Family carer experiences of hospice care at home: Qualitative findings from a mixed methods realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hospice-at-home aims to enable patients approaching end-of-life to die at home and support their carers. A wide range of different service models exists but synthesised evidence on how best to support family carers to provide sustainable end-of-life care at home is limited. AIM: To explore what works best to promote family carers' experiences of hospice-at-home. DESIGN: Realist evaluation with mixed methods. This paper focuses on qualitative interviews with carers (to gain their perspective and as proxy for patients) and service providers from 12 case study sites in England. Interviews were coded and programme theories were refined by the research team including two public members. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Interviews with carers (involved daily) of patients admitted to hospice-at-home services (n = 58) and hospice-at-home staff (n = 78). RESULTS: Post bereavement, 76.4% of carers thought that they had received as much help and support as they needed and most carers (75.8%) rated the help and support as excellent or outstanding. Of six final programme theories capturing key factors relevant to providing optimum services, those directly relevant to carer experiences were: integration and co-ordination of services; knowledge, skills and ethos of hospice staff; volunteer roles; support directed at the patient-carer dyad. CONCLUSIONS: Carers in hospice-at-home services identified care to be of a higher quality than generic community services. Hospice staff were perceived as having 'time to care', communicated well and were comfortable with dying and death. Hands-on care was particularly valued in the period close to death.

Effect of Behavior Change Techniques Targeting Clinicians to Improve Advance Care Planning in Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: National and international guidelines recommend advance care planning (ACP) for patients with heart failure. But clinicians seem hesitant to engage with ACP. PURPOSE: Our aim was to identify behavioral interventions with the greatest potential to engage clinicians with ACP in heart failure. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and PsycINFO for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to August 2018. Three reviewers independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool), the quality of evidence (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and intervention synergy according to the behavior change wheel and behavior change techniques (BCTs). Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for pooled effects. RESULTS: Of 14,483 articles screened, we assessed the full text of 131 studies. Thirteen RCTs including 3,709 participants met all of the inclusion criteria. The BCTs of prompts/cues (OR: 4.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.03-8.59), credible source (OR: 3.24; 95% CI: 1.44-7.28), goal setting (outcome; OR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.56-4.57), behavioral practice/rehearsal (OR: 2.64; 95% CI: 1.50-4.67), instruction on behavior performance (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.63-3.79), goal setting (behavior; OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.57-2.87), and information about consequences (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.40-3.05) showed statistically significant effects to engage clinicians with ACP. CONCLUSION: Certain BCTs seem to improve clinicians' practice with ACP in heart failure and merit consideration for implementation into routine clinical practice.

Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care.

BACKGROUND: The policy several countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home; this is supported by surveys that indicate that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fifth update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs and caregivers compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials registries to 18 March 2020. We checked the reference lists of systematic reviews. For included studies, we checked the reference lists and performed a forward search using ISI Web of Science. We handsearched palliative care journals indexed by ISI Web of Science for online first references. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. When appropriate, we combined published data for dichotomous outcomes using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included four randomised trials and found no new studies from the search in March 2020. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; 2 trials, 539 participants; I2 = 25%; high-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital varied among the trials (range of RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, to RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.55). The effect on patient outcomes and control of symptoms was uncertain. Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up, with little or no difference at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The effect on caregivers (2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), staff (1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and health service costs was uncertain (2 trials, very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home. Research that assesses the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers and admissions to hospital would be a useful addition to the evidence base, and might inform the delivery of these services.

Evidence on the economic value of end-of-life and palliative care interventions: a narrative review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: As the demand for palliative care increases, more information is needed on how efficient different types of palliative care models are for providing care to dying patients and their caregivers. Evidence on the economic value of treatments and interventions is key to informing resource allocation and ultimately improving the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery. We assessed the available evidence on the economic value of palliative and end-of-life care interventions across various settings. METHODS: Reviews published between 2000 and 2019 were included. We included reviews that focused on cost-effectiveness, intervention costs and/or healthcare resource use. Two reviewers extracted data independently and in duplicate from the included studies. Data on the key characteristics of the studies were extracted, including the aim of the study, design, population, type of intervention and comparator, (cost-) effectiveness resource use, main findings and conclusions. RESULTS: A total of 43 reviews were included in the analysis. Overall, most evidence on cost-effectiveness relates to home-based interventions and suggests that they offer substantial savings to the health system, including a decrease in total healthcare costs, resource use and improvement in patient and caregivers' outcomes. The evidence of interventions delivered across other settings was generally inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Some palliative care models may contribute to dual improvement in quality of care via lower rates of aggressive medicalization in the last phase of life accompanied by a reduction in costs. Hospital-based palliative care interventions may improve patient outcomes, healthcare utilization and costs. There is a need for greater consistency in reporting outcome measures, the informal costs of caring, and costs associated with hospice.

The Effect of Advance Care Planning on Heart Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is widely advocated to improve outcomes in end-of-life care for patients suffering from heart failure. But until now, there has been no systematic evaluation of the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on clinical outcomes. Our aim was to determine the effect of ACP in heart failure through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Citation Index and PsycINFO (inception to July 2018). We selected RCTs including adult patients with heart failure treated in a hospital, hospice or community setting. Three reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool) and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE tool) and analysed interventions according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) in random effects models for pooled effects using the generic inverse variance method. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs including 2924 participants met all of the inclusion criteria. There was a moderate effect in favour of ACP for quality of life (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI [0.09 to 0.68]), patients' satisfaction with end-of-life care (SMD, 0.39; 95% CI [0.14 to 0.64]) and the quality of end-of-life communication (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.17 to 0.42]) for patients suffering from heart failure. ACP seemed most effective if it was introduced at significant milestones in a patient's disease trajectory, included family members, involved follow-up appointments and considered ethnic preferences. Several sensitivity analyses confirmed the statistically significant direction of effect. Heterogeneity was mainly due to different study settings, length of follow-up periods and compositions of ACP. CONCLUSIONS: ACP improved quality of life, patient satisfaction with end-of-life care and the quality of end-of-life communication for patients suffering from heart failure and could be most effective when the right timing, follow-up and involvement of important others was considered.

A scoping review of initiatives to reduce inappropriate or non-beneficial hospital admissions and bed days in people nearing the end of their life: much innovation, but limited supporting evidence.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalisation during the last weeks of life when there is no medical need or desire to be there is distressing and expensive. This study sought palliative care initiatives which may avoid or shorten hospital stay at the end of life and analysed their success in terms reducing bed days. METHODS: Part 1 included a search of literature in PubMed and Google Scholar between 2013 and 2018, an examination of governmental and organisational publications plus discussions with external and co-author experts regarding other sources. This initial sweep sought to identify and categorise relevant palliative care initiatives. In Part 2, we looked for publications providing data on hospital admissions and bed days for each category. RESULTS: A total of 1252 abstracts were reviewed, resulting in ten broad classes being identified. Further screening revealed 50 relevant publications describing a range of multi-component initiatives. Studies were generally small and retrospective. Most researchers claim their service delivered benefits. In descending frequency, benefits identified were support in the community, integrated care, out-of-hours telephone advice, care home education and telemedicine. Nurses and hospices were central to many initiatives. Barriers and factors underpinning success were rarely addressed. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of initiatives have been introduced to improve end-of-life experiences. Formal evidence supporting their effectiveness in reducing inappropriate/non-beneficial hospital bed days was generally limited or absent. TRIAL REGISTRATION: N/A.

Recommendations to reduce inequalities for LGBT people facing advanced illness: ACCESSCare national qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans (LGBT) people have higher risk of certain life-limiting illnesses and unmet needs in advanced illness and bereavement. ACCESSCare is the first national study to examine in depth the experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness. AIM: To explore health-care experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness to elicit views regarding sharing identity (sexual orientation/gender history), accessing services, discrimination/exclusion and best-practice examples. DESIGN: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In total, 40 LGBT people from across the United Kingdom facing advanced illness: cancer ( n = 21), non-cancer ( n = 16) and both a cancer and a non-cancer conditions ( n = 3). RESULTS: In total, five main themes emerged: (1) person-centred care needs that may require additional/different consideration for LGBT people (including different social support structures and additional legal concerns), (2) service level or interactional (created in the consultation) barriers/stressors (including heteronormative assumptions and homophobic/transphobic behaviours), (3) invisible barriers/stressors (including the historical context of pathology/criminalisation, fears and experiences of discrimination) and (4) service level or interactional facilitators (including acknowledging and including partners in critical discussions). These all shape (5) individuals' preferences for disclosing identity. Prior experiences of discrimination or violence, in response to disclosure, were carried into future care interactions and heightened with the frailty of advanced illness. CONCLUSION: Despite recent legislative change, experiences of discrimination and exclusion in health care persist for LGBT people. Ten recommendations, for health-care professionals and services/institutions, are made from the data. These are simple, low cost and offer potential gains in access to, and outcomes of, care for LGBT people.

Olanzapine for the prevention and treatment of cancer-related nausea and vomiting in adults.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine as an antiemetic represents a new use of an antipsychotic drug. People with cancer may experience nausea and vomiting whilst receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or whilst in the palliative phase of illness. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of olanzapine when used as an antiemetic in the prevention and treatment of nausea and vomiting related to cancer in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase for published data on 20th September 2017, as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished trials. We checked reference lists, and contacted experts in the field and study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of olanzapine versus any comparator with or without adjunct therapies for the prevention or treatment, or both, of nausea or vomiting in people with cancer aged 18 years or older, in any setting, of any duration, with at least 10 participants per treatment arm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology. We used GRADE to assess quality of evidence for each main outcome. We extracted data for absence of nausea or vomiting and frequency of serious adverse events as primary outcomes. We extracted data for patient perception of treatment, other adverse events, somnolence and fatigue, attrition, nausea or vomiting severity, breakthrough nausea and vomiting, rescue antiemetic use, and nausea and vomiting as secondary outcomes at specified time points. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 RCTs (1917 participants) from high-, middle- and low-income countries, representing over 24 different cancers. Thirteen studies were in chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Oral olanzapine was administered during highly emetogenic (HEC) or moderately emetogenic (MEC) chemotherapy (12 studies); chemoradiotherapy (one study); or palliation (one study). Eight studies await classification and 13 are ongoing.The main comparison was olanzapine versus placebo/no treatment. Other comparisons were olanzapine versus NK1 antagonist, prokinetic, 5-HT3 antagonist or dexamethasone.We assessed all but one study as having one or more domains that were at high risk of bias. Eight RCTs with fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm, and 10 RCTs with issues related to blinding, were at high risk of bias. We downgraded GRADE assessments due to imprecision, inconsistency and study limitations.Olanzapine versus placebo/no treatmentPrimary outcomesOlanzapine probably doubles the likelihood of no nausea or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% (risk ratio (RR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.47; 561 participants; 3 studies; solid tumours; HEC or MEC therapy; moderate-quality evidence) when added to standard therapy. Number needed to treat for additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 5 (95% CI 3.3 - 6.6).It is uncertain if olanzapine increases the risk of serious adverse events (absolute risk difference 0.7% more, 95% CI 0.2 to 5.2) (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.48 to 12.55; 7 studies, 889 participants, low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFour studies reported patient perception of treatment. One study (48 participants) reported no difference in patient preference. Four reported quality of life but data were insufficient for meta-analysis.Olanzapine may increase other adverse events (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.96; 332 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence) and probably increases somnolence and fatigue compared to no treatment or placebo (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.30 to 4.18; anticipated absolute risk 8.2% more, 95% CI 1.9 to 18.8; 464 participants; 5 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Olanzapine probably does not affect all-cause attrition (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.73; 943 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%). We are uncertain if olanzapine increases attrition due to adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 70.16; 422 participants; 6 studies). No participants withdrew due to lack of efficacy.We are uncertain if olanzapine reduces breakthrough nausea and vomiting (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.47; 501 participants; 2 studies; I² = 54%) compared to placebo or no treatment. No studies reported 50% reduction in severity of nausea or vomiting, use of rescue antiemetics, or attrition.We are uncertain of olanzapine's efficacy in reducing acute nausea or vomiting. Olanzapine probably reduces delayed nausea (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.09; 585 participants; 3 studies) and vomiting (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.42; 702 participants; 5 studies).Subgroup analysis: 5 mg versus 10 mgPlanned subgroup analyses found that it is unclear if 5 mg is as effective an antiemetic as 10 mg. There is insufficient evidence to exclude the possibility that 5 mg may confer a lower risk of somnolence and fatigue than 10 mg.Other comparisonsOne study (20 participants) compared olanzapine versus NK1 antagonists. We observed no difference in any reported outcomes.One study (112 participants) compared olanzapine versus a prokinetic (metoclopramide), reporting that olanzapine may increase freedom from overall nausea (RR 2.95, 95% CI 1.73 to 5.02) and overall vomiting (RR 3.03, 95% CI 1.78 to 5.14).One study (62 participants) examined olanzapine versus 5-HT3 antagonists, reporting olanzapine may increase the likelihood of 50% or greater reduction in nausea or vomiting at 48 hours (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.97) and 24 hours (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.80 to 2.34).One study (229 participants) compared olanzapine versus dexamethasone, reporting that olanzapine may reduce overall nausea (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.18), overall vomiting (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.48), delayed nausea (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.08) and delayed vomiting (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that oral olanzapine probably increases the likelihood of not being nauseous or vomiting during chemotherapy from 25% to 50% in adults with solid tumours, in addition to standard therapy, compared to placebo or no treatment. There is uncertainty whether it increases serious adverse events. It may increase the likelihood of other adverse events, probably increasing somnolence and fatigue. There is uncertainty about relative benefits and harms of 5 mg versus 10 mg.We identified only RCTs describing oral administration. The findings of this review cannot be extrapolated to provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of any injectable form (intravenous, intramuscular or subcutaneous) of olanzapine.

Palliative care education for medical students: Differences in course evolution, organisation, evaluation and funding: A survey of all UK medical schools.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of newly qualified doctors report feeling unprepared to manage patients with palliative care and end-of-life needs. This may be related to barriers within their institution during undergraduate training. Information is limited regarding the current organisation of palliative care teaching across UK medical schools. AIMS: To investigate the evolution and structure of palliative care teaching at UK medical schools. DESIGN: Anonymised, web-based questionnaire. Settings/participants: Results were obtained from palliative care course organisers at all 30 UK medical schools. RESULTS: The palliative care course was established through active planning (13/30, 43%), ad hoc development (10, 33%) or combination of approaches (7, 23%). The place of palliative care teaching within the curriculum varied. A student-selected palliative care component was offered by 29/30 (97%). All medical schools sought student feedback. The course was reviewed in 26/30 (87%) but not in 4. Similarly, a course organiser was responsible for the palliative care programme in 26/30 but not in 4. A total of 22 respondents spent a mean of 3.9 h (median 2.5)/week in supporting/delivering palliative care education (<1-16 h). In all, 17/29 (59%) had attended a teaching course or shared duties with a colleague who had done so. Course organisers received titular recognition in 18/27 (67%; no title 9 (33%); unknown 3 (11%)). An academic department of Palliative Medicine existed in 12/30 (40%) medical schools. Funding was not universally transparent. Palliative care teaching was associated with some form of funding in 20/30 (66%). CONCLUSION: Development, organisation, course evaluation and funding for palliative care teaching at UK medical schools are variable. This may have implications for delivery of effective palliative care education for medical students.

Opioids for cancer pain - an overview of Cochrane reviews.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Opioid (morphine-like) drugs are commonly used to treat moderate or severe cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) pain treatment ladder. The most commonly-used opioid drugs are buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, tramadol, and tapentadol. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the analgesic efficacy of opioids in cancer pain, and to report on adverse events associated with their use. METHODS: We identified systematic reviews examining any opioid for cancer pain published to 4 May 2017 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in the Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were no or mild pain within 14 days of starting treatment, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews with 152 included studies and 13,524 participants, but because some studies appeared in more than one review the number of unique studies and participants was smaller than this. Most participants had moderate or severe pain associated with a range of different types of cancer. Studies in the reviews typically compared one type of opioid or formulation with either a different formulation of the same opioid, or a different opioid; few included a placebo control. Typically the reviews titrated dose to effect, a balance between pain relief and adverse events. Various routes of administration of opioids were considered in the reviews; oral with most opioids, but transdermal administration with fentanyl, and buprenorphine. No review included studies of subcutaneous opioid administration. Pain outcomes reported were varied and inconsistent. The average size of included studies varied considerably between reviews: studies of older opioids, such as codeine, morphine, and methadone, had low average study sizes while those involving newer drugs tended to have larger study sizes.Six reviews reported a GRADE assessment (buprenorphine, codeine, hydromorphone, methadone, oxycodone, and tramadol), but not necessarily for all comparisons or outcomes. No comparative analyses were possible because there was no consistent placebo or active control. Cohort outcomes for opioids are therefore reported, as absolute numbers or percentages, or both.Reviews on buprenorphine, codeine with or without paracetamol, hydromorphone, methadone, tramadol with or without paracetamol, tapentadol, and oxycodone did not have information about the primary outcome of mild or no pain at 14 days, although that on oxycodone indicated that average pain scores were within that range. Two reviews, on oral morphine and transdermal fentanyl, reported that 96% of 850 participants achieved that goal.Adverse event withdrawal was reported by five reviews, at rates of between 6% and 19%. Participants with at least one adverse event were reported by three reviews, at rates of between 11% and 77%.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because many studies in the reviews were at high risk of bias from several sources, including small study size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and quality of evidence around the use of opioids for treating cancer pain is disappointingly low, although the evidence we have indicates that around 19 out of 20 people with moderate or severe pain who are given opioids and can tolerate them should have that pain reduced to mild or no pain within 14 days. This accords with the clinical experience in treating many people with cancer pain, but overstates to some extent the effectiveness found for the WHO pain ladder. Most people will experience adverse events, and help may be needed to manage the more common undesirable adverse effects such as constipation and nausea. Perhaps between 1 in 10 and 2 in 10 people treated with opioids will find these adverse events intolerable, leading to a change in treatment.

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for cancer pain in adults.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the World Health Organization (WHO) cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on paracetamol, updates the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of oral NSAIDs for cancer pain in adults, and the adverse events reported during their use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to April 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, single-blind, or open-label studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID alone with placebo or another NSAID, or a combination of NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any pain intensity. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies satisfied inclusion criteria, lasting one week or longer; 949 participants with mostly moderate or severe pain were randomised initially, but fewer completed treatment or had results of treatment. Eight studies were double-blind, two single-blind, and one open-label. None had a placebo only control; eight compared different NSAIDs, three an NSAID with opioid or opioid combination, and one both. None compared an NSAID plus opioid with the same dose of opioid alone. Most studies were at high risk of bias for blinding, incomplete outcome data, or small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.It was not possible to compare NSAIDs as a group with another treatment, or one NSAID with another NSAID. Results for all NSAIDs are reported as a randomised cohort. We judged results for all outcomes as very low-quality evidence.None of the studies reported our primary outcomes of participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). With NSAID, initially moderate or severe pain was reduced to no worse than mild pain after one or two weeks in four studies (415 participants in total), with a range of estimates between 26% and 51% in individual studies.Adverse event and withdrawal reporting was inconsistent. Two serious adverse events were reported with NSAIDs, and 22 deaths, but these were not clearly related to any pain treatment. Common adverse events were thirst/dry mouth (15%), loss of appetite (14%), somnolence (11%), and dyspepsia (11%). Withdrawals were common, mostly because of lack of efficacy (24%) or adverse events (5%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs alone or in combination with opioids for the three steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. There is very low-quality evidence that some people with moderate or severe cancer pain can obtain substantial levels of benefit within one or two weeks.

Oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common symptom with cancer, and 30% to 50% of all people with cancer will experience moderate to severe pain that can have a major negative impact on their quality of life. Non-opioid drugs are commonly used to treat mild to moderate cancer pain, and are recommended for this purpose in the WHO cancer pain treatment ladder, either alone or in combination with opioids.A previous Cochrane review that examined the evidence for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain was withdrawn in 2015 because it was out of date; the date of the last search was 2005. This review, and another on NSAIDs, updates the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) for cancer pain in adults and children, and the adverse events reported during its use in clinical trials. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to March 2017, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised, double-blind, studies of five days' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol alone with placebo, or paracetamol in combination with an opioid compared with the same dose of the opioid alone, for cancer pain of any intensity. Single-blind and open studies were also eligible for inclusion. The minimum study size was 25 participants per treatment arm at the initial randomisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Three studies in adults satisfied the inclusion criteria, lasting up to one week; 122 participants were randomised initially, and 95 completed treatment. We found no studies in children. One study was parallel-group, and two had a cross-over design. All used paracetamol as an add-on to established treatment with strong opioids (median daily morphine equivalent doses of 60 mg, 70 mg, and 225 mg, with some participants taking several hundred mg of oral morphine equivalents daily). Other non-paracetamol medication included non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), tricyclic antidepressants, or neuroleptics. All studies were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and small size; none was unequivocally at low risk of bias.None of the studies reported any of our primary outcomes: participants with pain reduction of at least 50%, and at least 30%, from baseline; participants with pain no worse than mild at the end of the treatment period; participants with Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) of much improved or very much improved (or equivalent wording). What pain reports there were indicated no difference between paracetamol and placebo when added to another treatment. There was no convincing evidence of paracetamol being different from placebo with regards to quality of life, use of rescue medication, or participant satisfaction or preference. Measures of harm (serious adverse events, other adverse events, and withdrawal due to lack of efficacy) were inconsistently reported and provided no clear evidence of difference.Our GRADE assessment of evidence quality was very low for all outcomes, because studies were at high risk of bias from several sources. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of paracetamol alone or in combination with opioids for the first two steps of the three-step WHO cancer pain ladder. It is not clear whether any additional analgesic benefit of paracetamol could be detected in the available studies, in view of the doses of opioids used.

Psychometric properties of carer-reported outcome measures in palliative care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Informal carers face many challenges in caring for patients with palliative care needs. Selecting suitable valid and reliable outcome measures to determine the impact of caring and carers' outcomes is a common problem. AIM: To identify outcome measures used for informal carers looking after patients with palliative care needs, and to evaluate the measures' psychometric properties. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted. The studies identified were evaluated by independent reviewers (C.T.J.M., M.B., M.P.). Data regarding study characteristics and psychometric properties of the measures were extracted and evaluated. Good psychometric properties indicate a high-quality measure. DATA SOURCES: The search was conducted, unrestricted to publication year, in the following electronic databases: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index and Sociological Abstracts. RESULTS: Our systematic search revealed 4505 potential relevant studies, of which 112 studies met the inclusion criteria using 38 carer measures for informal carers of patients with palliative care needs. Psychometric properties were reported in only 46% (n = 52) of the studies, in relation to 24 measures. Where psychometric data were reported, the focus was mainly on internal consistency (n = 45, 87%), construct validity (n = 27, 52%) and/or reliability (n = 14, 27%). Of these, 24 measures, only four (17%) had been formally validated in informal carers in palliative care. CONCLUSION: A broad range of outcome measures have been used for informal carers of patients with palliative care needs. Little formal psychometric testing has been undertaken. Furthermore, development and refinement of measures in this field is required.

Progress and divergence in palliative care education for medical students: A comparative survey of UK course structure, content, delivery, contact with patients and assessment of learning.

BACKGROUND: Effective undergraduate education is required to enable newly qualified doctors to safely care for patients with palliative care and end-of-life needs. The status of palliative care teaching for UK medical students is unknown. AIM: To investigate palliative care training at UK medical schools and compare with data collected in 2000. DESIGN: An anonymised, web-based multifactorial questionnaire. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Results were obtained from palliative care course organisers at all 30 medical schools in 2013 and compared with 23 medical schools (24 programmes) in 2000. RESULTS: All continue to deliver mandatory teaching on 'last days of life, death and bereavement'. Time devoted to palliative care teaching time varied (2000: 6-100 h, mean 20 h; 2013: 7-98 h, mean 36 h, median 25 h). Current palliative care teaching is more integrated. There was little change in core topics and teaching methods. New features include 'involvement in clinical areas', participation of patient and carers and attendance at multidisciplinary team meetings. Hospice visits are offered (22/24 (92%) vs 27/30 (90%)) although they do not always involve patient contact. There has been an increase in students' assessments (2000: 6/24, 25% vs 2013: 25/30, 83%) using a mixture of formative and summative methods. Some course organisers lack an overview of what is delivered locally. CONCLUSION: Undergraduate palliative care training continues to evolve with greater integration, increased teaching, new delivery methods and wider assessment. There is a trend towards increased patient contact and clinical involvement. A minority of medical schools offer limited teaching and patient contact which could impact on the delivery of safe palliative care by newly qualified doctors.

Oral morphine for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales). MAIN RESULTS: We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events.The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care.

BACKGROUND: The policy in a number of countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home. This policy is supported by surveys indicating that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fourth update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs, and caregivers, compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases until April 2015: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R) (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), and EconLit (from 1969). We checked the reference lists of potentially relevant articles identified and handsearched palliative care publications, clinical trials registries, and a database of systematic reviews for related trials (PDQ-Evidence 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series, or controlled before and after studies evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We combined the published data for dichotomous outcomes using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis. When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials in this review and did not identify new studies from the search in April 2015. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.55, P = 0.0002; Chi(2) = 1.72, df = 2, P = 0.42, I(2) = 0%; 3 trials; N = 652; high quality evidence). Admission to hospital while receiving home-based end-of-life care varied between trials, and this was reflected by a high level of statistical heterogeneity in this analysis (range RR 0.62 to RR 2.61; 4 trials; N = 823; moderate quality evidence). Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up and reduce it at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low quality evidence). The effect on caregivers is uncertain (2 trials; low quality evidence). The intervention may slightly reduce healthcare costs (2 trials, low quality evidence). No trial reported costs to patients and caregivers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home, although the numbers of people admitted to hospital while receiving end-of-life care should be monitored. Future research should systematically assess the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers.

Cancer pain assessment and management: does an institutional approach individualise and reduce cost of care?

OBJECTIVES: To understand individual prescribing and associated costs in patients managed with the Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool (EPAT). METHODS: The EPAT study was a two-arm parallel group cluster randomised (1:1) trial, including 19 UK cancer centres. Study outcome assessments, including pain levels, analgesia and non-pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions, collected at baseline, 3-5 days and, if applicable, 7-10 days after admission. Costs calculated for inpatient length of stay (LoS), medications and complex pain interventions. Analysis accounted for the clustered nature of the trial design. In this post-hoc analysis, healthcare utilisation and costs are presented descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: 10 centres randomised to EPAT (487 patients) and 9 (449 patients) to usual care (UC). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, complex pain interventions, length of hospital stay and costs related to these outcomes. RESULTS: The mean per patient hospital cost was £3866 with EPAT and £4194 with UC, reflecting a mean LoS of 2.9 days and 3.1 days, respectively. Costs were lower for non-opioids, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and opioids but slightly higher for adjuvants with EPAT than with UC. The mean per-patient opioid costs were £17.90 (EPAT) and £25.80 (UC). Mean per patient costs of all medication were £36 (EPAT) and £40 (UC).Complex pain intervention costs were £117 with EPAT per patient and £90 with UC. Overall mean cost per patient was £4018.3 (95% CI 3698.9 to 4337.8) with EPAT and £4323.8 (95% CI 4060.0 to 4587.7) with UC. CONCLUSIONS: EPAT facilitated personalised medicine and may result in less opioids, more specific treatments, improved pain outcomes and cost savings.

Oral morphine for cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: This is the second updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and assess the incidence and severity of adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group Trials Register (June 2013); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 5, May); MEDLINE (1966 to June 2013); and EMBASE (1974 to June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. Trials with fewer than ten participants were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales). MAIN RESULTS: Ten new studies (638 participants) were identified for this update, bringing the total of included studies to 62, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial.Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine.In this update a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638).Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse effects were common and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment because of intolerable adverse effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials are sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review reinforce the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.

Interventions for treating persistent and intractable hiccups in adults.

BACKGROUND: Persistent and intractable hiccups (typically defined as lasting for more than 48 hours and one month respectively) can be of serious detriment to a patient's quality of life, although they are relatively uncommon. A wide range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been used for the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups. However, there is little evidence as to which interventions are effective or harmful. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions used in the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups of any aetiology in adults. SEARCH METHODS: Studies were identified from the following databases: CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO and SIGLE (last search March 2012). The search strategy for all the databases searched was based on the MEDLINE search strategy presented in Appendix 1. No additional handsearching of journals was undertaken. Investigators who are known to be carrying out research in this area were contacted for unpublished data or knowledge of the grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies eligible for inclusion in this review were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs). INCLUSION CRITERIA: adults (over 18 years old) diagnosed with persistent or intractable hiccups (hiccups lasting more than 48 hours), treated with any pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: less than ten participants; no assessment of change in hiccup frequency or intensity in outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors assessed each abstract and title for relevance. Disagreement on eligibility was resolved by discussion. Where no abstract was available the full paper was obtained and assessed. We obtained full copies of the studies which met the inclusion criteria for further assessment. Two review authors independently collected data from each appropriate study and entered them into the software Review Manager 5. Two independent review authors assessed the risk of bias using the RevMan 5 'Risk of bias' table following guidance from the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2009). MAIN RESULTS: A total of four studies (305 participants) met the inclusion criteria. All of these studies sought to determine the effectiveness of different acupuncture techniques in the treatment of persistent and intractable hiccups. All four studies had a high risk of bias, did not compare the intervention with placebo, and failed to report side effects or adverse events for either the treatment or control groups. Due to methodological differences we were unable to perform a meta-analysis of the results. No studies investigating pharmacological interventions for persistent and intractable hiccups met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide the treatment of persistent or intractable hiccups with either pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions.The paucity of high quality studies indicate a need for randomised placebo-controlled trials of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. As the symptom is relatively rare, trials would need to be multi-centred and possibly multi-national.

Parkinson's disease and palliative care: a quality of care Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: Extending palliative care services to those with long-term neurological conditions is a current aim of UK health policy. Lack of holistic guidelines for palliative and end-of-life care, and differing models of service provision, has resulted in heterogeneity in care access and quality. There is a need for evidence-based standards of care to audit Parkinson's services and drive improvements. METHODS: A two-stage Delphi process was used to achieve consensus on statements that define quality standards in palliative care for patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). An expert panel was selected to comprise healthcare professionals, patients and carers based in the UK; this panel evaluated the statements via a Delphi survey. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the results informed modifications between the Delphi rounds. RESULTS: A final set of 16 statements was produced, reflecting aspirational standards of palliative care in PD. These statements, split into four domains ('Structures and processes of care', 'Preparing for the end of life', ' Care in the last weeks of life' and 'Care in the last days of life') underline the importance of joint working between generalist and specialist services, individualised care and early and regular advance care planning. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process has established a set of standards which can be integrated within and guide services, helping to improve the quality and equality of care. Further work remains to establish the effectiveness of different models of service provision, including the implementation of keyworkers and telemedicine.