Search

Background Integrated care may improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service in improving the wellbeing and quality of life (QoL) of older people living with severe frailty. Methods A community-based non-randomised controlled study. Participants (≥65 years, electronic Frailty Index ≥0.36) received either the new integrated care service plus usual care, or usual care alone. Data collection was at three time points: baseline, 2-4 weeks, and 10-14 weeks. The primary outcome was patient wellbeing (symptoms and other concerns) at 2-4 weeks, measured using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS); the secondary outcome was QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L. To test duration of effect and safety, wellbeing and QoL were also measured at 10-14 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise and compare intervention and control groups (eligible but had not accessed the new service), with t-test, Chi-Square, or Mann-Whitney U tests (as appropriate) to test differences at each time point. Generalised linear modelling, with propensity score matching, was used for further group comparisons. Data were analysed using STATA v17. Results 199 intervention and 54 control participants were recruited. At baseline, intervention and control groups were similar in age, gender, ethnicity, living status, and body mass index, but not functional status or area deprivation score. At 2-4 weeks, wellbeing had improved in the intervention group but worsened in the control (median IPOS -5 versus 2, pversus 0.00, pppp Conclusions Our findings suggest that the new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service may have improved the overall wellbeing and quality of life of older people living with frailty at 2-4 weeks and the improvement in wellbeing was sustained at three months. Ethics approval NHS Research Ethics Committee 18/YH/0470 and IRAS-250981. Trial registration The trial was retrospectively registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry (registration date: 01/08/2022, registration number: ISRCTN10613839).

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.

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.

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.

People with dementia are most at risk of experiencing serious health related suffering, if they do not have a palliative care approach introduced early enough in the illness. It can be challenging for nurses to assess experienced needs of people, who are thought no longer able to self-report such as people with dementia. Assessment help to understand the care the patient and their family need promptly. It is unknown how nurses recognise holistic palliative care needs in people with dementia during routine care.Scoping review where EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo databases, and references were searched with an advanced search strategy, which was built on three concepts (nurses, dementia, and nursing assessment) using corresponding Medical Subject Headings. Data were charted in a piloted extraction form, based on the assessment domains within the nursing process followed by summarise and synthesise results narratively.37 out of 2,028 qualitative and quantitative articles published between 2000 and 2021, and relating to 2600 + nurses, were identified. Pain was sole focus of assessment in 29 articles, leaving 8 articles to describe assessment of additional needs (e.g., discomfort). Nurses working in a nursing home assess pain and other needs by observing the persons with dementia behaviour during routine care. Nurses in the acute care setting are more likely to assess symptoms with standard assessment tools at admission and evaluate symptoms by observational methods. Across settings, about one third of pain assessments are supported by person-centred pain assessment tools. Assessments were mostly triggered when the person with dementia vocalised discomfort or a change in usual behaviour was observed. Nurses rely on family members and colleagues to gain more information about needs experienced by people with dementia.There is a scarcity of evidence about techniques and methods used by nurses to assess needs other than pain experienced by people with dementia. A holistic, person-centred screening tool to aid real-time observations at the bedside and used in conversations with health care professionals and families/friends, may improve need recognition other than pain, to ensure holistic needs could then be addressed timely to improve care in people with dementia.

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.

A key component of treatment for all people with advanced kidney disease is supportive care, which aims to improve quality of life and can be provided alongside therapies intended to prolong life, such as dialysis. This article addresses the key considerations of supportive care as part of integrated end-stage kidney disease care, with particular attention paid to programs in low- and middle-income countries. Supportive care should be an integrated component of care for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, patients receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and patients receiving non-KRT conservative care. Five themes are identified: improving information on prognosis and support, developing context-specific evidence, establishing appropriate metrics for monitoring care, clearly communicating the role of supportive care, and integrating supportive care into existing health care infrastructures. This report explores some general aspects of these 5 domains, before exploring their consequences in 4 health care situations/settings: in people approaching end-stage kidney disease in high-income countries and in low- and middle-income countries, and in people discontinuing KRT in high-income countries and in low- and middle-income countries.

Background COVID-19 has placed huge stress on healthcare systems and services, often impacting the well-being of staff across all settings (Mehta, Machado, Kwizera, et al., 2021). Little is known about the pandemic’s impact on hospice staff. Aims Identify how responding to COVID-19 has impacted hospice staff, whether and why this resulted in experiences of moral distress, and how hospices have responded in supporting staff well-being. Methods Qualitative multiple case study (Yin, 2017) (n= five cases), as part of the CovPall study which explored the multinational response of specialist palliative services to the pandemic. Cases were hospices in England providing specialist palliative care services in any setting. Data collection involved individual interviews with hospice professionals and analysed using framework analysis (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, et al., 2013). Results 24 participants sampled by role, experience, and setting. Themes demonstrated how infection control constraints (i.e., visiting restrictions) prohibited and diluted staff’s capacity to provide care that reflected their professional values. This caused moral distress. Despite organisational, team, and individual support strategies to address moral distress, continually managing these constraints led to a ‘crescendo effect’ with cumulative effects of moral distress (e.g., sadness, guilt, frustration, and fatigue) sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and the feeling of making a valued contribution provided ‘moral comfort’ for some. Conclusions Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the well-being of hospice staff has been, and continues to be, affected by experiences of moral distress during the pandemic. How innovative or of interest is the abstract We provide an in-depth insight into why and how hospice staff experienced moral distress during the pandemic, alongside how voluntary organisations responded. Given that prolonged experiences of moral distress has detrimental effects on staff and the quality of patient care, (Burston & Tuckett, 2013) national and organisational changes need to be implemented to alleviate and manage the short and long-term impact of moral distress (Jameton, 2017). Funding statement The CovPall study is jointly funded by UKRI and NIHR [COV0011; MR/V012908/1]. Additional support was from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration, South London, hosted at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, and Cicely Saunders International (Registered Charity No. 1087195).

BackgroundVolunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown.AimsTo understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsMulti-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach.Results458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19. These were across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient/family facing support (58.7%), indirect support (e.g. driving) (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (OR=0.15, 95%CI = 0.07-0.3 pDiscussion and conclusionVolunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care, particularly in in-patient hospices, which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19.

ObjectivesWe aimed to estimate the potential population that requires palliative care, clarify the relationship between this population and the rate of ageing in Japan, and compare these trends with those of other countries.DesignWe used the national death registration data and population projections for Japan to estimate the population in need of palliative care using the minimal estimate method developed by Murtaghet al. Linear regression was used to create a model of mortality using sex, age at intervals of 5 years, and each major disease classification. We calculated the future population in need of palliative care until 2040 and compared the ageing data to those of other countries.Setting/participantsAll adults in Japan who died from 1980 to 2040 at intervals of 5 years.ResultsThe number of people who might need palliative care from 2020 to 2040 will also increase linearly from 1 059 000 to 1 405 000. The proportion of Alzheimer’s, dementia and senility of the total need for palliative care will increase to 43.4% in 2040. The correlation coefficient between the proportion of the population in need of palliative care and the rate of ageing was 0.24 in developed countries.ConclusionIn Japan, the population requiring palliative care in 2040 will be 1.5 times that in 2015. Palliative care needs to be provided urgently for people with Alzheimer’s disease, dementia and senility. The proportion of patients in need of palliative care may not change, although the number of patients requiring such gradually increases in developed countries.

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.

End-stage kidney disease accounts for 1–2% of all deaths. With ageing of the population, this proportion will grow steadily over the coming years. Symptom burden in end-stage kidney disease exceeds advanced cancer, with added renal-specific symptoms, such as itch and restless legs. Pain and depression are also more prevalent. Many renal symptoms go under-recognized and undertreated, especially as they arise from comorbid conditions, rather than the renal disease itself. The most useful intervention to address symptoms is regular assessment, followed by pharmacological interventions that take account of the constraints on using renally cleared drugs and the high risk of toxicity from accumulation of parent compounds or metabolites. The population with end-stage kidney disease have extensive palliative care needs, and require significant medical, nursing, psychological, and social care to address these as their illness advances towards the end of life.

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

BackgroundPalliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients’ symptom self-management, independence, and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic.AimTo understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision.DesignCross-sectional national online survey.Setting/participantsRehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020.Findings61 completed responses (England, n=55; Scotland, n=4; Wales, n=1; and Northern Ireland, n=1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation.ConclusionThis study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.Key StatementsWhat is already known about the topic?Guidelines recommend that rehabilitation targeting function, well-being, and social participation is provided by specialist palliative care services.Prior to Covid-19, there was variable provision of palliative rehabilitation in the UK. This variation was related to local service priorities, funding, and commissioning constraints.What this paper addsOver time, Covid-19 related disruptions forced services to reconfigure and adapt which caused fluctuations in the shared spaces in which health professionals, patients and family care givers met to participate in rehabilitation.These fluctuations resulted in the adoption of digital and remote forms of care which altered health professionals’ and patients’ capacity to participate in, and the equity of access to and reach of, rehabilitation.Covid-19 has acted as a springboard for learning, with many rehabilitation services hoping to move into the future by (re)gaining losses and integrating these with lessons learned during the pandemic.Implications for practice, theory or policyRecommendations are made to support extended reach and more equitable access to rehabilitation in palliative care services.We recommend mixed methods evaluations of hybrid models of in-person and online rehabilitation across palliative care settings.

ObjectivesTo develop insights into response of palliative care services caring for people from ethnic minority groups during COVID-19.MethodsCross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services response to COVID-19. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively and χ2 tests used to explore relationships between categorical variables. Free text comments were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.Results277 UK services responded. 168 included hospice teams (76% of all UK hospice teams). Services supporting those from ethnic minority groups were more likely to include hospital (pThree themes demonstrated impact of policy introduced during the pandemic, including: disproportionate adverse impact of restricted visiting, compounded communication challenges and unmet religious and faith needs. One theme demonstrated mistrust of services by ethnic minority groups, and the final theme demonstrated a focus on equal and individualised care.ConclusionsPolicies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic may have adversely impacted those from ethnic minority groups making these at-risk populations even more vulnerable. The palliative care response may have been equal but inequitable. During the para-COVID-19 period, systemic steps, including equality impact assessments, are urgently needed.

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.

Background 15–20% of critical care patients die during their hospital admission. This service evaluation assesses the quality of palliative care on ICUs compared to national (NICE) standards, and which triggers identify palliative care needs. Methods Retrospective service evaluation, using records review for all patients who died in four ICUs, between 1 June and July 31 2019. Descriptive statistics were reported for patient characteristics, length of stay, admission route, identification triggers, and palliative care delivery. Results N=43. Death was recognised in 88% (38). Among those in which dying was recognized (N=35), 97%(34) had a documented family discussion before death, 9%(3) were offered religious/spiritual support, 11%(4) had review of hydration/nutrition, 6%(2) had documented preferred place of death. Prescription of anticipatory medications was complete in 71%(25) opioids, 34%(12) haloperidol, 54%(19) midazolam, 43%(15) hyoscine. Combining five triggers - length of stay >10 days prior to ICU admission 7%(3), multi-organ 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. 14%(5) were referred to the palliative care team, and 8%(3) had specialist palliative care team review. Conclusions Recognition of dying was high, but occurred close to death. Standard of end of life care was good in terms of family discussion, but religious/spiritual needs, review of hydration/nutrition, and prescription of anticipatory medications were less often considered. The ICUs delivered palliative care using a mainly ‘integrative’ model. Combining five triggers may increase identification of palliative care needs, but a larger study is needed.

Background There is wide inequity in specialist palliative care provision across settings. The absence of any standard way to group by case complexity is a barrier to addressing these inequities. Aim We therefore aimed to develop a casemix classification for UK specialist palliative care across settings, by identifying/grouping patient-level attributes at the start of an episode of care that predict costs of care provision within that episode. Design Cohort study with prospective collection of patient demographic and clinical variables, potential complexity and casemix criteria, and patient-level resource use. Results 2,469 participants were recruited (mean age 71.6, 51% male, 75% with cancer), receiving 2,968 episodes of care, from 14 specialist palliative organisations across England. Episodes of care lasted: median (range) 8 days (1–402) in hospital advisory palliative care, 12 days (1–140) in inpatient palliative units, 30 days (1–313) in community palliative care. Median cost per day (interquartile range) were: £56 (£31–100) in hospital advisory, £365 (£176-£698) within inpatient, and £21 (£6-£49) in community care. Seven hospital advisory, six inpatient, six community casemix classes for specialist palliative care, based on seven casemix variables (pain, other physical symptoms, psychological symptoms, functional status, palliative Phase of Illness, living alone, and family distress) predict per-diem costs. Conclusion The casemix classes show cost weight variations by up to 60% (in hospital advisory palliative care), up to 4.5-fold (in inpatient hospices), and approaching 3-fold (in community palliative care). The proposed casemix classification helps to understand these variations systematically and at scale; for practice, policy (including funding), and research, to help address inequities and provide fair, equitable and transparent palliative care to all who need it. Acknowledgements Funded by National Institute for Health Research (C-CHANGE project: RP-PG-1210-12015). The views and opinions expressed by authors do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, or DHSC

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.