Virtual reality use and patient outcomes in palliative care: A scoping review.

Objective: Virtual reality is increasingly used in healthcare settings. Potentially, it's use in palliative carecould have a positive impact; however, there is limited evidence on the scope, purpose and patient outcomes relating to virtual reality use in this context. The objective of this scoping review is to chart the literature on virtual reality use in palliative care, identifying any evidence relating to biopsychosocial patient outcomes which could support its use in practice. Methods: A scoping review of the literature, involving . a systematic search across 10 electronic bibliographic databases in December 2021, . Eligibility criteria were primary research studies, of any research designwithin a 10-year timeframe, which reported on virtual reality use and patient outcomes in palliative care. A total of 993 papers were identified, andcomprehensive screening resulted in 10 papers for inclusion. Results: This scoping review identified 10 papers addressing virtual reality in palliative care, published within a three-year timeframe 2019-2021. Research methodologies included mixed methods, quantitative and qualitative. The evidence highlightsvirtual reality use with patients receiving palliative care in a variety of settings, and data around useability, feasibility and acceptability is positive. However, the evidence regarding biopsychosocial patient outcomes linked to virtual reality use is limited. Conclusion: Virtual reality is gathering momentum in palliative care and is potentially a helpful intervention; however more research is needed to underpin the evidence base supporting its application, particularly in understanding the impact on biopsychosocial patient outcomes and ascertaining the best approach for measuring intervention effectiveness.

Specialist palliative care out of hours telephone advice in Ireland: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: In 2015 the All-Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care identified access to specialist palliative care (SPC) advice out of hours (OOH) as their number one research priority. Receiving appropriate advice in response to palliative care needs OOH can address a patient/family's concerns and prevent unnecessary hospital attendances.The aim of this study was to describe the current model of SPC OOH advice in the units that run this service, and gain a greater understanding of the nature of calls received by these services. METHODS: A national online survey was sent to staff providing OOH advice to patients with SPC needs and a second survey was sent to the managers of the organisations within Ireland. Surveys were emailed with a link to managers of both inpatient and community services who provide SPC. RESULTS: 78 clinical staff who provide OOH telephone advice responded to the survey and there were 23 responses to the managers' survey. The most common type of call received was in relation to symptom management (97%); however, 73% of staff indicated that they had no specific training in giving OOH advice over the phone and furthermore 44% of respondents felt ill equipped and uncomfortable giving OOH advice for a number of reasons. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has highlighted the need for support and training to the staff providing OOH SPC advice and that a set of standards to guide practice would be useful to this cohort of staff.

Barriers and facilitators to e-learning in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: E-learning provides opportunities for flexible learning to those who cannot access palliative education in the traditional classroom setting, but it also presents learners with challenges. The study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators to accessing e-learning courses in palliative care. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were developed, piloted and disseminated to healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in palliative care on the island of Ireland (Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland). RESULTS: Important factors that motivated HCPs to participate in e-learning are: dedicated time; quick technical and administrative support; computer training before completing an e-learning course; and regular contact with the tutor in online course work. Some 50% indicated face-to-face assistance and hands-on training sessions as the type of support that they would like to receive. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals' prior experiences and attitudes towards e-learning will guide educators developing programmes. This study indicates the prerequisite for organisational supports and practical considerations to facilitate the uptake of e-learning.

Impact of institutional smoking bans on reducing harms and secondhand smoke exposure.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans or restrictions can assist in eliminating nonsmokers' exposure to the dangers of secondhand smoke and can reduce tobacco consumption amongst smokers themselves. Evidence exists identifying the impact of tobacco control regulations and interventions implemented in general workplaces and at an individual level. However, it is important that we also review the evidence for smoking bans at a meso- or organisational level, to identify their impact on reducing the burden of exposure to tobacco smoke. Our review assesses evidence for meso- or organisational-level tobacco control bans or policies in a number of specialist settings, including public healthcare facilities, higher education and correctional facilities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which institutional smoking bans may reduce passive smoke exposure and active smoking, and affect other health-related outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the reference lists of identified studies. We contacted authors to identify completed or ongoing studies eligible for inclusion in this review. We also checked websites of state agencies and organisations, such as trial registries. Date of latest searches was 22nd June 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported the effects of tobacco bans or policies, whether complete or partial, on reducing secondhand smoke exposure, tobacco consumption, smoking prevalence and other health outcomes, in public healthcare, higher educational and correctional facilities, from 2005 onwards.The minimum standard for inclusion was having a settings-level policy or ban implemented in the study, and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included quasi-experimental studies (i.e. controlled before-and-after studies), interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two or more review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion in the review. Due to variation in the measurement of outcomes we did not conduct a meta-analysis for all of the studies included in this review, but carried out a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect meta-analysis, pooling 11 of the included studies. We evaluated all studies using a qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 observational studies in this review. We found no randomized controlled trials. Twelve studies are based in hospitals, three in prisons and two in universities. Three studies used a controlled before-and-after design, with another site used for comparison. The remaining 14 studies used an uncontrolled before-and-after study design. Five studies reported evidence from two participant groups, including staff and either patients or prisoners (depending on specialist setting), with the 12 remaining studies investigating only one participant group.The four studies (two in prisons, two in hospitals) providing health outcomes data reported an effect of reduced secondhand smoke exposure and reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses. No studies included in the review measured cotinine levels to validate secondhand smoke exposure. Eleven studies reporting active smoking rates with 12,485 participants available for pooling, but with substantial evidence of statistical heterogeneity (I² = 72%). Heterogeneity was lower in subgroups defined by setting, and provided evidence for an effect of tobacco bans on reducing active smoking rates. An analysis exploring heterogeneity within hospital settings showed evidence of an effect on reducing active smoking rates in both staff (risk ratio (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval ( CI) 0.64 to 0.78) and patients (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.98), but heterogeneity remained in the staff subgroup (I² = 76%). In prisons, despite evidence of reduced mortality associated with smoking-related illnesses in two studies, there was no evidence of effect on active smoking rates (1 study, RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16).We judged the quality of the evidence to be low, using the GRADE approach, as the included studies are all observational. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of an effect of settings-based smoking policies on reducing smoking rates in hospitals and universities. In prisons, reduced mortality rates and reduced exposure to secondhand smoke were reported. However, we rated the evidence base as low quality. We therefore need more robust studies assessing the evidence for smoking bans and policies in these important specialist settings.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing harms from secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and the smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. Since the first version of this review in 2010, more countries have introduced national smoking legislation banning indoor smoking. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of legislative smoking bans on (1) morbidity and mortality from exposure to secondhand smoke, and (2) smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and reference lists of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; February 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans affecting populations. The minimum standard was having an indoor smoking ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. Our search included a broad range of research designs including: randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before-and-after studies, interrupted time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One author extracted characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies and a second author checked the details. We extracted health and smoking behaviour outcomes. We did not attempt a meta-analysis due to the heterogeneity in design and content of the studies included. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: There are 77 studies included in this updated review. We retained 12 studies from the original review and identified 65 new studies. Evidence from 21 countries is provided in this update, an increase of eight countries from the original review. The nature of the intervention precludes randomized controlled trials. Thirty-six studies used an interrupted time series study design, 23 studies use a controlled before-and-after design and 18 studies are before-and-after studies with no control group; six of these studies use a cohort design. Seventy-two studies reported health outcomes, including cardiovascular (44), respiratory (21), and perinatal outcomes (7). Eleven studies reported national mortality rates for smoking-related diseases. A number of the studies report multiple health outcomes. There is consistent evidence of a positive impact of national smoking bans on improving cardiovascular health outcomes, and reducing mortality for associated smoking-related illnesses. Effects on respiratory and perinatal health were less consistent. We found 24 studies evaluating the impact of national smoke-free legislation on smoking behaviour. Evidence of an impact of legislative bans on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption is inconsistent, with some studies not detecting additional long-term change in existing trends in prevalence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Since the first version of this review was published, the current evidence provides more robust support for the previous conclusions that the introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to improved health outcomes through reduction in SHS for countries and their populations. The clearest evidence is observed in reduced admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is evidence of reduced mortality from smoking-related illnesses at a national level. There is inconsistent evidence of an impact on respiratory and perinatal health outcomes, and on smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

INSPIRE (INvestigating Social and PractIcal suppoRts at the End of life): Pilot randomised trial of a community social and practical support intervention for adults with life-limiting illness.

BACKGROUND: For most people, home is the preferred place of care and death. Despite the development of specialist palliative care and primary care models of community based service delivery, people who are dying, and their families/carers, can experience isolation, feel excluded from social circles and distanced from their communities. Loneliness and social isolation can have a detrimental impact on both health and quality of life. Internationally, models of social and practical support at the end of life are gaining momentum as a result of the Compassionate Communities movement. These models have not yet been subjected to rigorous evaluation. The aims of the study described in this protocol are: (1) to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of The Good Neighbour Partnership (GNP), a new volunteer-led model of social and practical care/support for community dwelling adults in Ireland who are living with advanced life-limiting illness; and (2) to pilot the method for a Phase III Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT). DESIGN: The INSPIRE study will be conducted within the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Interventions (Phases 0-2) and includes an exploratory two-arm delayed intervention randomised controlled trial. Eighty patients and/or their carers will be randomly allocated to one of two groups: (I) Intervention: GNP in addition to standard care or (II) Control: Standard Care. Recipients of the GNP will be asked for their views on participating in both the study and the intervention. Quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered from both groups over eight weeks through face-to-face interviews which will be conducted before, during and after the intervention. The primary outcome is the effect of the intervention on social and practical need. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, loneliness, social support, social capital, unscheduled health service utilisation, caregiver burden, adverse impacts, and satisfaction with intervention. Volunteers engaged in the GNP will also be assessed in terms of their death anxiety, death self efficacy, self-reported knowledge and confidence with eleven skills considered necessary to be effective GNP volunteers. DISCUSSION: The INSPIRE study addresses an important knowledge gap, providing evidence on the efficacy, utility and acceptability of a unique model of social and practical support for people living at home, with advanced life-limiting illness. The findings will be important in informing the development (and evaluation) of similar service models and policy elsewhere both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18400594 18(th) February 2015.

WA40†The good neighbour partnership: why do we need it? who is going to do it? how on earth are we going to evaluate it?

: This one-hour symposium considers Milford Care Centre's Compassionate Communities Good Neighbour Partnership and it's evaluation by an international team, led by Maynooth University and funded by the All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care, The Irish Cancer Society, The Irish Hospice Foundation and Milford Care Centre. The symposium will be divided into three sections: 1. The Good Neighbour Partnership: Why do we need it? In this section we will describe the findings from a recent scoping study to determine the social and practical needs of community dwelling adults (and their families) living with advanced life limiting illness at home. We will consider the rationale for specialist palliative care services, working with community groups, to lead the development of a volunteer-based social model of care to address unmet need. 2. The Good Neighbour Partnership: How do we recruit and train volunteers? We will share our process and experience of recruiting and training 15 Compassionate Communities Volunteers to assess unmet social and practical need, and to mobile the person's circle of community to meet those needs. An understanding of the motivating factors of volunteers will be shared. 3. The Good Neighbour Partnership: How on earth are we going to evaluate it? Here we describe the INSPIRE study - Investigating Social and Practical Supports at the End of life. An exploratory delayed intervention randomised controlled trial (framed by the MRC Framework for Complex Interventions) to assess the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of the Good Neighbour Partnership.

Analysis of library associated information needs of staff in a specialist palliative and gerontological care centre in Mid-West Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Milford Care Centre is a major centre for specialist palliative and gerontological care in the Mid-West of Ireland. In August 2008, a Librarian was employed to support the information, research, teaching and professional development needs of staff and students. In planning associated with this role, it was necessary to undertake an analysis of the information needs of staff. OBJECTIVES: (1) To understand the information needs of staff with regard to the new Library and Information Service. (2) To identify current access to and levels of skill in information literacy and ICT. (3) To ascertain the need for training in those skills. METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was disseminated in November by email and printed copies were left at other locations. RESULTS: Assistance with obtaining journal articles was rated most highly by respondents as being an important service. Eighty-three per cent indicated that they did not have access to online health databases. Small group classes were considered the preferred method of providing training. Afternoons were also considered more convenient for visiting the library. CONCLUSION: The results will be used to plan the development of the library with a better insight of users needs and assist us to utilise resources more effectively.

Legislative smoking bans for reducing secondhand smoke exposure, smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption.

BACKGROUND: Smoking bans have been implemented in a variety of settings, as well as being part of policy in many jurisdictions to protect the public and employees from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke (SHS). They also offer the potential to influence social norms and smoking behaviour of those populations they affect. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which legislation-based smoking bans or restrictions reduce exposure to SHS, help people who smoke to reduce tobacco consumption or lower smoking prevalence and affect the health of those in areas which have a ban or restriction in place. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Conference Paper Index, and reference lists and bibliographies of included studies. We also checked websites of various organisations. Date of most recent search; July 1st 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies that reported legislative smoking bans and restrictions affecting populations. The minimum standard was having a ban explicitly in the study and a minimum of six months follow-up for measures of smoking behaviour. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies (i.e. non-randomized controlled studies), controlled before and after studies, interrupted-time series as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group, and uncontrolled pre- and post-ban data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Characteristics and content of the interventions, participants, outcomes and methods of the included studies were extracted by one author and checked by a second. Because of heterogeneity in the design and content of the studies, we did not attempt a meta-analysis. We evaluated the studies using qualitative narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: There were 50 studies included in this review. Thirty-one studies reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) with 19 studies measuring it using biomarkers. There was consistent evidence that smoking bans reduced exposure to SHS in workplaces, restaurants, pubs and in public places. There was a greater reduction in exposure to SHS in hospitality workers compared to the general population. We failed to detect any difference in self-reported exposure to SHS in cars. There was no change in either the prevalence or duration of reported exposure to SHS in the home as a result of implementing legislative bans. Twenty-three studies reported measures of active smoking, often as a co-variable rather than an end-point in itself, with no consistent evidence of a reduction in smoking prevalence attributable to the ban. Total tobacco consumption was reduced in studies where prevalence declined. Twenty-five studies reported health indicators as an outcome. Self-reported respiratory and sensory symptoms were measured in 12 studies, with lung function measured in five of them. There was consistent evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions for cardiac events as well as an improvement in some health indicators after the ban. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a legislative smoking ban does lead to a reduction in exposure to passive smoking. Hospitality workers experienced a greater reduction in exposure to SHS after implementing the ban compared to the general population. There is limited evidence about the impact on active smoking but the trend is downwards. There is some evidence of an improvement in health outcomes. The strongest evidence is the reduction seen in admissions for acute coronary syndrome. There is an increase in support for and compliance with smoking bans after the legislation.