A systematic review on the impact of financial insecurity on the physical and psychological well-being for people living with terminal illness.

BACKGROUND: People living with terminal illness are at higher risk of experiencing financial insecurity. The variance in definitions of financial insecurity, in addition to its impact on the well-being of this population has not yet been systematically analysed. AIM: To understand the definition, prevalence and impact of financial insecurity on the physical and psychological well-being of people living with terminal illness. DESIGN: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis (prospectively registered; CRD42023404516). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to May 2023. Included studies had to measure or describe the impact of financial insecurity on an aspect of participants' physical or mental well-being. Study quality was assessed using the Hawker tool. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies were included in the review. Financial insecurity was defined using many different definitions and terminology. Out of 4824 participants, 1126 (23%) reported experiencing high levels of financial insecurity. Nine studies reported 21 unique analyses across three domains of physical well-being. Out of those 21 analyses, 10 (48%) reported a negative result (an increase in financial insecurity was reported with a decrease in physical well-being). Twenty-one studies reported 51 unique analyses across nine domains of psychological well-being. Out of these analyses, 35 (69%) reported a negative result (an increase in financial insecurity was reported with a decrease in psychological well-being). CONCLUSIONS: People living with terminal illness require support with their financial situation to ensure their well-being is not negatively impacted by financial insecurity.

What are we planning, exactly? The perspectives of people with intellectual disabilities, their carers and professionals on end-of-life care planning: A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Deaths of people with intellectual disabilities are often unplanned for and poorly managed. Little is known about how to involve people with intellectual disabilities in end-of-life care planning. AIM: To explore the perspectives of people with intellectual disabilities, families, health and social care professionals and policy makers on end-of-life care planning within intellectual disability services. DESIGN: A total of 11 focus groups and 1 semi-structured interview were analysed using qualitative framework and matrix analysis. The analysis was conducted inclusively with co-researchers with intellectual disabilities. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 60 participants (14 people with intellectual disabilities, 9 family carers, 21 intellectual disability professionals, 8 healthcare professionals and 8 policy makers) from the UK. RESULTS: There were differences in how end-of-life care planning was understood by stakeholder groups, covering four areas: funeral planning, illness planning, planning for living and talking about dying. This impacted when end-of-life care planning should happen and with whom. Participants agreed that end-of-life care planning was important, and most wanted to be involved, but in practice discussions were postponed. Barriers included issues with understanding, how or when to initiate the topic and a reluctance to talk about dying. CONCLUSIONS: To develop effective interventions and resources aiding end-of-life care planning with people with intellectual disabilities, clarity is needed around what is being planned for, with whom and when. Research and development are needed into supporting intellectual disability staff in end-of-life care planning conversations. Collaboration between intellectual disability staff and palliative care services may facilitate timely end-of-life care planning and thus optimal palliative end-of-life care.

Time estimates in prognostic discussions: A conversation analytic study of hospice multidisciplinary team meetings.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations state that multidisciplinary team expertise should be utilised for more accurate survival predictions. How the multidisciplinary team discusses prognoses during meetings and how they reference time, is yet to be explored. AIM: To explore how temporality is conveyed in relation to patients' prognoses during hospice multidisciplinary team meetings. DESIGN: Video-recordings of 24 hospice multidisciplinary team meetings were transcribed and analysed using Conversation Analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 65 staff participating in multidisciplinary team meetings in a UK hospice from May to December 2021. RESULTS: Team members conveyed temporality in three different ways. (i) Staff stated that a patient was dying as part of the patient's current health status. These formulations did not include a time reference per se but described the patient's current situation (as dying) instead. (ii) Staff used specific time period references where another specific reference had been provided previously that somehow constrained the timeframe. In these cases, the prognosis would conflict with other proposed care plans. (iii) Staff members used unspecific time period references where the reference appeared vague and there was greater uncertainty about when the patient was expected to die. CONCLUSIONS: Unspecific time period references are sufficient for achieving meaningful prognostic talk in multidisciplinary teams. In-depth discussion and accurate prediction of patient prognoses are not deemed a priority nor a necessity of these meetings. Providing precise predictions may be too difficult due to uncertainty and accountability. The lack of staff pursuing more specific time references implies shared knowledge between staff and a context-specific use of prognostic estimates.

What outcomes do studies use to measure the impact of prognostication on people with advanced cancer? Findings from a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important. AIM: To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022). DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients' and informal caregivers' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion. RESULTS: We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders' priorities.

Co-design development of a decision guide on eating and drinking for people with severe dementia during acute hospital admissions.

INTRODUCTION: Using co-design processes, we aimed to develop an evidence-based decision guide for family carers and hospital professionals to support decision-making about eating and drinking for hospital patients with severe dementia. METHODS: Following a systematic review, we interviewed people with mild dementia, family carers and hospital professionals in England. We then held co-design workshops with family carers and hospital professionals. In parallel with the workshops, we used a matrix to synthesize data from all studies and to develop a decision guide prototype. The prototype was iteratively refined through further co-design workshops and discussions among researchers and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives. We conducted user testing for final feedback and to finalize the decision guide. RESULTS: Most participants acknowledged the limited benefits of tube feeding and would not use or want it for someone with severe dementia. However, they found decision-making processes and communication about nutrition and hydration were emotionally demanding and poorly supported in acute hospitals. The co-design groups developed the aims of the decision guide to support conversations and shared decision-making processes in acute hospitals, and help people reach evidence-based decisions. It was designed to clarify decision-making stages, provide information and elicit the values/preferences of everyone involved. It encouraged person-centred care, best-interests decision-making and multidisciplinary team working. From user testing, family carers and hospital professionals thought the decision guide could help initiate conversations and inform decisions. The final decision guide was disseminated and is being used in clinical practice in England. CONCLUSION: We used rigorous and transparent processes to co-design the decision guide with everyone involved. The decision guide may facilitate conversations about nutrition and hydration and help people reach shared decisions that meet the needs and preferences of people with severe dementia. Future evaluation is required to test its real-world impacts. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with mild dementia, family carers and hospital professionals contributed to the design of the decision guide through the interviews and co-design workshops. PPI members helped design study procedures and materials and prepare this manuscript.

An online randomised controlled trial of prognosticating imminent death in advanced cancer patients: Clinicians give greater weight to advice from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician with a different profession.

BACKGROUND: A second opinion or a prognostic algorithm may increase prognostic accuracy. This study assessed the level to which clinicians integrate advice perceived to be coming from another clinician or a prognostic algorithm into their prognostic estimates, and how participant characteristics and nature of advice received affect this. METHODS: An online double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted. Palliative doctors, nurses and other types of healthcare professionals were randomised into study arms differing by perceived source of advice (algorithm or another clinician). In fact, the advice was the same in both arms (emanating from the PiPS-B14 prognostic model). Each participant reviewed five patient summaries. For each summary, participants: (1) provided an initial probability estimate of two-week survival (0% 'certain death'-100% 'certain survival'); (2) received advice (another estimate); (3) provided a final estimate. Weight of Advice (WOA) was calculated for each summary (0 '100% advice discounting' - 1 '0% discounting') and multilevel linear regression analyses were conducted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04568629. RESULTS: A total of 283 clinicians were included in the analysis. Clinicians integrated advice from the algorithm more than advice from another clinician (WOA difference = -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.07], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between study arm and participant profession, years of palliative care or overall experience. Advice of intermediate strength (75%) was given a lower WOA (0.31) than advice received at either the 50% (WOA 0.40) or 90% level (WOA 0.43). The overall interaction between strength of advice and study arm on WOA was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians adjusted their prognostic estimates more when advice was perceived to come from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician. Research is needed to understand how clinicians make prognostic decisions and how algorithms are used in clinical practice.

How best to capture the impact of complementary therapies in palliative care: A systematic review to identify and assess the appropriateness and validity of multi-domain tools.

BACKGROUND: Complementary therapies are widely used in palliative care settings. Qualitative research found that people with advanced disease report a range of physical and psychological benefits from complementary therapies, however evidence of their effectiveness from clinical trials is inconclusive. This may be because trials are limited by use of inappropriate outcome measures. AIMS: To identify tools which capture the impact of massage, reflexology and aromatherapy in people with advanced disease. We (1) identified multi-domain tools used to evaluate these therapies in populations with any chronic health condition and (2) assessed whether tools were valid and psychometrically robust in populations with advanced disease. DESIGN: A two-stage systematic review was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020161199). DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched (August 2021). Study methodological quality, tool psychometric properties and evidence quality were assessed. A global comparison score was generated. RESULTS: Stage 1: 66 trials using 40 different multi-domain tools were identified. Stage 2: Of these tools, we identified papers for seven tools regarding development or validation in advanced disease populations. The majority of psychometric data were inconsistent or inconclusive. Data were mostly of low quality due to methodological issues. CONCLUSION: Of the tools identified, 'Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General' appears to be the most suitable alternative tool against COMSIN criteria, for trials of massage, reflexology and aromatherapy in palliative care. Further tool validation is required before firm recommendations can be made. Co-development of a core outcome set could ensure relevant domains are assessed.

Cancer centre supportive oncology service: health economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: There have been many models of providing oncology and palliative care to hospitals. Many patients will use the hospital non-electively or semielectively, and a large proportion are likely to be in the last years of life. We describe our multidisciplinary service to treatable but not curable cancer patients at University Hospitals Sussex. The team was a mixture of clinical nurse specialists and a clinical fellow supported by dedicated palliative medicine consultant time and oncology expertise. METHODS: We identified patients with cancer who had identifiable supportive care needs and record activity with clinical coding. We used a baseline 2019/2020 dataset of national (secondary uses service) data with discharge code 79 (patients who died during that year) to compare a dataset of patients seen by the service between September 2020 and September 2021 in order to compare outcomes. While this was during COVID-19 this was when the funding was available. RESULTS: We demonstrated a reduction in length of stay by an average of 1.43 days per admission and a reduction of 0.95 episodes of readmission rates. However, the costs of those admissions were found to be marginally higher. Even with the costs of the service, there is a clear return on investment with a benefit cost ratio of 1.4. CONCLUSIONS: A supportive oncology service alongside or allied to acute oncology but in conjunction with palliative care is feasible and cost-effective. This would support investment in such a service and should be nationally commissioned in conjunction with palliative care services seeing all conditions.

Prognostic decision-making about imminent death within multidisciplinary teams: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on how multidisciplinary team (MDTs) make decisions about identification of imminently dying patients. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Any clinical setting providing care for imminently dying patients, excluding studies conducted solely in acute care settings. DATA SOURCES: The databases AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2021.Included studies presented original study data written in English and reported on the process or content of MDT discussions about identifying imminently dying adult patients. RESULTS: 40 studies were included in the review. Studies were primarily conducted using interviews and qualitative analysis of themes.MDT members involved in decision-making were usually doctors and nurses. Some decisions focused on professionals recognising that patients were dying, other decisions focused on initiating specific end-of-life care pathways or clarifying care goals. Most decisions provided evidence for a partial collaborative approach, with information-sharing being more common than joint decision-making. Issues with decision-making included disagreement between staff members and the fact that doctors were often regarded as final or sole decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic decision-making was often not the main focus of included studies. Based on review findings, research explicitly focusing on MDT prognostication by analysing team discussions is needed. The role of allied and other types of healthcare professionals in prognostication needs further investigation as well. A focus on specialist palliative care settings is also necessary.