Parent experience of advance care planning: reconstructing meaning - grounded theory.

OBJECTIVES: Parents have unique experience of caring for their child with a life-limiting illness and significant insight into the experience of advance care planning. However, little is known about how they experience and manage this process. Our objective was to understand parents' experience of advance care planning for their child. METHODS: Data collected through semistructured interviews and documents using a constructivist and situational grounded theory approach. Parents with experience of end-of-life decisions or advance care planning for a child (age 0-17 years) with a life-limiting condition or life-threatening condition. RESULTS: 13 parents participated; 11 interviews were undertaken with analysis of 9 advance care plans. Parents were interviewed separately (n=9) or together (n=2).Overarching and inter-related categories, realisation, reconciling multiple tensions and building confidence and asserting control explained the actions and processes of parents' experience of advance care planning. The arising theory, reconstructing meaning through advance care planning, describes how the process of advance care planning, enables parents to make 'good' decisions in complex medical situations and despite the emotional distress, has therapeutic value. CONCLUSION: This study confirms parents want to engage in advance care planning, use the process to continuously reorientate their values alongside treatment decisions and that offers a therapeutic value not previously recognised. This requires healthcare professionals to reframe their approach to advance care planning conversations valuing parents' voices and desire for a sense of control and empowering them to make future decisions that offer hope and build resilience to face the future death of their child.

Paediatric advance care planning in life-limiting conditions: scoping review of parent experiences.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is considered best practice for children and young people with life-limiting conditions but there is limited evidence how parents' perceive, understand and engage with the process. AIM: To understand parents' experience of advance care planning for a child or young person with a life-limiting condition. DESIGN: Scoping review, theoretically informed by Family Sense of Coherence. Parents' experience was conceptualised in terms of meaningfulness, comprehensibility and manageability. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases Medline, CINAHL and PyschINFO were searched for studies published between 1990 and 2021, using MeSH and broad-base terms. RESULTS: 150 citations were identified and screened; 15 studies were included: qualitative (n=10), survey (n=3) and participatory research (n=2). Parents' experience of advance care planning was contextualised by their family values and beliefs, needs and goals and the day-to-day impact of caring for their child and family. They valued conversations, which helped them to maximise their child's quality of life and minimise their suffering. They preferred flexible, rather than definitive decisions about end-of-life care and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Advance care planning which solely focuses on treatment decisions is at odds with parents' concerns about the current and future impact of illness on their child and family. Parents want advance care planning for their child to reflect what matters to them as a family. Future longitudinal and comparative studies are needed to understand the influence of advance care planning on parental decision-making over time and how social, cultural and contextual nuances influence parental experience.

Evaluation of the usability, accessibility and acceptability for a family support intervention (Family-Focused Support Conversation) for end of life care discharge planning from hospital: A participatory learning and action research study.

Background: Family support is internationally recognised as integral to palliative care. However, during end of life care discharge planning from hospital, families report a lack of opportunity to discuss their concerns or contribute their knowledge of the ill family member and consequently feel unheard and unsupported. To counter this experience, we co-produced the Family-Focused Support Conversation, a novel research-informed intervention, to guide discussion of family concerns about the meaning, implications and manageability of end of life caregiving following discharge. Objectives: To qualitatively evaluate the usability, accessibility and acceptability of the Family-Focused Support Conversation in hospital and factors which promote and inhibit implementation. Design: Participatory Learning and Action Research design, guided by Normalization Process Theory, a social implementation theory. Settings: Implementation was undertaken by 45 clinical co-researchers, specialist nurses (n=42) and occupational therapists (n=3), working in specialist palliative care teams in twelve hospitals (within seven NHS Trusts) across England, over a six-month period. Methods: During implementation clinical co-researchers collected reflective data about intervention delivery (n=110), participated in regular in-depth conversations of implementation with the research team (n=26 meeting records) and in a final evaluation meeting (n=11 meeting records). Data from family members who had received the intervention, comprised brief questionnaires (n=15) and in-depth semi-structured interviews (n=6). Data were qualitatively analysed, informed by Normalization Process Theory and Family Sense of Coherence Theory. Results: Clinical co-researchers found the intervention eminently usable and accessible. They reported a shift in family support from informing family members about patient healthcare needs, to family concerns such as how they made sense of the meaning of discharge, and how to provide family-orientated care. Family members found the intervention acceptable, they felt supported and able to make informed decisions about their role in providing end of life care. Implementation was positively influenced by coherence between the intervention and value placed on family care by clinical co-researchers. Once incorporated in their practice intervention delivery took no longer than usual practice and could be divided across consultations and collectively delivered with ward and discharge teams. Conclusions: The Family-Focused Support Conversation is usable, accessible and acceptable. It enhances family support by facilitating discussion of family concerns about end of life caregiving and results in family members making informed decisions about their role in end of life care following discharge. Trial registration: n/a.

Co-construction of the family-focused support conversation: a participatory learning and action research study to implement support for family members whose relatives are being discharged for end-of-life care at home or in a nursing home.

BACKGROUND: Many people move in and out of hospital in the last few weeks of life. These care transitions can be distressing for family members because they signify the deterioration and impending death of their ill relative and forthcoming family bereavement. Whilst there is evidence about psychosocial support for family members providing end-of-life care at home, there is limited evidence about how this can be provided in acute hospitals during care transitions. Consequently, family members report a lack of support from hospital-based healthcare professionals. METHODS: The aim of the study was to implement research evidence for family support at the end-of-life in acute hospital care. Informed by Participatory Learning and Action Research and Normalization Process Theory (NPT) we co-designed a context-specific intervention, the Family-Focused Support Conversation, from a detailed review of research evidence. We undertook a pilot implementation in three acute hospital Trusts in England to assess the potential for the intervention to be used in clinical practice. Pilot implementation was undertaken during a three-month period by seven clinical co-researchers - nurses and occupational therapists in hospital specialist palliative care services. Implementation was evaluated through data comprised of reflective records of intervention delivery (n = 22), in-depth records of telephone implementation support meetings between research team members and co-researchers (n = 3), and in-depth evaluation meetings (n = 2). Data were qualitatively analysed using an NPT framework designed for intervention evaluation. RESULTS: Clinical co-researchers readily incorporated the Family-Focused Support Conversation into their everyday work. The intervention changed family support from being solely patient-focused, providing information about patient needs, to family-focused, identifying family concerns about the significance and implications of discharge and facilitating family-focused care. Co-researchers reported an increase in family members' involvement in discharge decisions and end-of-life care planning. CONCLUSION: The Family-Focused Support Conversation is a novel, evidenced-based and context specific intervention. Pilot implementation demonstrated the potential for the intervention to be used in acute hospitals to support family members during end-of-life care transitions. This subsequently informed a larger scale implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: n/a.

Supporting carers to manage pain medication in cancer patients at the end of life: A feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Carers of people with advanced cancer play a significant role in managing pain medication, yet they report insufficient information and support to do so confidently and competently. There is limited research evidence on the best ways for clinicians to help carers with medication management. AIMS: To develop a pain medicines management intervention (Cancer Carers Medicines Management) for cancer patients' carers near the end of life and evaluate feasibility and acceptability to nurses and carers. To test the feasibility of trial research procedures and to inform decisions concerning a full-scale randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Phase I-II clinical trial. A systematic, evidence-informed participatory method was used to develop CCMM: a nurse-delivered structured conversational process. A two-arm, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of Cancer Carers Medicines Management was conducted, with an embedded qualitative study to evaluate participants' experiences of Cancer Carers Medicines Management and trial procedures. SETTING: Community settings in two study sites. PARTICIPANTS: Phase I comprises 57 carers, patients and healthcare professionals and Phase II comprises 12 nurses and 15 carers. RESULTS: A novel intervention was developed. Nurses were recruited and randomised. Carer recruitment to the trial was problematic with fewer than predicted eligible participants, and nurses judged a high proportion unsuitable to recruit into the study. Attrition rates following recruitment were typical for the study population. Cancer Carers Medicines Management was acceptable to carers and nurses who took part, and some benefits were identified. CONCLUSION: Cancer Carers Medicines Management is a robustly developed medicines management intervention which merits further research to test its effectiveness to improve carers' management of pain medicines with patients at the end of life. The study highlighted aspects of trial design that need to be considered in future research.

Review: a narrative review of the published ethical debates in palliative care research and an assessment of their adequacy to inform research governance.

The quality of research, and the resulting quality of evidence available to guide palliative care, is dependent on the ethical decisions underpinning its design, conduct and report. Whilst much has been published debating the ethics of palliative care research, an assessment of the quality and synthesis of the central debates is not available. Such a review is timely to inform research governance. The methodology of this study is based on the principles of systematic reviews. Fifty-seven papers were reviewed following a thorough search, and were critically appraised for their literary quality, the knowledge on which they drew and the research standards they addressed. The debates identified address vulnerability, moral appropriateness, consent, gate-keeping and inclusion and research culture. The quality of debate and the sources of knowledge varied. The debate was rich in quality and knowledge with respect to the protection of the dignity, rights and safety of research participants, but less developed in relation to those of researchers and other staff. There is also little debate about the ethics of reporting of research and the ethics underpinning research leadership. A framework is offered that reconciles the ethical issues raised with potential methodological strategies identified from the review.