European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline: palliative care for people with COPD or interstitial lung disease.

There is increased awareness of palliative care needs in people with COPD or interstitial lung disease (ILD). This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force aimed to provide recommendations for initiation and integration of palliative care into the respiratory care of adult people with COPD or ILD. The ERS task force consisted of 20 members, including representatives of people with COPD or ILD and informal caregivers. Eight questions were formulated, four in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome format. These were addressed with full systematic reviews and application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the evidence. Four additional questions were addressed narratively. An "evidence-to-decision" framework was used to formulate recommendations. The following definition of palliative care for people with COPD or ILD was agreed. A holistic and multidisciplinary person-centred approach aiming to control symptoms and improve quality of life of people with serious health-related suffering because of COPD or ILD, and to support their informal caregivers. Recommendations were made regarding people with COPD or ILD and their informal caregivers: to consider palliative care when physical, psychological, social or existential needs are identified through holistic needs assessment; to offer palliative care interventions, including support for informal caregivers, in accordance with such needs; to offer advance care planning in accordance with preferences; and to integrate palliative care into routine COPD and ILD care. Recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

Adaptation and multicentre validation of a patient-centred outcome scale for people severely ill with COVID (IPOS-COV).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach. METHODS: We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined. RESULTS: In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died. CONCLUSIONS: IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.

Researching minoritised communities in palliative care: An agenda for change.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care access, experiences and outcomes of care disadvantage those from ethnically diverse, Indigenous, First nation and First people communities. Research into this field of inquiry raises unique theoretical, methodological, and moral issues. Without the critical reflection of methods of study and reporting of findings, researchers may inadvertently compromise their contribution to reducing injustices and perpetuating racism. AIM: To examine key evidence of the place of minoritised communities in palliative care research to devise recommendations that improve the precision and rigour of research and reporting of findings. METHODS: Narrative review of articles identified from PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar for 10 years augmented with supplementary searches. RESULTS: We identified and appraised 109 relevant articles. Four main themes were identified (i) Lack of precision when working with a difference; (ii) 'black box epidemiology' and its presence in palliative care research; (iii) the inclusion of minoritised communities in palliative care research; and (iv) the potential to cause harm. All stymie opportunities to 'level up' health experiences and outcomes across the palliative care spectrum. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this review palliative care research must reflect on and justify the classification of minoritised communities, explore and understand intersectionality, optimise data quality, decolonise research teams and methods, and focus on reducing inequities to level up end-of-life care experiences and outcomes. Palliative care research must be forthright in explicitly indentifying instances of structural and systemic racism in palliative care research and engaging in non-judgemental debate on changes required.

Understanding the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on delivery of rehabilitation in specialist palliative care services: An analysis of the CovPall-Rehab survey data.

BACKGROUND: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients' symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIM: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national online survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. FINDINGS: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

Patient-centered Outcomes Research in Interstitial Lung Disease: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: In the past two decades, many advances have been made to our understanding of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the way we approach its treatment. Despite this, many questions remain unanswered, particularly those related to how the disease and its therapies impact outcomes that are most important to patients. There is currently a lack of guidance on how to best define and incorporate these patient-centered outcomes in ILD research. Objectives: To summarize the current state of patient-centered outcomes research in ILD, identify gaps in knowledge and research, and highlight opportunities and methods for future patient-centered research agendas in ILD. Methods: An international interdisciplinary group of experts was assembled. The group identified top patient-centered outcomes in ILD, reviewed available literature for each outcome, highlighted important discoveries and knowledge gaps, and formulated research recommendations. Results: The committee identified seven themes around patient-centered outcomes as the focus of the statement. After a review of the literature and expert committee discussion, we developed 28 research recommendations. Conclusions: Patient-centered outcomes are key to ascertaining whether and how ILD and interventions used to treat it affect the way patients feel and function in their daily lives. Ample opportunities exist to conduct additional work dedicated to elevating and incorporating patient-centered outcomes in ILD research.

Charitably funded hospices and the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data. RESULTS: 143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services. CONCLUSION: Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient.

The association between ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation and receipt of hospital-based palliative care for people with Covid-19: A dual centre service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People from ethnic minority groups and deprived socioeconomic backgrounds have worse outcomes from COVID-19. AIM: To examine associations between ethnicity and deprivation with timing of palliative care referral for inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Service evaluation of consecutive patients with COVID-19 referred to palliative care. Sociodemographic (including age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity coded as White/non-White) and clinical variables were described. The primary outcome was timing of referral to palliative care. Associations between ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation with the primary outcome were explored using multivariable regression. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 referred to a hospital palliative care service across two London hospitals February-May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were included. 119 (36%) were from a non-White ethnic group; most commonly Black British (77, 23%) and Asian British (26, 8%). A longer time between admission and palliative care referral was associated with male gender (IRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.34) and lower levels of socioeconomic deprivation (IRR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36-1.90) but not ethnicity (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: This large service evaluation showed no evidence that patients from ethnic minority or more deprived socioeconomic groups had longer time to palliative care referral. Ongoing data monitoring is essential for equitable service delivery.

Professionals', patients' and families' views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness: A systematic review using the framework method and pillar process.

BACKGROUND: In combination with non-pharmacological interventions, opioids may safely reduce chronic breathlessness in patients with severe illness. However, implementation in clinical practice varies. AIM: To synthesise the published literature regarding health professionals', patients' and families' views on the use of opioids for chronic breathlessness, identifying issues which influence implementation in clinical practice. DESIGN: Systematic review and synthesis using the five-stage framework synthesis method. DATA SOURCES: Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase via OVID, ASSIA via Proquest) were searched (March 2020) using a predefined search strategy. Studies were also citation chained from key papers. Papers were screened against a priori eligibility criteria. Data were extracted from included studies using the framework synthesis method. Qualitative and quantitative data were synthesised using the pillar process. Included studies were critically appraised using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: After de-duplication, 843 papers were identified. Following screening, 22 studies were included. Five themes were developed: (i) clinician/patient characteristics, (ii) education/knowledge/experience, (iii) relationship between clinician/family, (iv) clinician/patient fear of opioids and (v) regulatory issues. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant barriers and enablers to the use of opioids for the symptomatic reduction of chronic breathlessness based on the knowledge, views and attitudes of clinicians, patients and families. Clinicians' interactions with patients and their families strongly influences adherence with opioid treatment regimens for chronic breathlessness. Clinicians', patients' and families' knowledge about the delicate balance between benefits and risks is generally poor. Education for all, but particularly clinicians, is likely to be a necessary (but insufficient) factor for improving implementation in practice.

'Necessity is the mother of invention': Specialist palliative care service innovation and practice change in response to COVID-19. Results from a multinational survey (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care. AIM: To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use.ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.

Understanding and addressing challenges for advance care planning in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the UK CovPall survey data from specialist palliative care services.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. AIM: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. DESIGN: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services' response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. RESPONDENTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. RESULTS: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.

Randomised, double-blind, multicentre, mixed-methods, dose-escalation feasibility trial of mirtazapine for better treatment of severe breathlessness in advanced lung disease (BETTER-B feasibility).

New treatments are required for severe breathlessness in advanced disease. We conducted a randomised feasibility trial of mirtazapine over 28 days in adults with a modified medical research council breathlessness scale score ≥3. Sixty-four patients were randomised (409 screened), achieving our primary feasibility endpoint of recruitment. Most patients had COPD or interstitial lung disease; 52 (81%) completed the trial. There were no differences between placebo and mirtazapine in tolerability or safety, and blinding was maintained. Worst breathlessness ratings at day 28 (primary clinical activity endpoint) were, 7.1 (SD 2.3, placebo) and 6.3 (SD 1.8, mirtazapine). A phase III trial of mirtazapine is indicated. Trial registration: ISRCTN 32236160; European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT no: 2015-004064-11).

Health-related quality of life and symptoms in patients with IPF treated with nintedanib: analyses of patient-reported outcomes from the INPULSIS® trials.

BACKGROUND: In the Phase III INPULSIS® trials, treatment of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with nintedanib significantly reduced the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) versus placebo, consistent with slowing disease progression. However, nintedanib was not associated with a benefit in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed using the St George's respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ). We aimed to further examine the impact of IPF progression on HRQoL and symptoms, and to explore the effect of nintedanib on HRQoL in patients from the INPULSIS® trials stratified by clinical factors associated with disease progression. METHODS: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from the INPULSIS® trials were included in three post hoc analyses. Two analyses used the pooled data set to examine PRO changes from baseline to week 52 according to 1) decline in FVC and 2) occurrence of acute exacerbations. In the third analysis, patients were stratified based on clinical indicators of disease progression (gender, age and physiology [GAP] stage; FVC % predicted; diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide [DLCO] % predicted; composite physiologic index [CPI]; and SGRQ total score) at baseline; median change from baseline was measured at 52 weeks and treatment groups were compared using the Wilcoxon two-sample test. RESULTS: Data from 1061 patients (638 nintedanib, 423 placebo) were analyzed. Greater categorical decline from baseline in FVC % predicted over 52 weeks was associated with significant worsening of HRQoL and symptoms across all PRO measures. Acute exacerbations were associated with deterioration in HRQoL and worsened symptoms. In general, patients with advanced disease at baseline (defined as GAP II/III, FVC ≤ 80%, DLCO ≤ 40%, CPI >  45, or SGRQ > 40) experienced greater deterioration in PROs than patients with less-advanced disease. Among patients with advanced disease, compared with placebo, nintedanib slowed deterioration in several PROs; benefit was most apparent on the SGRQ (total and activity scores). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced IPF, compared with placebo, nintedanib slowed deterioration in HRQoL and symptoms as assessed by several PROs. HRQoL measures have a higher responsiveness to change in advanced disease and may lack sensitivity to capture change in patients with less-advanced IPF.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

Holistic services for people with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is a common, distressing symptom in people with advanced disease and a marker of deterioration. Holistic services that draw on integrated palliative care have been developed for this group. This systematic review aimed to examine the outcomes, experiences and therapeutic components of these services. METHODS: Systematic review searching nine databases to June 2017 for experimental, qualitative and observational studies. Eligibility and quality were independently assessed by two authors. Data on service models, health and cost outcomes were synthesised, using meta-analyses as indicated. Data on recipient experiences were synthesised thematically and integrated at the level of interpretation and reporting. RESULTS: From 3239 records identified, 37 articles were included representing 18 different services. Most services enrolled people with thoracic cancer, involved palliative care staff and comprised 4-6 contacts over 4-6 weeks. Commonly used interventions included breathing techniques, psychological support and relaxation techniques. Meta-analyses demonstrated reductions in Numeric Rating Scale distress due to breathlessness (n=324; mean difference (MD) -2.30, 95% CI -4.43 to -0.16, p=0.03) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) depression scores (n=408, MD -1.67, 95% CI -2.52 to -0.81, p<0.001) favouring the intervention. Statistically non-significant effects were observed for Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) mastery (n=259, MD 0.23, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.55, p=0.17) and HADS anxiety scores (n=552, MD -1.59, 95% CI -3.22 to 0.05, p=0.06). Patients and carers valued tailored education, self-management interventions and expert staff providing person-centred, dignified care. However, there was no observable effect on health status or quality of life, and mixed evidence around physical function. CONCLUSION: Holistic services for chronic breathlessness can reduce distress in patients with advanced disease and may improve psychological outcomes of anxiety and depression. Therapeutic components of these services should be shared and integrated into clinical practice. REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017057508.

Service Delivery Models to Maximize Quality of Life for Older People at the End of Life: A Rapid Review.

Policy Points We identified two overarching classifications of integrated geriatric and palliative care to maximize older people's quality of life at the end of life. Both are oriented to person-centered care, but with differing emphasis on either function or symptoms and concerns. Policymakers should both improve access to palliative care beyond just the last months of life and increase geriatric care provision to maintain and optimize function. This would ensure that continuity and coordination for potentially complex care needs across the continuum of late life would be maintained, where the demarcation of boundaries between healthy aging and healthy dying become increasingly blurred. Our findings highlight the urgent need for health system change to improve end-of-life care as part of universal health coverage. The use of health services should be informed by the likelihood of benefits and intended outcomes rather than on prognosis. CONTEXT: In an era of unprecedented global aging, a key priority is to align health and social services for older populations in order to support the dual priorities of living well while adapting to a gradual decline in function. We aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding service delivery models that optimize the quality of life (QoL) for older people at the end of life across health, social, and welfare services worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CDSR databases from 2000 to 2017 for reviews reporting the effectiveness of service models aimed at optimizing QoL for older people, more than 50% of whom were older than 60 and in the last one or two years of life. We assessed the quality of these included reviews using AMSTAR and synthesized the findings narratively. RESULTS: Of the 2,238 reviews identified, we included 72, with 20 reporting meta-analysis. Although all the World Health Organization (WHO) regions were represented, most of the reviews reported data from the Americas (52 of 72), Europe (46 of 72), and/or the Western Pacific (28 of 72). We identified two overarching classifications of service models but with different target outcomes: Integrated Geriatric Care, emphasizing physical function, and Integrated Palliative Care, focusing mainly on symptoms and concerns. Areas of synergy across the overarching classifications included person-centered care, education, and a multiprofessional workforce. The reviews assessed 117 separate outcomes. A meta-analysis demonstrated effectiveness for both classifications on QoL, including symptoms such as pain, depression, and psychological well-being. Economic analysis and its implications were poorly considered. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their different target outcomes, those service models classified as Integrated Geriatric Care or Integrated Palliative Care were effective in improving QoL for older people nearing the end of life. Both approaches highlight the imperative for integrating services across the care continuum, with service involvement triggered by the patient's needs and likelihood of benefits. To inform the sustainability of health system change we encourage economic analyses that span health and social care and examine all sources of finance to understand contextual inequalities.

Predicting outcomes following holistic breathlessness services: A pooled analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND: Holistic breathlessness services have been developed for people with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness, leading to improved psychological aspects of breathlessness and health. The extent to which patient characteristics influence outcomes is unclear. AIM: To identify patient characteristics predicting outcomes of mastery and distress due to breathlessness following holistic breathlessness services. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of pooled individual patient data from three clinical trials. Our primary analysis assessed predictors of clinically important improvements in Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire mastery scores (+0.5 point), and our secondary analysis predictors of improvements in Numerical Rating Scale distress due to breathlessness (-1 point). Variables significantly related to improvement in univariate models were considered in separate backwards stepwise logistic regression models. PARTICIPANTS: The dataset comprised 259 participants (118 female; mean (standard deviation) age 69.2 (10.6) years) with primary diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (49.8%), cancer (34.7%) and interstitial lung disease (10.4%). RESULTS: Controlling for age, sex and trial, baseline mastery remained the only significant independent predictor of improvement in mastery (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence intervals 0.43-0.74; p < 0.001), and baseline distress remained the only significant predictor of improvement in distress (odds ratio 1.64; 95% confidence intervals 1.35-2.03; p < 0.001). Baseline lung function, breathlessness severity, health status, mild anxiety and depression, and diagnosis did not predict outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of mastery and distress following holistic breathlessness services are influenced by baseline scores for these variables, and not by diagnosis, lung function or health status. Stratifying patients by levels of mastery and/or distress due to breathlessness appears appropriate for clinical trials and services.

Recommendations for services for people living with chronic breathlessness in advanced disease: Results of a transparent expert consultation.

Chronic breathlessness is highly distressing for people with advanced disease and their informal carers, yet health services for this group remain highly heterogeneous. We aimed to generate evidence-based stakeholder-endorsed recommendations for practice, policy and research concerning services for people with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness. We used transparent expert consultation, comprising modified nominal group technique during a stakeholder workshop, and an online consensus survey. Stakeholders, representing multiple specialities and professions, and patient/carers were invited to participate. Thirty-seven participants attended the stakeholder workshop and generated 34 separate recommendations, rated by 74 online survey respondents. Seven recommendations had strong agreement and high levels of consensus. Stakeholders agreed services should be person-centred and flexible, should cut across multiple disciplines and providers and should prioritize breathlessness management in its own right. They advocated for wide geographical coverage and access to expert care, supported through skills-sharing among professionals. They also recommended recognition of informal carers and their role by clinicians and policymakers. Overall, stakeholders' recommendations reflect the need for improved access to person-centred, multi-professional care and support for carers to provide or access breathlessness management interventions. Future research should test the optimal models of care and educational strategies to meet these recommendations.

One evidence base; three stories: do opioids relieve chronic breathlessness?

The efficacy of low-dose systemic opioids for chronic breathlessness was questioned by the recent Cochrane review by Barnes et al We examined the reasons for this conflicting finding and re-evaluated the efficacy of systemic opioids. Compared with previous meta-analyses, Barnes et al reported a smaller effect and lower precision, but did not account for matched data of crossover trials (11/12 included trials) and added a risk-of-bias criterion (sample size). When re-analysed to account for crossover data, opioids decreased breathlessness (standardised mean differences -0.32; -0.18 to -0.47; I2=44.8%) representing a clinically meaningful reduction of 0.8 points (0-10 numerical rating scale), consistent across meta-analyses.

Psychometric validation of the needs assessment tool: progressive disease in interstitial lung disease.

The inter-rater/test-retest reliability and construct validity of a palliative care needs assessment tool in interstitial lung disease (NAT:PD-ILD) were tested using NAT:PD-ILD-guided video-recorded consultations, and NAT:PD-ILD-guided consultations, and patient and carer-report outcomes (St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ)-ILD, Carer Strain Index (CSI)/Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool (CSNAT)). 11/16 items reached at least fair inter-rater agreement; 5 items reached at least moderate test-retest agreement. 4/6 patient constructs demonstrated agreement with SGRQ-I scores (Kendall's tau-b, 0.24-20.36; P<0.05). 4/7 carer constructs agreed with the CSI/CSNAT items (kappa, 0.23-20.53). The NAT:PD-ILD is reliable and valid. Clinical effectiveness and implementation are to be evaluated.