 were eligible and 19 of those eligible (8.6%) declined to participate. Recruitment to the control arm was challenging. Of the 728 patients screened for that arm, 647 (88.9%) were excluded. Overall, 65 patients were recruited (81.3% of the recruitment target of 80). Overall, many were elderly (≥80 years, 46.2%, n = 30, mean = 77.8 years, standard deviation [SD] = 12.3 years). Over half (53.8%) had a non-cancer diagnosis, with a mean of 2.3 co-morbidities; 24.6% patients (n = 16) died during their hospital stay and 35.4% (n = 23) within 100 days of discharge. In both trial arms, baseline IPOS subscale scores identified moderate patient anxiety (control: mean 13.3, SD 4.8; intervention: mean 13.3, SD 5.1), and howRwe identified a good care experience (control: mean 13.1, SD 2.5; intervention: mean 11.5, SD 2.1). Collecting quantitative service use and quality of life data was feasible. No patient participants regarded study involvement negatively. Focus groups with health professionals identified concerns regarding (i) the subjectivity of the intervention’s eligibility criteria, (ii) the need to prognosticate to identify potential patients and (iii) consent procedures and the length of the questionnaire. Conclusions: A full trial of the AMBER care bundle is technically feasible but impractical due to fundamental issues in operationalising the intervention’s eligibility criteria, which prevents optimal recruitment. Since this complex intervention continues to be used in clinical care and advocated in policy, alternative research approaches must be considered and tested. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN36040085.

Low socioeconomic position (SEP) is recognized as a risk factor for worse health outcomes. How socioeconomic factors influence end-of-life care, and the magnitude of their effect, is not understood. This review aimed to synthesise and quantify the associations between measures of SEP and use of healthcare in the last year of life.MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ASSIA databases were searched without language restrictions from inception to 1 February 2019. We included empirical observational studies from high-income countries reporting an association between SEP (e.g., income, education, occupation, private medical insurance status, housing tenure, housing quality, or area-based deprivation) and place of death, plus use of acute care, specialist and nonspecialist end-of-life care, advance care planning, and quality of care in the last year of life. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS). The overall strength and direction of associations was summarised, and where sufficient comparable data were available, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were pooled and dose-response meta-regression performed. A total of 209 studies were included (mean NOS quality score of 4.8); 112 high- to medium-quality observational studies were used in the meta-synthesis and meta-analysis (53.5% from North America, 31.0% from Europe, 8.5% from Australia, and 7.0% from Asia). Compared to people living in the least deprived neighbourhoods, people living in the most deprived neighbourhoods were more likely to die in hospital versus home (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.23-1.38, p0.001), to receive acute hospital-based care in the last 3 months of life (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08-1.25, p0.001), and to not receive specialist palliative care (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07-1.19, p0.001). For every quintile increase in area deprivation, hospital versus home death was more likely (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.08, p0.001), and not receiving specialist palliative care was more likely (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, p0.001). Compared to the most educated (qualifications or years of education completed), the least educated people were more likely to not receive specialist palliative care (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.07-1.49, p = 0.005). The observational nature of the studies included and the focus on high-income countries limit the conclusions of this review.In high-income countries, low SEP is a risk factor for hospital death as well as other indicators of potentially poor-quality end-of-life care, with evidence of a dose response indicating that inequality persists across the social stratum. These findings should stimulate widespread efforts to reduce socioeconomic inequality towards the end of life.

ObjectivesPeople living with HIV (PLWH) have multidimensional concerns requiring person‐centred care. Routine use of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) improves outcomes. No brief PROM currently reflects the breadth of concerns for PLWH. This study sought to identify priority outcomes for PLWH, model current practice, explore views on introducing PROMs into routine care, and devise a model for person‐centred care incorporating the PROM.MethodsA cross‐national multi‐centre study (London, Brighton and Dublin) was carried out. Semi‐structured qualitative interviews with adult PLWH, HIV health care professionals and HIV commissioners (responsible for planning and commissioning services) were performed. Interviews were analysed using thematic and framework analysis.ResultsPLWH (n = 28), professionals (n = 21) and commissioners (n = 8) described concerns related to living with HIV across six domains: physical (e.g. pain and gastrointestinal symptoms), cognitive (e.g. memory and sleep), psychological (e.g. anxiety and depression), social (e.g. isolation and intimacy), welfare (e.g. finances and fears regarding change of immigration status), and information (e.g. long‐term outcomes) needs. Themes were highly inter‐related, impacting across domains of need (e.g. physical and cognitive problems impacting on psychological and social wellbeing). Perceived benefits of using PROMs in routine HIV care included improved person‐centredness, patient empowerment, fewer missed concerns, increased engagement with services, and informed planning of services. Potential challenges included heterogeneity of PLWH, literacy, and utility for those who struggle to engage with care.ConclusionsThis study presents a novel model of person‐centred care incorporating an HIV‐specific PROM. The model reflects priorities of key stakeholders. Explicit use of PROMs in routine HIV care could afford benefits for PLWH, clinical teams and commissioners.

ObjectiveTo measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and well-being in older people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and to determine the association between treatment type and sociodemographic characteristics on these outcome measures. In addition, to assess the convergent validity between the HRQoL and well-being measure and their feasibility and acceptability in this population.DesignProspective cross-sectional study.SettingThree renal units in the UK and Australia.Participants129 patients with ESKD managed with dialysis or with an estimated glomerular filtration ≤10 mL/min/1.73 m2and managed with comprehensive conservative, non-dialytic care.Outcome measuresHRQoL and well-being were assessed using Short-Form six dimensions (SF-6D, 0–1 scale); Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOL-36) (0–100 scale) and Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure-Older people (ICECAP-O, 0–1 scale). Linear regression assessed associations between treatment, HRQoL and well-being. Pearson’s correlation coefficient assessed convergent validity between instruments.ResultsMedian age of 81 years (IQR 78–85), 65% males; 83 (64%) were managed with dialysis and 46 (36%) with conservative care. When adjusted for treatment type and sociodemographic variables, those managed on dialysis reported lower mean SF-6D utility (−0.05, 95% CI −0.12 to 0.01); lower KDQOL Physical Component Summary score (−3.17, 95% CI −7.61 to 1.27); lower Mental Component Summary score (−2.41, 95% CI −7.66 to 2.84); lower quality of life due to burden (−28.59, 95% CI −41.77 to −15.42); symptoms (−5.93, 95% CI −14.61 to 2.73) and effects of kidney disease (−16.49, 95% CI −25.98 to −6.99) and lower overall ICECAP-O well-being (−0.07, 95% CI −0.16 to 0.02) than those managed conservatively. Correlation between ICECAP-O well-being and SF-6D utility scores was strong overall, 0.65 (pConclusionsOlder people on dialysis report significantly higher burden and effects of kidney disease than those on conservative care. Lower HRQoL and well-being may be associated with dialysis treatment and should inform shared decision-making about treatment options.Trial registration numberUK (IRAS project ID: 134360andREC reference 14/LO/0291) and Australia (R20140203 HREC/14/RAH/36).

There is a lack of valid disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for detecting symptoms and concerns in patients with advanced chronic heart failure (CHF). The Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS) and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) are specifically developed to capture the main symptoms and concerns of people severely affected by advanced disease. The aim of this study was to determine whether POS and IPOS captures the main symptoms and concerns self-reported by patients with advanced CHF. A secondary analysis of existing POS/IPOS data collected in three longitudinal studies was conducted. POS and IPOS start with an open-ended question for patients to report their main problems and concerns, followed by subsequent closed questions on a range of symptoms and other concerns. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. The 102 participants from the three datasets had median age 81 years (SD ±9.84 years); 62% male; 87% white. A total of 107 concerns were reported in the first, open POS/IPOS question seeking the patient's main concerns. Of these, 83 (77%) were reflected in the subsequent IPOS/POS closed questions. The high correspondence between the free-text responses and the closed questions indicates that most issues are captured by the POS/IPOS items. In conclusion, the generic versions of POS and IPOS do capture the main problems and concerns of patients with advanced CHF. Minor adaptations and further psychometric validation of POS and IPOS are needed in this population.

Context. Episodic breathlessness causes additional distress to breathless patients with advanced disease, but management isstill insufficient and there is a lack of knowledge on effective coping strategies.Objectives. The aim was to explore patients’ self-management strategies for episodic breathlessness.Methods. In-depth interviews with patients suffering from episodic breathlessness as a result of chronic heart failure,chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, or motor neuron disease were conducted. Interviews were transcribedverbatim and analyzed guided by the analytic hierarchy of Framework analysis.Results. A total of 51 participants were interviewed (15 chronic heart failure, 14 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 13lung cancer, and nine motor neuron disease; age, mean [SD], 68 [12], 41% women, median Karnofsky index 60%). Theydescribed six main strategies for coping with episodes of breathlessness: reduction of physical exertion, cognitive andpsychological strategies, breathing techniques and positions, air and oxygen, drugs and medical devices, and environmentaland other strategies. Some strategies were used in an opposing way, e.g., concentrating on the breathing vs. distraction fromany thoughts of breathlessness or laying down flat vs. standing up and raising hands.Conclusion. Patients used a number of different strategies to cope with episodic breathlessness, adding more detailedunderstanding of existing strategies for breathlessness. The findings, therefore, may provide a valuable aid for health careproviders, affected patients, and their relatives.