Search

Chronic breathlessness, a persistent and disabling symptom despite optimal treatment of underlying causes, is a frightening symptom with serious and widespread impact on patients and their carers. Clinical guidelines support the use of morphine for the relief of chronic breathlessness in common long-term conditions, but questions remain around clinical effectiveness, safety and longer term (>7 days) administration. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose oral modified-release morphine in chronic breathlessness. This is a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants (n=158) will be opioid-naïve with chronic breathlessness due to heart or lung disease, cancer or post-coronavirus disease 2019. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to 5 mg oral modified-release morphine/placebo twice daily and docusate/placebo 100 mg twice daily for 56 days. Non-responders at Day 7 will dose escalate to 10 mg morphine/placebo twice daily at Day 15. The primary end-point (Day 28) measure will be worst breathlessness severity (previous 24 h). Secondary outcome measures include worst cough, distress, pain, functional status, physical activity, quality of life, and early identification and management of morphine-related side-effects. At Day 56, participants may opt to take open-label, oral modified-release morphine as part of usual care and complete quarterly breathlessness and toxicity questionnaires. The study is powered to be able to reject the null hypothesis and an embedded normalisation process theory-informed qualitative substudy will explore the adoption of morphine as a first-line pharmacological treatment for chronic breathlessness in clinical practice if effective.

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

OBJECTIVE: To develop comprehensive guidance that captures international impacts, causes and solutions related to emergency department (ED) crowding and access block. METHODS: Emergency physicians representing 15 countries from all International Federation of Emergency Medicine (IFEM) regions composed the Task Force. Monthly meetings were held via video-conferencing software to achieve consensus for report content. The report was submitted and approved by the IFEM Board on June 1, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 14 topic dossiers, each relating to an aspect of ED crowding, were researched and completed collaboratively by members of the Task Force. CONCLUSIONS: The IFEM report is a comprehensive document intended to be used in whole or by section to inform and address aspects of ED crowding and access block. Overall, ED crowding is a multifactorial issue requiring systems-wide solutions applied at local, regional, and national levels. Access block is the predominant contributor of ED crowding in most parts of the world.

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced significant changes in emergency medicine patient volumes, clinical practice, and has accelerated a number of systems-level developments. Many of these changes produced efficiencies in emergency care systems and contributed to a reduction in crowding and access block. In this paper, we explore these changes, analyse their risks and benefits and examine their sustainability for the future to the extent that they may combat crowding. We also examine the necessity of a system-wide approach in addressing ED crowding and access block.