'End of life could be on any ward really': A qualitative study of hospital volunteers' end-of-life care training needs and learning preferences.

BACKGROUND: Over half of all deaths in Europe occur in hospital, a location associated with many complaints. Initiatives to improve inpatient end-of-life care are therefore a priority. In England, over 78,000 volunteers provide a potentially cost-effective resource to hospitals. Many work with people who are dying and their families, yet little is known about their training in end-of-life care. AIMS: To explore hospital volunteers' end-of-life care training needs and learning preferences, and the acceptability of training evaluation methods. DESIGN: Qualitative focus groups. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Volunteers from a large teaching hospital were purposively sampled. RESULTS: Five focus groups were conducted with 25 hospital volunteers (aged 19-80 years). Four themes emerged as follows: preparation for the volunteering role, training needs, training preferences and evaluation preferences. Many described encounters with patients with life-threatening illness and their families. Perceived training needs in end-of-life care included communication skills, grief and bereavement, spiritual diversity, common symptoms, and self-care. Volunteers valued learning from peers and end-of-life care specialists using interactive teaching methods including real-case examples and role plays. A chance to 'refresh' training at a later date was suggested to enhance learning. Evaluation through self-reports or observations were acceptable, but ratings by patients, families and staff were thought to be pragmatically unsuitable owing to sporadic contact with each. CONCLUSION: Gaps in end-of-life care training for hospital volunteers indicate scope to maximise on this resource. This evidence will inform development of training and evaluations which could better enable volunteers to make positive, cost-effective contributions to end-of-life care in hospitals.

Primary care physicians' educational needs and learning preferences in end of life care: A focus group study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians (General Practitioners (GPs)) play a pivotal role in providing end of life care (EoLC). However, many lack confidence in this area, and the quality of EoLC by GPs can be problematic. Evidence regarding educational needs, learning preferences and the acceptability of evaluation methods is needed to inform the development and testing of EoLC education. This study therefore aimed to explore GPs' EoLC educational needs and preferences for learning and evaluation. METHODS: A qualitative focus group study was conducted with qualified GPs and GP trainees in the UK. Audio recordings were transcribed and analysed thematically. Expert review of the coding frame and dual coding of transcripts maximised rigour. RESULTS: Twenty-eight GPs (10 fully qualified, 18 trainees) participated in five focus groups. Four major themes emerged: (1) why education is needed, (2) perceived educational needs, (3) learning preferences, and (4) evaluation preferences. EoLC was perceived as emotionally and clinically challenging. Educational needs included: identifying patients for palliative care; responsibilities and teamwork; out-of-hours care; having difficult conversations; symptom management; non-malignant conditions; and paediatric palliative care. Participants preferred learning through experience, working alongside specialist palliative care staff, and discussion of real cases, to didactic methods and e-learning. 360° appraisals and behavioural assessment using videoing or simulated interactions were considered problematic. Self-assessment questionnaires and patient and family outcome measures were acceptable, if used and interpreted correctly. CONCLUSIONS: GPs require education and support in EoLC, particularly the management of complex clinical care and counselling. GPs value mentoring, peer-support, and experiential learning alongside EoLC specialists over formal training.

An Updated Analysis of Clinical Outcome Measures Across Patients From the UK Medical Cannabis Registry.

Introduction: There is a growing body of literature supporting the efficacy of cannabis-based medicinal products (CBMPs). Despite an increase in prescribing globally, there is a paucity of high-quality clinical data on the efficacy of CBMPs for many conditions. This study aims to detail the changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and associated clinical safety in patients prescribed CBMPs for any clinical indication from the UK Medical Cannabis Registry (UKMCR). Methods: An uncontrolled prospective case series of the UKMCR was analyzed. Primary outcomes included change from baseline in patient-reported outcome measures collected across all patients (the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale [GAD-7], EQ-5D-5L, and Sleep Quality Scale [SQS]) at 1, 3, and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the self-reported incidence and severity of adverse events. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.050. Results: Three hundred twelve patients were included in the final analysis, with a mean age of 44.8. The most common primary diagnoses were chronic pain of undefined etiology (n=102, 32.7%), neuropathic pain (n=43, 13.8%), and fibromyalgia (n=31, 9.9%). Before enrolment, 112 (35.9%) patients consumed cannabis daily. The median cannabidiol and (-)-trans-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol doses prescribed at baseline were 20.0 mg (0.0-510.0 mg) and 3.0 mg (0.0-660.0 mg), respectively. Statistically significant improvements were observed in GAD-7, EQ-5D-5L Index, EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale and SQS scores at 1, 3, and 6 months (p<0.050). There were 94 (30.1%) reported adverse events, of which nausea (n=12, 3.8%), dry mouth (n=10, 3.2%), dizziness (n=7, 2.2%), and somnolence (n=7, 2.2%) were the most common. Conclusion: This study demonstrated CBMP treatment to be associated with a relatively low incidence of severe adverse events in the medium-term. Positive changes following treatment were observed in general, as well as anxiety and sleep-specific, HRQoL outcomes. Randomized controlled trials are still awaited to assess causation; however, real-world evidence can help inform current clinical practice, future trials, and is an important component of pharmacovigilance.

Lung cancer deaths (England 2001-2017)-comorbidities: a national population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: The presence of comorbidities in people with lung cancer is common. Despite this, large-scale contemporary reports describing patterns and trends in comorbidities are limited. DESIGN AND METHODS: Population-based patterns and trends analysis using Office for National Statistics Mortality Data. Our cohort included all adults who died from lung cancer (ICD-10 codes C33-C34) in England between 2001 and 2017. We describe decedents with 0, 1 or ≥2 comorbidities and explore changes overtime for the six most common comorbidities identified: chronic respiratory disease; diabetes; cardiovascular disease; dementia; cerebrovascular disease and chronic kidney disease. To determine future trends, the mean annual percentage change between 2001 and 2017 was calculated and projected forwards, while accounting for anticipated increases in lung cancer mortality. RESULTS: There were 472 259 deaths from lung cancer (56.9% men; mean age 72.9 years, SD: 10.7). Overall, 19.0% of lung cancer decedents had 1 comorbidity at time of death and 8.8% had ≥2. The proportion of patients with comorbidities increased over time-between 2001 and 2017 decedents with 1 comorbidity increased 54.7%, while those with ≥2 increased 294.7%. The most common comorbidities were chronic respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease, contributing to 18.5% (95% CI: 18.0 to 18.9) and 11.4% (11.0 to 11.7) of deaths in 2017. Dementia and chronic kidney disease had the greatest increase in prevalence, increasing 311% and 289% respectively. CONCLUSION: To deliver high-quality outcomes for the growing proportion of lung cancer patients with comorbidities, oncology teams need to work across traditional boundaries of care. Novel areas for development include integration with dementia and chronic kidney disease services.

A Systematic Review of End-of-Life Care Communication Skills Training for Generalist Palliative Care Providers: Research Quality and Reporting Guidance.

CONTEXT: End-of-life care (EoLC) communication skills training for generalist palliative care providers is recommended in policy guidance globally. Although many training programs now exist, there has been no comprehensive evidence synthesis to inform future training delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To identify and appraise how EoLC communication skills training interventions for generalist palliative care providers are developed, delivered, evaluated, and reported. METHODS: Systematic review. Ten electronic databases (inception to December 2015) and five relevant journals (January 2004 to December 2015) were searched. Studies testing the effectiveness of EoLC communication skills training for generalists were included. Two independent authors assessed study quality. Descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis are used to summarize the findings. RESULTS: From 11,441 unique records, 170 reports were identified (157 published, 13 unpublished), representing 160 evaluation studies of 153 training interventions. Of published papers, eight were of low quality, 108 medium, and 41 high. Few interventions were developed with service user involvement (n = 7), and most were taught using a mixture of didactics (n = 123), reflection and discussion (n = 105), and role play (n = 86). Evaluation designs were weak: <30% were controlled, <15% randomized participants. Over half (n = 85) relied on staff self-reported outcomes to assess effectiveness, and 49% did not cite psychometrically validated measures. Key information (e.g., training duration, participant flow) was poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a proliferation of EoLC communication skills training interventions in the literature, evidence is limited by poor reporting and weak methodology. Based on our findings, we present a CONSORT statement supplement to improve future reporting and encourage more rigorous testing.

The Effect of Communication Skills Training for Generalist Palliative Care Providers on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinician Behaviors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: As most end-of-life care is provided by health care providers who are generalists rather than specialists in palliative care, effective communication skills training for generalists is essential. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of communication training interventions for generalist palliative care providers on patient-reported outcomes and trainee behaviors. METHODS: Systematic review from searches of 10 databases to December 2015 (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science, ICTRP, CORDIS, and OpenGrey) plus hand searching. Randomized controlled trials of training interventions intended to enhance generalists' communication skills in end-of-life care were included. Two authors independently assessed eligibility after screening, extracted data, and graded quality. Data were pooled for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. PRISMA guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Nineteen of 11,441 articles were eligible, representing 14 trials. Eleven were included in meta-analyses (patients n = 3144, trainees n = 791). Meta-analysis showed no effect on patient outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.10, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.24) and high levels of heterogeneity (chi-square = 21.32, degrees of freedom [df] = 7, P = 0.003; I2 = 67%). The effect on trainee behaviors in simulated interactions (SMD = 0.50, 95% CI 0.19-0.81) was greater than in real patient interactions (SMD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.43) with moderate heterogeneity (chi-square = 8.90, df = 5, P = 0.11; I2 = 44%; chi-square = 5.96, df = 3, P = 0.11; I2 = 50%, respectively). Two interventions with medium effects on showing empathy in real patient interactions included personalized feedback on recorded interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of communication skills training for generalists on patient-reported outcomes remains unclear. Training can improve clinicians' ability to show empathy and discuss emotions, at least in simulated consultations. Personalized feedback on recorded patient interactions may be beneficial. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42014014777.

End-of-life care--what do cancer patients want?

Patients with cancer frequently suffer from debilitating physical symptoms and psychological distress, particularly at the end of life. Interventions to help alleviate these problems are often complex and multifactorial. Palliative care services and therapeutic interventions have developed in a variable manner, often with limited evaluation of clinical effectiveness and affordability, resulting in a relatively weak evidence base. The health care provided to patients with advanced-stage cancer does not always correlate with what is known about their preferences for care. In this Review, we discuss the preferences of patients with cancer regarding their end of life care, including the importance of early provision of palliative care, and the central role of advance care planning in meeting patients' preferences. It has been shown that many patients with cancer wish to die at home. We discuss the factors that contribute to the place of death, including environmental factors, disease-specific issues, and the availability of resources. There has been a recent upward trend in the number of patients with cancer who die in their preferred place of care, and important contributors--such as community palliative care, advance care planning, and improvements in palliative care services as a result of robust research studies--are considered.