The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with palliative care needs and their carers often rely on out-of-hours services to remain at home. Policymakers have recommended implementing telephone advice lines to ensure 24/7 access to support. However, the impact of these services on patient and carer outcomes, as well as the health care system, remains poorly understood. AIM: To evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines, and to identify service characteristics associated with effectiveness. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023400370) with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Three databases (Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched in February 2023 for studies of any design reporting on telephone advice lines with at least partial out-of-hours availability. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies, published 2000-2022, were included. Most studies were observational, none were experimental. While some evidence suggested that telephone advice lines offer guidance and reassurance, supporting care at home and potentially reducing avoidable emergency care use in the last months of life, variability in reporting and poor methodological quality across studies limit our understanding of patient/carer and health care system outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite their increasing use, evidence for the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of palliative care telephone advice lines remains limited, primarily due to the lack of robust comparative studies. There is a need for more rigorous evaluations incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental methods and longer follow-up, and standardised reporting of telephone advice line models and outcomes, to guide policy and practice.

Telephone advice lines for adults with advanced illness and their family carers: a qualitative analysis and novel practical framework.

BACKGROUND: Telephone advice lines have been recommended internationally to support around-the-clock care for people living at home with advanced illness. While they undoubtedly support care, there is little evidence about what elements are needed for success. A national picture is needed to understand, improve and standardise service delivery/care. AIM: To explore telephone advice lines for people living at home with advanced illness across the four UK nations, and to construct a practical framework to improve services. DESIGN: A cross-national evaluation of telephone advice lines using structured qualitative interviews. A patient and public involvement workshop was conducted to refine the framework. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Professionals with responsibilities for how palliative care services are delivered and/or funded at a local or regional level, were purposively sampled. RESULTS: Seventy-one interviews were conducted, covering 60 geographical areas. Five themes were identified. Availability: Ten advice line models were described. Variation led to confusion about who to call and when. Accessibility, awareness and promotion: It was assumed that patients/carers know who to call out-of-hours, but often they did not. Practicalities: Call handlers skills/expertise varied, which influenced how calls were managed. Possible responses ranged from signposting to organising home visits. Integration/continuity of care: Integration between care providers was limited by electronic medical records access/information sharing. Service structure/commissioning: Sustained funding was often an issue for charitably funded organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel evidence-based practical framework could be transformative for service design/delivery, as it presents key considerations relating to the various elements of advice lines that may impact on the patient/carer experience.

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: In England, Integrated Care Systems have been established to improve integration of care, as part of the NHS Long Term Plan. For people near the end of life, palliative care can improve integration of care. We aimed to understand whether and how palliative and end of life care was included in Integrated Care System strategies, and to consider priorities for strengthening this. Methods: Documentary analysis of Integrated Care System (ICS) strategies, using summative content analysis, was performed. Google searches were used to identify NHS Trust, Clinical Commissioning Group or ICS websites. We searched these websites to identify strategies. Key terms were used to identify relevant content. Themes were mapped onto an adapted logic model for integrated care. Results: 23 Integrated Care System strategy documents were identified. Of these, two did not mention any of the key terms, and six highlighted palliative and end of life care as either a priority, area of focus, or an ambition. While most (19/23) strategies included elements that could be mapped onto the adapted logic model for integrated care, the thread from enablers and components, to structures, processes, outcomes, and impact was incomplete. Conclusions: Greater prioritisation of palliative and end of life care within recently established Integrated Care Systems could improve outcomes for people near the end of life, as well as reduce reliance on acute hospital care. Integrated Care Systems should consider involving patients, the public and palliative care stakeholders in the ongoing development of strategies. For strategies to be effective, our adapted logic model can be used to outline how different components of care fit together to achieve defined outcomes and impact.

Adaptation and multicentre validation of a patient-centred outcome scale for people severely ill with COVID (IPOS-COV).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach. METHODS: We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined. RESULTS: In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died. CONCLUSIONS: IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale in Hindi: Toward capturing palliative needs and concerns in Hindi speaking patients.

BACKGROUND: Culturally relevant patient-centered outcomes tools are needed to identify the needs of patients and to assess their palliative care concerns. AIM: To translate and culturally adapt the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) into Hindi. DESIGN: The study applied a standardized methodology entailing six phases for translation and content validation: equivalence setting through a three-step process; forward translation; blind backward translation; expert review by a panel of the POS team; cognitive de-briefing with patients; and proof-reading of the final tool. All interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: (1) Healthcare professionals including doctors, nurses, psychologists, counselors, and volunteers working in Indian palliative care settings with expertise in both English and Hindi languages; (2) Hindi speaking patients diagnosed with cancer who were receiving palliative care in community settings. Caregivers, palliative care experts, and language translators contributed to the translation procedure. RESULTS: Phrases like nausea, poor appetite, drowsiness, and depression were difficult to translate into Hindi. Response categories "occasional" and "sometimes" were overlapping. All items, instructions and response categories were simple to understand. A visual thermometer is a unique feature of Hindi IPOS to facilitate responses from less educated patients. CONCLUSION: Hindi IPOS has face and content validity for use in clinical practice and research. The Hindi IPOS has implications beyond Indian palliative care settings. Millions of Hindi speakers can now respond to IPOS, and have a tool for communicating their palliative care needs in their mother tongue to inform patient-centered care.

Symptom management in people dying with COVID-19: multinational observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe multinational prescribing practices by palliative care services for symptom management in patients dying with COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of medicines. METHODS: We surveyed specialist palliative care services, contacted via relevant organisations between April and July 2020. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages. Content analysis explored free text responses about symptom management in COVID-19. Medicines were classified using British National Formulary categories. Perceptions on effectiveness of medicines were grouped into five categories; effective, some, limited or unclear effectiveness, no effect. RESULTS: 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world, 1 missing country. 358 services had managed patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 289 services had protocols for symptom management in COVID-19. Services tended to prescribe medicines for symptom control comparable to medicines used in people without COVID-19; mainly opioids and benzodiazepines for breathlessness, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation, opioids and cough linctus for cough, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fever, and opioids and paracetamol for pain. Medicines were considered to be mostly effective but varied by patient's condition, route of administration and dose. CONCLUSIONS: Services were largely consistent in prescribing for symptom management in people dying with COVID-19. Medicines used prior to COVID-19 were mostly considered effective in controlling common symptoms.

Charitably funded hospices and the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data. RESULTS: 143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services. CONCLUSION: Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient.

Symptom Control and Survival for People Severely ill With COVID: A Multicentre Cohort Study (CovPall-Symptom).

CONTEXT: Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant. OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival. METHODS: Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version. RESULTS: We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study.