Engaging with communities in rural, coastal and low-income areas to understand barriers to palliative care and bereavement support: reflections on a community engagement programme in South-west England.

Background: England's South-west Peninsula is largely rural, has a high proportion of over 65s, and has areas of rural and coastal deprivation. Rural and low-income populations face inequities at end of life and little is known about the support needs of rural, coastal and low-income communities. Objectives: To understand how to foster community support for dying and grieving well, a regional, multi-sectoral research partnership developed a community engagement programme to explore experiences of seeking support, issues important to people and the community support they valued. This article shares what people told us about the role that communities can play at end of life, and reflects on learning from our process of engaging communities in conversations about dying. Design and methods: A programme of varied community engagement which included: the use of the 'Departure Lounge' installation and four focus groups with interested individuals in a range of community settings; the co-creation of a 'Community Conversation' toolkit to facilitate conversations with individuals with experience of end-of-life care and their carers with Community Builders; a focus group with Community Builders and a storytelling project with three bereaved individuals. Results: People valued community support at the end of life or in bereavement that offered connection with others, peer support without judgement, responded to their individual needs and helped them to access services. Creative methods of engagement show potential to help researchers and practitioners better understand the needs and priorities of underserved populations. Collaboration with existing community groups was key to engagement, and contextual factors influenced levels of engagement. Conclusion: Local community organizations are well placed to support people at end of life. This work highlighted the potential for partnership with palliative care and bereavement organizations, who could offer opportunities to develop people's knowledge and skills, and together generate sustainable solutions to meet local need.

Embolization of portosystemic shunts for treatment of medically refractory hepatic encephalopathy.

Treatment options for refractory hepatic encephalopathy (HE) are limited. Patients who fail medical management may harbor large portosystemic shunts (PSSs) which are possible therapeutic targets. This study aims to describe patient selection, effectiveness, and safety of percutaneous PSS embolization in those with medically refractory HE. A retrospective evaluation of consecutive adult patients with medically refractory HE referred for PSS embolization at a tertiary center was performed (2003-2015). Patient data collected included the type of HE, medications, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, shunt type, embolization approach, and materials used. Outcomes of interest were immediate (7 days), intermediate (1-4 months), and longer-term (6-12 months) effectiveness and periprocedural safety. Effectiveness was determined based on changes in hospitalization frequency, HE medications, and symptoms. Twenty-five patients with large PSS were evaluated for shunt embolization. Five were excluded due to high MELD scores (n = 1), comorbid conditions (n = 1), or technical considerations (n = 3). Of 20 patients who underwent embolization, 13 had persistent and 7 had recurrent HE; 100% (20/20) achieved immediate improvement. Durable benefit was achieved in 100% (18/18) and 92% (11/12) at 1-4 and 6-12 months, respectively. The majority (67%; 8/12) were free from HE-related hospitalizations over 1 year; 10% developed procedural complications, and all resolved. Six developed new or worsening ascites. In conclusion, PSS embolization is a safe and effective treatment strategy that should be considered for select patients with medically refractory HE. Liver Transplantation 22 723-731 2016 AASLD.

The essential elements of health impact assessment and healthy public policy: a qualitative study of practitioner perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: This study uses critical realist methodology to identify the essential and contingent elements of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Healthy Public Policy (HPP) as operationalised by practitioners. DESIGN: Data collection-qualitative interviews and a workshop were conducted with HIA and HPP practitioners working in differing contexts. DATA ANALYSIS: Critical realist analytical questions identified the essential elements of HIA and HPP, the relationship between them, and the influences of public policy and other contingencies on the practice of both. PARTICIPANTS: Nine interviews were conducted with purposively sampled participants working in Europe, USA and Australasia. 17 self-selected participants who worked in Europe, South East Asia and Australasia attended the workshop. RESULTS: The results clarify that HIA and HPP are different but mutually supporting. HIA has four characteristics: assessing a policy proposal to predict population health and equity impacts, a structured process for stakeholder dialogue, making recommendations and flexibly adapting to the policy process. HPP has four characteristics: concern with a broad definition of health, designing policy to improve people's health and reduce health inequities, intersectoral collaboration and influencing the policy cycle from inception to completion. HIA brings to HPP prediction about a policy's broad health impacts, and a structured space for intersectoral engagement, but is one approach within a broader suite of HPP activities. Five features of public policy and seven contingent influences on HIA and HPP practice are identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarifies the core attributes of HIA and HPP as separate yet overlapping while subject to wider influences. This provides the necessary common language to describe the application of both and avoid conflated expectations of either. The findings present the conceptual importance of public policy and the institutional role of public health as distinct and important influences on the practice of HIA and HPP.