What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Introduction The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate, coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process. Aim To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care. Design and setting Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Method Four electronic databases were searched from 1st January 2000 to 17th May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching key journals. One quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows PRISMA guidance. Results Searches identified 23,853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care. Conclusion Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued, it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.

How do people in prison access palliative care? A scoping review of models of palliative care delivery for people in prison in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: An ageing prison population with complex health needs combined with punitive sentencing practices means palliative care for incarcerated individuals is increasingly important. However, there is limited evidence regarding the models of care delivery in high-income countries, and their associated challenges and benefits. AIM: To develop a typology of models of palliative care provision for incarcerated individuals, synthesise evidence of their outcomes and describe facilitators of and challenges in delivering different models of palliative and end-of-life care in prisons. DESIGN: Scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley, with narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered prospectively (reviewregistry1260). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Social Sciences Citation Index and grey literature were searched on 15th March 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: A total of 16,865 records were screened; 22 peer-reviewed articles and 18 grey literature sources met the inclusion criteria. Three models were identified: Embedded Hospice, Outsourcing Care and Community Collaboration. The Embedded Hospice model shows potential benefits for patients and prisons. Outsourcing Care may miss opportunities for comprehensive care. Collaborative Care relies on proactive prison-community relationships that could be formalised for improvement. Psychosocial and bereavement needs of those dying in prison and their caregivers lack sufficient documentation. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to evaluate prison hospice costs and examine how prison hospices impact compassionate release usage. Beyond the USA, policies might formalise care pathways and recognise best practices. Further investigation to address psychosocial needs of people in prison with life-limiting illnesses and post-death bereavement support is required.

Enhanced supportive care in cancer centres: national cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: 'Early' specialist palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with advanced cancer, yet patients are often referred late. 'Enhanced supportive care' (ESC) aims to facilitate earlier integrated supportive care for those with incurable cancer. This study aimed to explore clinicians' understanding of ESC/SPC delivery through description of current service provision. METHODS: This national cross-sectional survey of 53 cancer centres had two parts. Part 1: Service details, was directed to lead ESC/SPC nurses or consultants about service configuration, and Part 2: Clinician understanding, targeting conceptual understanding of service aims including ESC/SPC teams and oncology consultants (n=262 surveys). Multiple-choice questions explored service provision, referral triggers and evidence of integration with oncology, with free-text responses. Quantitative results were analysed with Fischer's exact test. Qualitative free text was line-by-line coded by two authors independently to derive themes. RESULTS: 56% (30/53) of SPC and ESC teams and 14% (14/100) of oncologists responded. Those involved in ESC self-reported greater integration with oncology compared with non-ESC teams, for example, joint case discussions (64.3%, 9/14 vs 23.1%, 3/13, p=0.05), and timelier patient referral ((>6 months before death vs <6 months) (10/14 vs 4/13, p=0.06)). Qualitative themes described ambiguity in definitions of supportive and palliative terms and a perception of timelier identification of patients when ESC was involved. CONCLUSION: Providers of ESC perceive greater integration with oncology and potentially timelier referral for patients compared with teams not delivering ESC. Terminology around SPC and ESC remains uncertain across England.

Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in specialist palliative care: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers can be mutually supportive. However, what facilitates and/or restricts supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in palliative care remains unclear. We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of supportive relationships between people with advanced illness and family caregivers in specialist palliative care. METHODS: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients with advanced illness and 21 family caregivers purposively and theoretically sampled from a large regional specialist palliative care service. Verbatim transcripts were analysed in line with grounded theory coding procedures. RESULTS: Mutual support was underpinned by mutual concern and understanding. Facilitators of supportive relationships included patients and family caregivers already having a close relationship, caregivers assuming caregiving duties by choice, caregivers feeling competent in a caregiving role, patients valuing caregiver efforts, availability of respite for the caregiver and direct support from healthcare professionals to help both patients and caregivers adjust to advanced illness. Barriers to supportive relationships included absence of support from the wider family, prior mutual conflict between the patient and caregiver, caregivers feeling constrained in their caregiving role and patient and caregiver distress induced by mutual loss. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors at both a micro (eg, relationship based) and mesolevel (eg, assistance from services) impact patient and family caregiver ability to support one another in specialist palliative care. Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers are mediated by feelings pertaining to both control and loss.

Prolonged grief during and beyond the pandemic: factors associated with levels of grief in a four time-point longitudinal survey of people bereaved in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating and enduring mass-bereavement event, with uniquely difficult sets of circumstances experienced by people bereaved at this time. However, little is known about the long-term consequences of these experiences, including the prevalence of Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) and other conditions in pandemic-bereaved populations. Methods: A longitudinal survey of people bereaved in the UK between 16 March 2020 and 2 January 2021, with data collected at baseline (n = 711), c. 8 (n = 383), 13 (n = 295), and 25 (n = 185) months post-bereavement. Using measures of Prolonged Grief Disorder (PGD) (Traumatic Grief Inventory), grief vulnerability (Adult Attitude to Grief Scale), and social support (Inventory of Social Support), this analysis examines how participant characteristics, characteristics of the deceased and pandemic-related circumstances (e.g., restricted visiting, social isolation, social support) are associated with grief outcomes, with a focus on symptoms of PGD. Results: At baseline, 628 (88.6%) of participants were female, with a mean age of 49.5 (SD 12.9). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Sample demographics were relatively stable across time points. 34.6% of participants met the cut-off for indicated PGD at c. 13 months bereaved and 28.6% at final follow-up. Social isolation and loneliness in early bereavement and lack of social support over time strongly contributed to higher levels of prolonged grief symptoms, while feeling well supported by healthcare professionals following the death was associated with reduced levels of prolonged grief symptoms. Characteristics of the deceased most strongly associated with lower levels of prolonged grief symptoms, were a more distant relationship (e.g., death of a grandparent), an expected death and death occurring in a care-home. Participant characteristics associated with higher levels of prolonged grief symptoms included low level of formal education and existence of medical conditions. Conclusion: Results suggest higher than expected levels of PGD compared with pre-pandemic times, with important implications for bereavement policy, provision and practice now (e.g., strengthening of social and specialist support) and in preparedness for future pandemics and mass-bereavement events (e.g., guidance on infection control measures and rapid support responses).

Engaging and supporting the public on the topic of grief and bereavement: an evaluation of Good Grief Festival.

Background: Good Grief Festival was originally planned as a face-to-face festival about grief and bereavement. Due to COVID-19, it was held online over 3 days in October 2020. Objective: To evaluate the festival's reach and impact. Design: Pre/post evaluation. Methods: Pre-festival online surveys assessed reasons for attending and attitudes to bereavement across four items (fear of saying the wrong thing, avoiding talking to someone bereaved, knowing what to do if someone bereaved was struggling, knowing how to help). Post-festival online surveys evaluated audience experiences and the four attitude items. Free-text responses, analysed using thematic analysis, generated suggestions for improvement and general comments. Results: Between 5003 and 6438 people attended, with most attending two to five events. Pre-festival survey participants (n = 3785) were mostly women (91%) and White (91%). About 9% were from Black or minoritised ethnic communities. About 14% were age ⩾65 years, 16% age ⩽34 years. Around 75% were members of the public, teachers, students or 'other'; 25% academics, clinicians or bereavement counsellors. A third had been bereaved in the last year; 6% had never been bereaved. People attended to learn about grief/bereavement (77%), be inspired (52%) and feel part of a community (49%). Post-festival participants (n = 685) reported feeling part of a community (68%), learning about grief/bereavement (68%) and being inspired (66%). 89% rated the festival as excellent/very good and 75% agreed that they felt more confident talking about grief after attending. Higher ratings and confidence were associated with attending more events. Post-festival attitudes were improved across all four items (p < 0.001). Attendees appreciated the festival, particularly valuing the online format, opportunities for connection during lockdown and the diversity and quality of speakers. Suggestions included improving registration, more interactive events and less content. Conclusion: Good Grief Festival successfully reached a large public audience, with benefit in engagement, confidence and community-building. Evaluation was critical in shaping future events. Findings suggest festivals of this nature can play a central role in increasing death- and grief-literacy within a public health approach.

What was the impact of Good Grief Festival? Why was this study done? We designed Good Grief Festival to improve knowledge about bereavement and support for bereaved people. Due to the pandemic, the festival was held online over 3 days in October 2020. In this study, we assessed the festival's impact on the people who attended. What did the researchers do? Before the event, we sent an online survey to everyone who registered. It asked their attitudes to bereavement, such as whether they were 'scared of saying the wrong thing' to bereaved people or knew how to help/support them. After the festival, we sent everyone who attended a survey containing the same pre-event questions, alongside extra questions about their experience of the festival and suggestions for improvement. What did the researchers find? Between 5005 and 6438 people attended the festival. A total of 3785 people completed the pre-festival survey. They wanted to learn about grief/bereavement (77%), be inspired (52%) and feel part of a community (49%). The post-festival survey was completed by 685 people who said they learnt about grief/bereavement (68%), were inspired (66%) and felt part of a community (68%). Most people (89%) rated the festival as excellent/very good and said that through attending the festival they felt more confident in talking to a bereaved person and knowing how to support them. People who attended more events were more confident. Suggestions to improve the festival included improving registration, more interactive and arts-based events and offering a smaller programme overall. Most people who completed the survey were women (91%) and White (91%). What do the findings mean? Overall, Good Grief Festival successfully reached a large public audience. It helped to improve people's confidence when supporting bereaved people and made them feel part of a community. The survey feedback helped us improve and shape future events.

Decision-making in palliative care: patient and family caregiver concordance and discordance-systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and function between patients and family caregivers in palliative care is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To identify key factors and/or processes which underpin concordance and/or discordance between patients and family caregivers with respect to their preferences for and decisions about palliative care; and ascertain how patients and family caregivers manage discordance in decision-making in palliative care. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of original studies published in full between January 2000 and June 2021 was conducted using the following databases: Embase; Medline; CINAHL; AMED; Web of Science; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES; and Social Sciences Full Text. RESULTS: After full-text review, 39 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies focused primarily on end-of-life care and on patient and family caregiver preferences for patient care. We found that discordance between patients and family caregivers in palliative care can manifest in relational conflict and can result from a lack of awareness of and communication about each other's preferences for care. Patients' advancing illness and impending death together with open dialogue about future care including advance care planning can foster consensus between patients and family caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and family caregivers in palliative care can accommodate each other's preferences for care. Further research is needed to fully understand how patients and family caregivers move towards consensus in the context of advancing illness.

'Sadly I think we are sort of still quite white, middle-class really' - Inequities in access to bereavement support: Findings from a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Voluntary and community sector bereavement services are central to bereavement support in the UK. AIM: To determine service providers' perspectives on access to their support before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using an explanatory sequential design: (1) Cross-sectional online survey of UK bereavement services; (2) Qualitative interviews with staff and volunteers at selected services. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: 147 services participated in the survey; 24 interviews were conducted across 14 services. RESULTS: 67.3% of services reported there were groups with unmet needs not accessing their services before the pandemic; most frequently people from minoritised ethnic communities (49%), sexual minority groups (26.5%), deprived areas (24.5%) and men (23.8%). Compared with before the pandemic, 3.4% of services were seeing more people from minoritised ethnic groups, while 6.1% were seeing fewer. 25.2% of services did not collect ethnicity data. Qualitative findings demonstrated the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on minoritised ethnic communities, including disruption to care/mourning practices, and the need for culturally appropriate support. During the pandemic outreach activities were sometimes deprioritised; however, increased collaboration was also reported. Online provision improved access but excluded some. Positive interventions to increase equity included collecting client demographic data; improving outreach, language accessibility and staff representation; supporting other professionals to provide bereavement support; local collaboration and co-production. CONCLUSIONS: Service providers report inequities in access to bereavement support. Attention needs to be paid to identifying, assessing and meeting unmet needs for appropriate bereavement support. Identified positive interventions can inform service provision and research.

Factors Associated With Higher Levels of Grief and Support Needs Among People Bereaved During the Pandemic: Results from a National Online Survey.

We identified factors associated with higher levels of grief and support needs among 711 people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK (deaths 16 March 2020-2 January 2021). An online survey assessed grief using the Adult Attitude to Grief (AAG) scale, which calculates an overall index of vulnerability (IOV) (range 0-36), and practical and emotional support needs in 13 domains. Participants' mean age was 49.5 (SD 12.9); 628 (88.6%) female. Mean age of deceased 72.2 (SD 16.1). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. High overall levels of grief and support needs were observed; 28.2% exhibited severe vulnerability (index of vulnerability ≥24). Grief and support needs were higher for close relationships with the deceased (vs. more distant) and reported social isolation and loneliness (p < 0.001), and lower when age of deceased was above 40-50. Other associated factors were place of death and health professional support post-death (p < 0.05).

Parental perspectives on the grief and support needs of children and young people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic: qualitative findings from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many children and young people have experienced the death of close family members, whilst also facing unprecedented disruption to their lives. This study aimed to investigate the experiences and support needs of bereaved children and young people from the perspective of their parents and guardians. METHODS: We analysed cross-sectional qualitative free-text data from a survey of adults bereaved in the UK during the pandemic. Participants were recruited via media, social media, national associations and community/charitable organisations. Thematic analysis was conducted on free text data collected from parent/guardian participants in response to a survey question on the bereavement experiences and support needs of their children. RESULTS: Free-text data from 104 parent/guardian participants was included. Three main themes were identified: the pandemic-related challenges and struggles experienced by children and young people; family support and coping; and support from schools and services. Pandemic-challenges include the impacts of being separated from the relative prior to their death, isolation from peers and other family members, and disruption to daily routines and wider support networks. Examples were given of effective family coping and communication, but also of difficulties relating to parental grief and children's existing mental health problems. Schools and bereavement organisations' provision of specialist support was valued, but there was evidence of unmet need, with some participants reporting a lack of access to specialist grief or mental health support. CONCLUSION: Children and young people have faced additional strains and challenges associated with pandemic bereavement. We recommend resources and initiatives that facilitate supportive communication within family and school settings, adequate resourcing of school and community-based specialist bereavement/mental health services, and increased information and signposting to the support that is available.

How are public engagement health festivals evaluated? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

The evaluation of public engagement health festivals is of growing importance, but there has been no synthesis of its practice to date. We conducted a systematic review of evidence from the evaluation of health-related public engagement festivals published since 2000 to inform future evaluation. Primary study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Extracted data were integrated using narrative synthesis, with evaluation methods compared with the Queen Mary University of London public engagement evaluation toolkit. 407 database records were screened; eight studies of varied methodological quality met the inclusion criteria. Evaluations frequently used questionnaires to collect mixed-methods data. Higher quality studies had specific evaluation aims, used a wider variety of evaluation methods and had independent evaluation teams. Evaluation sample profiles were often gender-biased and not ethnically representative. Patient involvement in event delivery supported learning and engagement. These findings and recommendations can help improve future evaluations. (Research Registry ID reviewregistry1021).

Which patients received a ReSPECT form, what was documented and what were the patient outcomes? A protocol for a retrospective observational study investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the ReSPECT process.

INTRODUCTION: Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is a UK advance care planning (ACP) initiative aiming to standardise the process of creating personalised recommendations for a person's clinical care in a future emergency and therefore improve person-focused care. Implementation of the ReSPECT process across a large geographical area, involving both community and secondary care, has not previously been studied. In particular, it not known whether such implementation is associated with any change in outcomes for those patients with a ReSPECT form.Implementation of ReSPECT in the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area overlapped with the first UK COVID-19 wave. It is unclear what impact the pandemic had on the implementation of ReSPECT and if this affected the type of patients who underwent the ReSPECT process, such as those with specific diagnoses or living in care homes. Patterns of clinical recommendations documented on ReSPECT forms during the first year of its implementation may also have changed, particularly with reference to the pandemic.To determine the equity and potential benefits of implementation of the ReSPECT form process in BNSSG and contribute to the ACP evidence base, this study will describe the characteristics of patients in the BNSSG area who had a completed ReSPECT form recorded in their primary care medical records before, during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; describe the content of ReSPECT forms; and analyse outcomes for those patients who died with a ReSPECT form. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform an observational retrospective study on data, collected from October 2019 for 12 months. Data will be exported from the CCG Public Health Management data resource, a pseudonymised database linking data from organisations providing health and social care to people across BNSSG. Descriptive statistics of sociodemographic and health-related variables for those who completed the ReSPECT process with a clinician and had a documented ReSPECT form in their notes, in addition to their ReSPECT form responses, will be compared between before, during and after first COVID-19 wave groups. Additionally, routinely collected outcomes for patients who died in our study period will be compared between those who completed the ReSPECT process with a community clinician, hospital clinician or not at all. These include emergency department attendances, emergency hospital admissions, community nurse home visits, hospice referrals, anticipatory medication prescribing, place of death and if the patient died in preferred place of death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0185). Findings will be disseminated to policy decision-makers, care providers and the public through scientific meetings and peer-reviewed publication.

Preferences of Older People With a Life-Limiting Illness: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

CONTEXT: There is limited evidence about which elements and characteristics of palliative care service provision improve the experiences of older people living with life-limiting illness. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate older patients' (≥65 years) preferences for elements of services and supports and to explore relationships between patient characteristics and the patterns of preferences. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey undertaken in Ireland and England using a Discrete Choice Experiment with people accessing specialist palliative care services. A random-effects probit model was used to estimate patient preferences. RESULTS: Of the 77 patients were interviewed, 51 participated in the Discrete Choice Experiment component of the interview (response rate = 66%). Participants prioritized support that minimized unpaid caregiver burden (P < 0.001). They also preferred ease of access to services including out-of-hours access (P < 0.001) and free care at home (P < 0.001). Quality of life was prioritized over quantity of life (<0.001). CONCLUSION: People living with a life-limiting illness value care that focuses on quality of life, ensures barrier-free access to services and provides sufficient support for relatives. In the context of limited resources and growing demand for care, this study provides evidence about the service elements palliative care delivery models should prioritize and evaluate.

'It was brutal. It still is': a qualitative analysis of the challenges of bereavement during the COVID-19 pandemic reported in two national surveys.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a devastating, mass bereavement event characterised by high levels of disruption to end-of-life, grieving and coping processes. Quantitative evidence is emerging on the effects of the pandemic on grief outcomes, but rich qualitative evidence on the lived experiences of people bereaved during these times is lacking. Methods: We analysed qualitative data from two independent UK-wide online surveys to describe the experiences of 881 people bereaved during the pandemic. We analysed the data in two phases, conducting an inductive thematic analysis and then applying Stroebe and Schut's Dual Process Model (DPM) and concepts of loss-oriented and restoration-oriented coping (1999; 2010) as an analytic lens to further contextualise and interpret the data. Results: We identified six main themes: troubled deaths; mourning, memorialisation and death administration; mass bereavement, the media and the ongoing threat of the pandemic; grieving and coping; work and employment; and support from the health and social care system. Examples of loss-oriented stressors included being unable to visit and say goodbye at the end of life and restricted funeral and memorialisation practices. Associated reactions were feelings of guilt, anger, and problems accepting the death and beginning to grieve. Examples of restoration-oriented stressors and reactions were severely curtailed support-systems and social/recreational activities, which impacted people's ability to cope. Conclusion: Study results demonstrate the exceptionally difficult sets of experiences associated with pandemic bereavement, and the utility of the DPM for conceptualising these additional challenges and their impacts on grieving. Our analysis builds and expands on previous use of the DPM in explicating the impact of the pandemic on bereavement. We make recommendations for statutory, private and third sector organisations for improving the experiences of people bereaved during and following this and future pandemics.

Developing a typology of models of palliative care delivery in prisons in high-income countries: protocol for a scoping review with narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: A combination of punitive sentencing practices within ageing populations, compounded by the health challenges faced by people in prison, means that dedicated palliative care provision within prisons is a pressing requirement. However, evidence about exactly how quality palliative and end-of-life care is delivered in this environment remains sparse.This review aims to develop a typology of models of palliative and end-of-life care delivery within prisons in high-income countries to inform service development and policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of published studies and grey literature, following the Arksey and O'Malley framework. We will report data on models of palliative and end-of-life care delivery in prisons in high-income countries. Searches will be undertaken in Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Social Sciences Citation Index and PsyINFO for all study types, published from 1 January 2000 to December 2021, and reference lists from key reviews and studies will be screened for additional references. We will also screen grey literature from within other high-income countries using a targeted search strategy. For published reports of original research, study quality and risk of bias will be assessed independently by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A narrative synthesis of the data will be undertaken, integrating the results of the quality assessment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval by research ethics committee is not required since the review only includes published and publicly accessible data. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidance. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The final protocol was registered with the Research Registry on 26 November 2021 (www.researchregistry.com).Unique ID number: reviewregistry1260.

Risk factors associated with poorer experiences of end-of-life care and challenges in early bereavement: Results of a national online survey of people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of end-of-life care and early bereavement during the COVID-19 pandemic are poorly understood. AIM: To identify clinical and demographic risk factors for sub-optimal end-of-life care and pandemic-related challenges prior to death and in early bereavement, to inform clinical practice, policy and bereavement support. DESIGN: Online national survey of adults bereaved in the UK (deaths between 16 March 2020 and 2 January 2021), recruited via media, social media, national associations and organisations. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 711 participants, mean age 49.5 (SD 12.9, range 18-90). 628 (88.6%) were female. Mean age of the deceased was 72.2 (SD 16.1, range miscarriage to 102 years). 311 (43.8%) deaths were from confirmed/suspected COVID-19. RESULTS: Deaths in hospital/care home increased the likelihood of poorer experiences at the end of life; for example, being unable to visit or say goodbye as wanted (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was also associated with worse experiences before and after death; for example, feeling unsupported by healthcare professionals (p < 0.001), social isolation/loneliness (OR = 0.439; 95% CI: 0.261-0.739), and limited contact with relatives/friends (OR = 0.465; 95% CI: 0.254-0.852). Expected deaths were associated with a higher likelihood of positive end-of-life care experiences. The deceased being a partner or child also increased the likelihood of positive experiences, however being a bereaved partner strongly increased odds of social isolation/loneliness, for example, OR = 0.092 (95% CI: 0.028-0.297) partner versus distant family member. CONCLUSIONS: Four clear risk factors were found for poorer end-of-life care and pandemic-related challenges in bereavement: place, cause and expectedness of death, and relationship to the deceased.

How do Funeral Practices Impact Bereaved Relatives' Mental Health, Grief and Bereavement? A Mixed Methods Review with Implications for COVID-19.

Those who are bereaved during the current COVID-19 pandemic are subject to restrictions on funeral sizes and practices. We conducted a rapid review synthesising the quantitative and qualitative evidence regarding the effect of funeral practices on bereaved relatives' mental health and bereavement outcomes. Searches of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, KSR Evidence, and COVID-related resources were conducted. 805 records were screened; 17 studies of variable quality were included. Current evidence regarding the effect of funeral practices on bereaved relatives' mental health and bereavement outcomes is inconclusive. Five observational studies found benefits from funeral participation while six did not. However, qualitative research provides additional insight: the benefit of after-death rituals including funerals depends on the ability of the bereaved to shape those rituals and say goodbye in a way which is meaningful for them. Findings highlight the important role of funeral officiants during the pandemic. Research is needed to better understand the experiences and sequalae of grief and bereavement during COVID-19.

Expectations of a new opt-out system of consent for deceased organ donation in England: A qualitative interview study.

INTRODUCTION: In 2020 England moved to an opt-out deceased donation law. We aimed to investigate the views of a mixed stakeholder group comprising people with kidney disease, family members and healthcare practitioners towards the change in legislation. We investigated the expected impacts of the new legislation on deceased-donor and living-donor transplantation, and views on media campaigns regarding the law change. METHODS: We undertook in-depth qualitative interviews with people with kidney disease (n = 13), their family members (n = 4) and healthcare practitioners (n = 15). Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity for patients and healthcare practitioners. Family members were recruited through snowball sampling and posters. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes with six subthemes were identified: (i) Expectations of impact (Hopeful patients; Cautious healthcare professionals), (ii) Living-donor transplantation (Divergent views; Unchanged clinical recommendations), (iii) Media campaigns (Single message; Highlighting recipient benefits). Patients expected the law change would result in more deceased-donor transplant opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should ensure patients and families are aware of the current evidence regarding the impact of opt-out consent: expectations of an increased likelihood of receiving a deceased-donor transplant are not currently supported by the evidence. This may help to prevent a decline in living-donor transplantation seen in other countries with similar legislation. Media campaigns should include a focus on the impact of organ receipt. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient representatives from the Kidney Disease Health Integration Team, Primrose Granville and Soumeya Bouacida, contributed to the content and design of the study documents.

Communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care: protocol for a systematic review with narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: People dying in Britain spend, on average, 3 weeks of their last year of life in hospital. Hospital discharge presents an opportunity for secondary care clinicians to communicate to general practitioners (GPs) which patients may have a poor prognosis. This would allow GPs to prioritise these patients for Advance Care Planning.The objective of this study is to produce a critical overview of research on the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care through a systematic review and narrative synthesis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Social Sciences Citation Index for all study types, published since 1 January 2000, and conduct reference-mining of systematic reviews and publications. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool; a narrative synthesis will be undertaken to integrate and summarise findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval by research ethics committee is not required since the review only includes published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a qualitative study of the sharing of poor prognosis at hospital discharge. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal as per Preferred Reporting for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021236087.

Support needs and barriers to accessing support: Baseline results of a mixed-methods national survey of people bereaved during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is a mass bereavement event which has profoundly disrupted grief experiences. Understanding support needs and access to support among people bereaved at this time is crucial to ensuring appropriate bereavement support infrastructure. AIM: To investigate grief experiences, support needs and use of formal and informal bereavement support among people bereaved during the pandemic. DESIGN: Baseline results from a longitudinal survey. Support needs and experiences of accessing support are reported using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of free-text data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 711 adults bereaved in the UK between March and December 2020, recruited via media, social media, national associations and community/charitable organisations. RESULTS: High-level needs for emotional support were identified. Most participants had not sought support from bereavement services (59%, n = 422) or their General-Practitioner (60%, n = 428). Of participants who had sought such support, over half experienced difficulties accessing bereavement services (56%, n = 149)/General-Practitioner support (52%, n = 135). About 51% reported high/severe vulnerability in grief; among these, 74% were not accessing bereavement or mental-health services. Barriers included limited availability, lack of appropriate support, discomfort asking for help and not knowing how to access services. About 39% (n = 279) experienced difficulties getting support from family/friends, including relational challenges, little face-to-face contact and disrupted collective mourning. The perceived uniqueness of pandemic bereavement and wider societal strains exacerbated their isolation. CONCLUSIONS: People bereaved during the pandemic have high levels of support needs alongside difficulties accessing support. We recommend increased provision and tailoring of bereavement services, improved information on support options and social/educational initiatives to bolster informal support and ameliorate isolation.