Community-based short-term integrated palliative and supportive care reduces symptom distress for older people with chronic noncancer conditions compared with usual care: A randomised controlled single-blind mixed method trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, a rising number of people live into advanced age and die with multimorbidity and frailty. Palliative care is advocated as a person-centred approach to reduce health-related suffering and promote quality of life. However, no evidence-based interventions exist to deliver community-based palliative care for this population. AIM: To evaluate the impact of the short-term integrated palliative and supportive care intervention for older people living with chronic noncancer conditions and frailty on clinical and economic outcomes and perceptions of care. DESIGN: Single-blind trial with random block assignment to usual care or the intervention and usual care. The intervention comprised integrated person-centred palliative care delivered by multidisciplinary palliative care teams working with general practitioners and community nurses. Main outcome was change in five key palliative care symptoms from baseline to 12-weeks. Data analysis used intention to treat and complete cases to examine the mean difference in change scores and effect size between the trial arms. Economic evaluation used cost-effectiveness planes and qualitative interviews explored perceptions of the intervention. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four National Health Service general practices in England with recruitment of patients aged ≥75 years, with moderate to severe frailty, chronic noncancer condition(s) and ≥2 symptoms or concerns, and family caregivers when available. RESULTS: 50 patients were randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 26, mean age 86.0 years) or the intervention and usual care (n = 24, mean age 85.3 years), and 26 caregivers (control n = 16, mean age 77.0 years; intervention n = 10, mean age 77.3 years). Participants lived at home (n = 48) or care home (n = 2). Complete case analysis (n = 48) on the main outcome showed reduced symptom distress between the intervention compared with usual care (mean difference -1.20, 95% confidence interval -2.37 to -0.027) and medium effect size (omega squared = 0.071). Symptom distress reduced with decreased costs from the intervention compared with usual care, demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Patient (n = 19) and caregiver (n = 9) interviews generated themes about the intervention of 'Little things make a big difference' with optimal management of symptoms and 'Care beyond medicines' of psychosocial support to accommodate decline and maintain independence. CONCLUSIONS: This palliative and supportive care intervention is an effective and cost-effective approach to reduce symptom distress for older people severely affected by chronic noncancer conditions. It is a clinically effective way to integrate specialist palliative care with primary and community care for older people with chronic conditions. Further research is indicated to examine its implementation more widely for people at home and in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN 45837097 Tweetable abstract: Specialist palliative care integrated with district nurses and GPs is cost-effective to reduce symptom distress for older people severely affected by chronic conditions.

Effect of Short-term Integrated Palliative Care on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients Severely Affected With Long-term Neurological Conditions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Palliative care has shown benefits in reducing symptom intensity and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. However, high-quality evidence to support palliative care policy and service developments for patients with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) is lacking. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a short-term integrated palliative care (SIPC) intervention for people with LTNCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial conducted from April 1, 2015, to November 30, 2017, with a last follow-up date of May 31, 2018, in 7 UK hospitals with both neurology and palliative care services. A total of 535 patients with LTNC were assessed for eligibility and 350 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 years or older with any advanced stage of multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, idiopathic Parkinson disease multiple system atrophy, or progressive supranuclear palsy. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to March 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 using minimization method to receive SIPC (intervention, n = 176) or standard care (control, n = 174). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in 8 key palliative care symptoms from baseline to 12-weeks, measured by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for neurological conditions. Secondary outcomes included change in the burden of other symptoms, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden, and costs. Data were collected and analyzed blindly by intention to treat. Results: A total of 350 patients (mean [SD] age 67 [12] years; years since diagnosis, 12 [range, 0-56]; 51% men; 49% requiring considerable assistance) with an advanced stage of LTNC were recruited, along with informal caregivers (n = 229). There were no between-group differences in primary outcome (effect size, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.05), any other patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, or survival. Although there was more symptom reduction in the SIPC group in relation to mean change in primary outcome, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (-0.78; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.26 vs -0.28; 95% CI, -0.82 to 0.26; P = .14). There was a decrease in mean health and social care costs from baseline to 12 weeks -$1367 (95% CI, -$2450 to -$282) in the SIPC group and -653 (95% CI, -$1839 to -$532) in the control group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .12). SIPC was perceived by patients and caregivers as building resilience, attending to function and deficits, and enabling caregivers. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, SIPC was not statistically significantly different from standard care for the patient-reported outcomes. However, SIPC was associated with lower cost, and in qualitative analysis was well-received by patients and caregivers, and there were no safety concerns. Further research is warranted. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN18337380.

Integrating palliative care into neurology services: what do the professionals say?

OBJECTIVES: Evaluations of new services for palliative care in non-cancer conditions are few. OPTCARE Neuro is a multicentre trial evaluating the effectiveness of short-term integrated palliative care (SIPC) for progressive long-term neurological conditions. Here, we present survey results describing the current levels of collaboration between neurology and palliative care services and exploring the views of professionals towards the new SIPC service. METHODS: Neurology and palliative care teams from six UK trial sites (London, Nottingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Brighton and Chertsey) were approached via email to complete an online survey. The survey was launched in July 2015 and consisted of multiple choice or open comment questions with responses collected using online forms. RESULTS: 33 neurology and 26 palliative care professionals responded. Collaborations between the two specialties were reported as being 'good/excellent' by 36% of neurology and by 58% of palliative care professionals. However, nearly half (45%) of neurology compared with only 12% of palliative care professionals rated current levels as being 'poor/none'. Both professional groups felt that the new SIPC service would influence future collaborations for the better. However, they identified a number of barriers for the new SIPC service such as resources and clinician awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the opportunity to increase collaboration between neurology and palliative care services for people with progressive neurological conditions, and the acceptability of SIPC as a model to support this. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18337380; Pre-results.

Researching drug information needs in Australia.

National research about drug information needs and access strategies from a cross-section of professionals and community respondents was undertaken in conjunction with the development of the Australian Drug Information Network (ADIN). Many professionals who have an active concern about drug and alcohol issues experience frustration with their access to high quality and relevant drug information. Although the Internet is widely perceived to be the answer to disseminating information, it remains the least favoured source of drug information among professionals, especially in regional and remote locations. Limited access to technology and doubts about the quality of web-based information were expressed concerns. Community differences about where and how to access information were also apparent, with the Internet being a more feasible resource for metropolitan and younger respondents.