Qualified and motivated, but limited by specialty-specific barriers: a national survey of UK Palliative Medicine consultants research experience.

OBJECTIVES: Providing high-quality safe palliative care requires high-quality clinically driven research. Little is known about how to optimise clinical research capacity in this field.To understand interest and capacity to conduct clinical research in palliative medicine and identify key facilitators and barriers, by surveying palliative medicine consultants and academic trainees. METHODS: National online survey exploring experience in conducting research, including facilitators and barriers. Sent to all current UK palliative medicine consultants, and previous/current academic trainees. Descriptive statistics are reported with framework analysis of free text responses. RESULTS: 195 surveys were submitted including 15 respondents with Integrated Academic Training (IAT) experience. 78% (n=140/180) of consultants were interested in conducting research. Despite this enthusiasm, 83% had no allocated time within their job plan. 88% of those who undertook IAT would recommend IAT, but 60% reported difficulty transitioning from academic trainee to research active consultant.Barriers to research included; insufficient research culture and integration, with small teams working in a mixture of National Health Service (NHS) and non-NHS settings, leading to isolated, silo working. Even those who had undertaken IAT, felt a 'cliff edge' in opportunities after completing IAT. Filling service gaps was routinely prioritised over research activity. CONCLUSION: Palliative medicine consultants, including those who have completed academic training want to conduct research but overwhelming barriers limit activity. A palliative care-specific strategy that permeates different palliative care settings, promotes interspecialty collaboration and improves the current infrastructure for palliative care research to maximise gains from IAT and embed a research culture are suggested.

Seeking Excellence in End of Life Care UK (SEECare UK): a UK multi-centred service evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the care of patients dying in hospital without support from specialists in palliative care (SPC), better understand their needs and factors influencing their care. METHODS: Prospective UK-wide service evaluation including all dying adult inpatients unknown to SPC, excluding those in emergency departments/intensive care units. Holistic needs were assessed through a standardised proforma. RESULTS: 88 hospitals, 284 patients. 93% had unmet holistic needs, including physical symptoms (75%) and psycho-socio-spiritual needs (86%). People were more likely to have unmet needs and require SPC intervention at a district general hospital (DGH) than a teaching hospital/cancer centre (unmet need 98.1% vs 91.2% p0.02; intervention 70.9% vs 50.8% p0.001) and when end-of-life care plans (EOLCP) were not used (unmet need 98.3% vs 90.3% p0.006; intervention 67.2% vs 53.3% p0.02). Multivariable analyses demonstrated the independent influence of teaching/cancer hospitals (adjusted OR (aOR)0.44 CI 0.26 to 0.73) and increased SPC medical staffing (aOR1.69 CI 1.04 to 2.79) on need for intervention, however, integrating the use of EOLCP reduced the impact of SPC medical staffing. CONCLUSION: People dying in hospitals have significant and poorly identified unmet needs. Further evaluation is required to understand the relationships between patient, staff and service factors influencing this. The development, effective implementation and evaluation of structured individualised EOLCP should be a research funding priority.