Patterns of acute hospital and specialist palliative care use among people with non-curative upper gastrointestinal cancer.

PURPOSE: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancers contribute to 16.7% of UK cancer deaths. These patients make high use of acute hospital services, but detail about palliative care use is lacking. We aimed to determine the patterns of use of acute hospital and hospital specialist palliative care services in patients with advanced non-curative upper GI cancer. METHODS: We conducted a service evaluation of hospital use and palliative care for all patients with non-curative upper GI cancer seen in one large hospital, using routinely collected data (2019-2022). We report and characterise hospital admissions and palliative care within the study time period, using descriptive statistics, and multivariable Poisson regression to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted incidence rate ratio of hospital admissions. RESULTS: The total with non-curative upper GI cancer was 960. 86.7% had at least one hospital admission, with 1239 admissions in total. Patients had a higher risk of admission to hospital if: aged ≤ 65 (IRR for 66-75 years 0.71, IRR 76-85 years 0.68; IRR > 85 years 0.53; p < 0.05), or lived in an area of lower socioeconomic status (IMD Deciles 1-5) (IRR 0.90; p < 0.05). Over the 4-year period, the rate of re-admission was higher in patients not referred to palliative care (rate 0.52 readmissions/patient versus rate 1.47 readmissions/patient). CONCLUSION: People with advanced non-curative gastrointestinal cancer have frequent hospital admissions, especially if younger or from areas of lower socioeconomic status. There is clear association between specialist palliative care referral and reduced risk of hospitalisation. This evidence supports referral to specialist palliative care.

Advance care planning for patients with end-stage kidney disease on dialysis: narrative review of the current evidence, and future considerations.

Patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have a high symptom-burden and high rates of morbidity and mortality. Despite this, evidence has shown that this patient group does not have timely discussions to plan for deterioration and death, and at the end of life there are unmet palliative care needs. Advance care planning is a process that can help patients share their personal values and preferences for their future care and prepare for declining health. Earlier, more integrated and holistic advance care planning has the potential to improve access to care services, communication, and preparedness for future decision-making and changing circumstances. However, there are many barriers to successful implementation of advance care planning in this population. In this narrative review we discuss the current evidence for advance care planning in patients on dialysis, the data around the barriers to advance care planning implementation, and interventions that have been trialled. The review explores whether the concepts and approaches to advance care planning in this population need to be updated to encompass current and future care. It suggests that a shift from a problem-orientated approach to a goal-orientated approach may lead to better engagement, with more patient-centred and satisfying outcomes.

Implementation lessons learnt when trialling palliative care interventions in the intensive care unit: relationships between determinants, implementation strategies, and models of delivery-a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity amongst palliative care interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) and their outcomes has meant that, even when found to be effective, translation of evidence into practice is hindered. Previous evidence reviews have suggested that the field of ICU-based palliative care would benefit from well-designed, targeted interventions, with explicit knowledge translation research demonstrating valid implementation strategies. Reviewing effectiveness studies alongside process evaluations for these interventions will give insight into the implementation barriers or constraints identified, and the implementation strategies adopted. METHODS: A systematic review to identify and synthesise knowledge on how models of integrating palliative care into the ICU have been implemented and provide critical recommendations for successful future development and implementation of complex interventions in the field. The search will be carried out using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The search strategy will combine terms related to palliative care, intensive care, and implementation. Only full-text articles will be considered and conference abstracts excluded. There will be no date or language restrictions. The Implementation Research Logic Model will be used as a framework for synthesis. Findings will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DISCUSSION: This review will provide understanding of implementation facilitators, barriers, and strategies, when employing palliative care interventions within the ICU. This will provide valuable recommendations for successful future development of complex interventions using implementation frameworks or theories. This can increase the potential for sustained change in practice, reduce heterogeneity in interventions, and therefore help produce measurable and comparable outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD42022311052).

Enhancing validity, reliability and participation in self-reported health outcome measurement for children and young people: a systematic review of recall period, response scale format, and administration modality.

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 < 19 years to participate in valid and reliable self-reporting of their health outcomes. 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 < 5 years old cannot validly and reliably self-report health outcomes. Face scales demonstrate better psychometric properties than visual analogue or Likert scales. Computerised and paper scales generally show equivalent construct validity. Children prefer computerised measures. Children ≤ 7 years old think dichotomously so need two response options. Those > 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.

The stability of care preferences following acute illness: a mixed methods prospective cohort study of frail older people.

BACKGROUND: Patient 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. METHODS: Mixed-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. RESULTS: 90/192 (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. CONCLUSIONS: Preferences 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.

The development and cognitive testing of the positive outcomes HIV PROM: a brief novel patient-reported outcome measure for adults living with HIV.

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

How many people will need palliative care in 2040? Past trends, future projections and implications for services.

BACKGROUND: Current estimates suggest that approximately 75% of people approaching the end-of-life may benefit from palliative care. The growing numbers of older people and increasing prevalence of chronic illness in many countries mean that more people may benefit from palliative care in the future, but this has not been quantified. The present study aims to estimate future population palliative care need in two high-income countries. METHODS: We used mortality statistics for England and Wales from 2006 to 2014. Building on previous diagnosis-based approaches, we calculated age- and sex-specific proportions of deaths from defined chronic progressive illnesses to estimate the prevalence of palliative care need in the population. We calculated annual change over the 9-year period. Using explicit assumptions about change in disease prevalence over time, and official mortality forecasts, we modelled palliative care need up to 2040. We also undertook separate projections for dementia, cancer and organ failure. RESULTS: By 2040, annual deaths in England and Wales are projected to rise by 25.4% (from 501,424 in 2014 to 628,659). If age- and sex-specific proportions with palliative care needs remain the same as in 2014, the number of people requiring palliative care will grow by 25.0% (from 375,398 to 469,305 people/year). However, if the upward trend observed from 2006 to 2014 continues, the increase will be of 42.4% (161,842 more people/year, total 537,240). In addition, disease-specific projections show that dementia (increase from 59,199 to 219,409 deaths/year by 2040) and cancer (increase from 143,638 to 208,636 deaths by 2040) will be the main drivers of increased need. CONCLUSIONS: If recent mortality trends continue, 160,000 more people in England and Wales will need palliative care by 2040. Healthcare systems must now start to adapt to the age-related growth in deaths from chronic illness, by focusing on integration and boosting of palliative care across health and social care disciplines. Countries with similar demographic and disease changes will likely experience comparable rises in need.

The gap between policy and practice: a systematic review of patient-centred care interventions in chronic heart failure.

Patient-centred care (PCC) is recommended in policy documents for chronic heart failure (CHF) service provision, yet it lacks an agreed definition. A systematic review was conducted to identify PCC interventions in CHF and to describe the PCC domains and outcomes. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane database, clinicaltrials.gov, key journals and citations were searched for original studies on patients with CHF staged II-IV using the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Included interventions actively supported patients to play informed, active roles in decision-making about their goals of care. Search terms included 'patient-centred care', 'quality of life' and 'shared decision making'. Of 13,944 screened citations, 15 articles regarding 10 studies were included involving 2540 CHF patients. Three studies were randomised controlled trials, and seven were non-randomised studies. PCC interventions focused on collaborative goal setting between patients and healthcare professionals regarding immediate clinical choices and future care. Core domains included healthcare professional-patient collaboration, identification of patient preferences, patient-identified goals and patient motivation. While the strength of evidence is poor, PCC has been shown to reduce symptom burden, improve health-related quality of life, reduce readmission rates and enhance patient engagement for patients with CHF. There is a small but growing body of evidence, which demonstrates the benefits of a PCC approach to care for CHF patients. Research is needed to identify the key components of effective PCC interventions before being able to deliver on policy recommendations.

Preferences for place of death if faced with advanced cancer: a population survey in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Cancer end-of-life care (EoLC) policies assume people want to die at home. We aimed to examine variations in preferences for place of death cross-nationally. METHODS: A telephone survey of a random sample of individuals aged ≥16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. We determined where people would prefer to die if they had a serious illness such as advanced cancer, facilitating circumstances, personal values and experiences of illness, death and dying. RESULTS: Of 9344 participants, between 51% (95% CI: 48% to 54%) in Portugal and 84% (95% CI: 82% to 86%) in the Netherlands would prefer to die at home. Cross-national analysis found there to be an influence of circumstances and values but not of experiences of illness, death and dying. Four factors were associated with a preference for home death in more than one country: younger age up to 70+ (Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain), increased importance of dying in the preferred place (England, Germany, Portugal, Spain), prioritizing keeping a positive attitude (Germany, Spain) and wanting to involve family in decisions if incapable (Flanders, Portugal). CONCLUSIONS: At least two-thirds of people prefer a home death in all but one country studied. The strong association with personal values suggests keeping home care at the heart of cancer EoLC.

Symptom management for the adult patient dying with advanced chronic kidney disease: a review of the literature and development of evidence-based guidelines by a United Kingdom Expert Consensus Group.

Improvement in end-of-life-care is required for patients dying with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The UK government now recommends that tools such as the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) be used to enhance the care of those patients dying with CKD. The LCP was originally developed for patients dying with terminal cancer, however has been shown to be transferable to patients dying with heart failure or stroke. On this background, in 2005 a UK National Renal LCP Steering Group was formed. The aim was to determine whether or not the generic LCP was transferable to patients dying with CKD. An Expert Consensus sub-group was established to produce evidence-based prescribing guidelines to allow safe and effective symptom control for patients dying with renal failure. These guidelines were finalised by the Expert Consensus group in August 2007 and endorsed by the Department of Health in March 2008. A literature search on symptom control and end-of-life care in renal failure was performed. A summary of the evidence was presented at a National Steering Group meeting. Opinions were given and provisional guidelines discussed. A first draft was produced and individually reviewed by all members of the Expert Group. Following review, amendments were made and a second draft written. This was presented to the entire National Steering Group and again individual comments were taken into consideration. A third and fourth draft were written and individually reviewed, before the guidelines were finalised by the Expert Consensus group. Patients dying with advanced CKD suffer symptoms similar to patients dying of cancer. The Renal LCP prescribing guidelines aim to control the same symptoms as the generic LCP: pain, dyspnoea, terminal restlessness and agitation, nausea and respiratory tract secretions. The evidence for the production of the guidelines is discussed and how a consensus was reached. A summary of the guidelines is given and the complete guidelines document is available via the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, Liverpool website.

Comparative pilot study of symptoms and quality of life in cancer patients and patients with end stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced renal failure are increasingly opting for conservative treatment, yet little is known of their palliative care needs. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study, examining symptom burden and quality of life in patients with advanced renal failure (estimated GFR < 17 mL/min; n = 11). A contemporary cohort with terminal malignancy acted as comparators (n = 11). Symptom burden was scored using an extended Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form questionnaire. Quality of life was assessed using the Euroqol-5Q questionnaire. Demographic and pathological data, performance status and co-morbidity were also recorded. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar for the two groups. Symptom burden (renal 17; cancer 15; P =NS) and quality of life scores (renal 60; cancer 60; P =NS) were remarkably similar. Both groups reported high levels of psychological distress. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced renal failure experience a symptom burden and impairment of quality of life similar to that of patients with terminal malignancy.

Symptom management in patients with established renal failure managed without dialysis.

Increasing numbers of patients with chronic kidney disease Stage 5 (GFR <15ml/minute) are being managed without dialysis, either through their own preference or because dialysis is unlikely to benefit them. This growing group of patients has extensive health care needs. Their overall symptom burden is high, and symptom prevalence matches or exceeds that in other end of life populations, both with cancer and other non-cancer diagnoses. These symptoms may often go unrecognised and under-treated. Regular symptom assessment is necessary, together with pro-active management of identified symptoms. Pain can be managed using the principles of the World Health Organisation analgesic ladder. Not all opioid medications are recommended for these patients. Paracetamol, tramadol, and fentanyl are the most appropriate medications for steps 1, 2 and 3 respectively. There is limited evidence on the use of buprenorphine, oxycodone and hydromorphone. Methadone is safe but should only be prescribed by a clinician experienced in its use. Morphine and diamorphine are not recommended because of metabolite accumulation. Pruritus is also challenging to manage. The evidence for pharmacological interventions to alleviate pruritus is summarized, and a pragmatic approach to management suggested. Emollients, capsaisin cream, antihistamines, thalidomide and ondansetron may be helpful, according to the extent and pattern of pruritus. Symptoms may frequently be due to co-morbid conditions, not renal disease itself, and managing them is difficult because of the constraints on the use of medication which kidney failure imposes. Collaboration between renal and palliative specialists can help identify ways to achieve best care for these patients.

Evaluation and ethical review of a tool to explore patient preferences for information and involvement in decision making.

AIM: To improve clinical and ethical understanding of patient preferences for information and involvement in decision making. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a clinical tool to elicit these preferences and to consider the ethical issues raised. DESIGN: A before and after study. SETTING: Three UK hospices. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced life-threatening illnesses and their doctors. INTERVENTION: Questionnaire on information and decision-making preferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-based outcome measures were satisfaction with the amount of information given, with the way information was given, with family or carer information, and confidence about future decision making. Doctor-based outcome measures were confidence in matching information to patient preference, matching family or carer communication to patient preference, knowing patient preferences and matching future decision making with patient preference. RESULTS: Of 336 admissions, 101 patients (mean age 67.3 years, 47.5% men) completed the study (control, n = 40; intervention, n = 61). Patient satisfaction with the way information was given (chi2 = 6.38, df = 2, p = 0.041) and family communication (chi2 = 14.65, df = 2, p < 0.001) improved after introduction of the tool. Doctor confidence improved across all outcome measures (all p values < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction and doctor confidence were improved by administering the questionnaire, but complex ethical issues were raised by implementing and applying this research. The balance of ethical considerations were changed by advanced life-threatening illness, because there is increased risk of harm through delivery of information discordant with the patient's own preferences. The importance of truly understanding patient preferences towards the end of life is highlighted by this study.

End-of-life care in end-stage renal disease: renal and palliative care.

The numbers of patients with end-stage renal disease are growing, with a disproportionate increase among those who are elderly, dependent and with multiple co-morbidities. More of these patients are choosing to be managed conservatively, without dialysis. Palliative provision for these patients within UK renal services is limited, but the recent National Service Framework for Renal Services (Department of Health, 2005) has promoted service development. However, few models of service provision have been described. This article describes a retrospective review of a new service for conservatively-managed patients with end-stage renal disease. The range and complexity of the health needs of this population is demonstrated, and an example of service development described. A model of the stages of the conservative pathway and appropriate interventions was developed. The absence of research evidence prevented development of formal audit standards, and highlighted the urgent need for evaluation of models of care.

Patterns of dying: palliative care for non-malignant disease.

As awareness grows of the palliative care needs of those diagnosed with advanced life-threatening illness other than cancer, consideration needs to be given to how to address these needs. This paper focuses on palliative care for those with such diagnoses by describing variations in illness trajectory according to diagnosis, and exploring how this may affect provision of palliative care.