"You're the only thing he comes out [of his room] for": A qualitative study of engagement between Laughter Care Specialists and families of people with dementia in long-term care.

OBJECTIVES: Family involvement in the lives of people who have dementia and live in long-term care is important, but family members may face challenges communicating and connecting with their loved one as dementia progresses. A type of therapeutic humor (Laughter Care) delivered by trained specialists aims to engage people with dementia who reside in long-term care through creative play and laughter. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of Laughter Care Specialists (LCSs) regarding families' engagement with the program. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with LCSs (n = 8) and analyzed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Family members were reported to initially have varied degrees of openness toward Laughter Care, but often become more accepting after observing positive engagement with the person with dementia. Family members were perceived to benefit from the program through witnessing the person with dementia enjoy joyous and light interactions, learn new ways of communicating and connecting with the person with dementia, and engage in positive interactions at end of life. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Laughter Care may provide family members with novel ways of communicating and connecting with people who have dementia at end of life as well as comfort into bereavement.

Malnutrition, sarcopenia and cachexia: exploring prevalence, overlap, and perceptions in older adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Older adults with cancer are a growing population requiring tailored care to achieve optimum treatment outcomes. Their care is complicated by under-recognised and under-treated wasting disorders: malnutrition, sarcopenia, and cachexia. We aimed to investigate the prevalence, overlap, and patients' views and experiences of malnutrition, sarcopenia, and cachexia, in older adults with cancer. METHODS: Mixed-methods study with cross-sectional study and qualitative interviews. Interviews were thematically analysed through a phenomenological lens, with feedback loop analysis investigating relationships between themes and findings synthesised using modified critical interpretative synthesis. FINDINGS: n = 30 were screened for malnutrition, sarcopenia, and cachexia, n = 8 completed semi-structured interviews. Eighteen (60.0%) were malnourished, 16 (53.3%) sarcopenic, and 17 (56.7%) cachexic. One or more condition was seen in 80%, and all three in 30%. In univariate analysis, Rockwood clinical frailty score (OR 2.94 [95% CI: 1.26-6.89, p = 0.013]) was associated with sarcopenia, reported percentage meal consumption (OR 2.28 [95% CI: 1.24-4.19, p = 0.008]), and visible wasting (OR 8.43 [95% CI: 1.9-37.3] p = 0.005) with malnutrition, and percentage monthly weight loss (OR 8.71 [95% CI: 1.87-40.60] p = 0.006) with cachexia. Screening tools identified established conditions rather than 'risk'. Nutritional and functional problems were often overlooked, overshadowed, and misunderstood by both patients and (in patients' perceptions) by clinicians; misattributed to ageing, cancer, or comorbidities. Patients viewed these conditions as both personal impossibilities, yet accepted inevitabilities. CONCLUSION: Perceptions, identification, and management of these conditions needs to improve, and their importance recognised by clinicians and patients so those truly 'at risk' are identified whilst conditions are more remediable to interventions.

Low-Dose Morphine Does Not Cause Sleepiness in COPD: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial.

RATIONALE: Regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine is frequently prescribed for persistent breathlessness in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, effects on daytime sleepiness, perceived sleep quality and daytime function have not been rigorously investigated. OBJECTIVES: Determine the effects of regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine on sleep parameters in COPD. METHODS: Pre-specified secondary analyses of validated sleep questionnaire data from a randomized trial of daily, low-dose, sustained -release morphine versus placebo over four weeks commencing at 8mg or 16mg/day with blinded up-titration over two weeks to a maximum of 32mg/day. Primary outcomes for these analyses were week-1 Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale (KSS) responses on morphine versus placebo. Secondary outcomes included Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) scores (end of weeks 1 and 4), KSS and ESS beyond week-1 and associations between breathlessness, morphine, and questionnaire scores. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 156 people were randomized. Week-1 sleepiness scores were not different on morphine versus placebo (∆ESS [95%CI] versus placebo: 8mg group: -0.59 [-1.99, 0.81], p=0.41; 16mg group: -0.72 [-2.33, 0.9], p=0.38; ∆KSS versus placebo: 8mg group: 0.11 [-0.7, 0.9], p=0.78; 16mg group: -0.41 [-1.31, 0.49], p=0.37). This neutral effect persisted at later timepoints. In addition, participants who reported reduced breathlessness with morphine at 4 weeks also had improvement in LSEQ domain scores including perceived sleep quality and daytime function. CONCLUSIONS: Regular, low-dose morphine does not worsen sleepiness when used for breathlessness in COPD. Individual improvements in breathlessness with morphine may be related to improvements in sleep.

Creating more comparable cohorts in observational palliative care studies: A proposed framework to improve applicability and replicability of research.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is characterised by heterogeneous patient and caregiver populations who are provided care in different health systems and a research base including a large proportion of observational, mostly retrospective studies. The inherent diversity of palliative care populations and the often inadequate study descriptions challenge the application of new knowledge into practice and reproducibility for confirmatory studies. Being able to define systematically study populations would significantly increase their generalisability and effective translation into practice. PROPOSAL: Based on an informal consensus process by active palliative care researchers challenged by this problem and a review of the current evidence, we propose an approach to creating more comparable cohorts in observational (non-randomised) palliative care studies that relies on defining the study population in relation to a fixed, well-defined event from which analyses are built ('anchoring'). In addition to providing a detailed and complete description of the study population, anchoring is the critical step in creating more comparable cohorts in observational palliative care studies. Anchoring can be done with respect to a single or multiple data points, and can support both prospective and retrospective data collection and analysis. DISCUSSION: Anchoring the cohort to reproducible data points will help create more comparable cohorts in palliative care whilst mitigating its inherent heterogeneity. This, in turn, will help optimise the generalisability, applicability and reproducibility of observational palliative care studies to strengthen the evidence base and improve practice.

Screening for End-of-Life in Acute Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Patients are frequently admitted to hospital in the last year of life. Actively recognising patients at this stage gives the opportunity to plan future care. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of all acute medical and surgical inpatients at one tertiary hospital. Two simple screening tools, the indicators for a palliative approach and the surprise question identified a group of patients at greatly increased risk of dying over the next year. RESULTS: The one-year mortality of the study group was 27%, however was 52% and 65% for those identified at risk by the indicators for a palliative approach and surprise question tools. The surprise question had an area under the receiver operator curve value of .84. CONCLUSION: These screening tools could be used to help clinicians identify hospital inpatients that would benefit from advance care planning and a tailored approach to their care.

Palliative care symptoms and problems in a culturally and linguistically diverse population: large retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Migrant Australians with cancer have higher unmet needs and poorer health-related quality of life. Less is known about their palliative care experience. We aimed to assess comparative symptom distress and problem severity for culturally and linguistically diverse Australians with cancer in palliative care. METHODS: This was a retrospective, consecutive cohort study using data from the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration, which routinely collects standardised symptom assessments nationally at point-of-care. Adults with a cancer diagnosis who died 01/01/2016-31/12/2019 were included. The presence/absence of patient-reported symptom distress and clinician-rated problem severity were compared between people who preferred English and people who preferred another language using logistic regression models. We also compared people who preferred English and the four most common non-English languages in the dataset: Chinese, Greek, Italian and Slavic. RESULTS: A total of 53 964 people with cancer died within the study period, allowing analysis of 104 064 assessments. People preferring non-English languages were less likely to report symptoms (pain: OR=0.89 (0.84 to 0.94); all other symptoms except fatigue OR<1 and CIs did not contain 1). Except for family/carer problems (OR=1.24 (1.12 to 1.31)), linguistically diverse people were less likely to report problems. Variation was seen between non-English language groups. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence of comparatively worse symptom distress or problem severity for nearly all scores for culturally and linguistically diverse Australians. Better symptom management or differential reporting may explain this. It is important to examine this further, including assessing differences within cultural and linguistic groups to ensure the delivery of high-quality palliative care.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in hospice/palliative care: an international pharmacovigilance study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current, real-world use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain and the associated benefits and harms. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, consecutive cohort pharmacovigilance study conducted at 14 sites across Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the UK including hospital, hospice inpatient and outpatient services. Pain scores and harms were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events at baseline, 2 days and 14 days. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued until day 28. RESULTS: Data were collected from 92 patients between March 2018 and October 2021. Most patients had cancer (91%) and were coprescribed opioids (90%). At 14 days, 83% of patients had benefit from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 22% had harm. The most common harms were nausea (8%), vomiting (3%), acute kidney injury (3%) and non-gastrointestinal bleeding (3%); only 2% were severe and no patients ceased their non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs due to toxicity. Overall, 65% had benefit without harm and 3% had harm without benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients benefited from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with only one in five patients experiencing tolerable harm. This suggests that short-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients receiving palliative care is safer than previously thought and may be underused.

Participant Safety in Multisite, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials in Hospice/Palliative Care: Data from the Contracted Studies of the Australian National Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative.

Objective: To describe the harms in all arms of six consecutive multi-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials. Background: Controversies surround conduct of phase III clinical trials in palliative care. Concerns include risks to participants' safety, use of placebo arms, participants' burden, and justification when therapies are already widely used. Methods: This study collates safety data of the first six studies of the Australian national Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative. On an intention-to-treat basis, all harms are described using standard international definitions, their severity, outcomes, and level of attribution. Results: Studies recruited 1,232 participants: 65/1,232 (5.3%) participants had serious adverse events of which none had a definite (blinded) attribution, all of which settled with ceasing the intervention; 49/1,232 (4.0%) participants had adverse events. No participants on placebo arms had adverse or serious adverse events with definite (blinded) attribution. Discussion: These studies are safe for participants and generate knowledge to support informed patient decision making.

The impact of regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine for chronic breathlessness on caregiver burden: An exploratory analysis of the BEAMS trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic breathlessness adversely impacts people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and their caregivers (family and friends), who may, in turn, experience significant burden due to their caregiving role. Sustained-release morphine may reduce chronic breathlessness in some patients, which may have an impact on caregivers' perceived burden. AIM: To explore the impact on caregiver burden of active treatment of people with chronic breathlessness (modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) ⩾ 3) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with regular, low-dose, sustained-release morphine within a multi-site, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. DESIGN: Exploratory analysis of self-reported caregiver burden at baseline and end of week 3 in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Caregiver measures included: demographics and perceived burden (Zarit Burden Interview 12-item short-form questionnaire). Patient measures included: worst breathlessness and FitBitR-measures. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: All consenting caregivers of trial patient participants in a multi-site study recruiting from palliative care and respiratory services. RESULTS: Caregivers (n = 49; 59% women; median age 68 years [IQR 50-75]) reported median baseline caregiver burden 12 [IQR 5-17], with 53% reporting high burden (⩾13). Eighty-four percent of caregivers reported no change in burden. In people whose worst breathlessness improved, caregiver burden moved in the same direction, though the correlation was not significant (rs = 0.25, p = 0.17). Conversely, caregiver burden worsened as patients' minutes lightly active increased, with the correlation being significant (rs = 0.56, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers reported high levels of caregiver burden, but patients' response to treatment in terms of their symptom and function may influence change in caregiver burden over a three-week period.

Subcutaneous ketamine infusion in palliative patients for major depressive disorder (SKIPMDD)-Phase II single-arm open-label feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine at subanaesthetic dosages (≤0.5mg/kg) exhibits rapid onset (over hours to days) antidepressant effects against major depressive disorder in people who are otherwise well. However, its safety, tolerability and efficacy are not known for major depressive disorder in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability, acceptability and any antidepressant signal/activity to justify and inform a fully powered study of subcutaneous ketamine infusions for major depressive disorder in the palliative setting. METHODS: This was a single arm, open-label, phase II feasibility study (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number-ACTRN12618001586202). We recruited adults (≥ 18-years-old) with advanced life-limiting illnesses referred to four palliative care services in Sydney, Australia, diagnosed with major depressive disorder from any care setting. Participants received weekly subcutaneous ketamine infusion (0.1-0.4mg/kg) over two hours using individual dose-titration design. Outcomes assessed were feasibility, safety, tolerability and antidepressant activity. RESULTS: Out of ninety-nine referrals, ten participants received ketamine and were analysed for responses. Accrual rate was 0.54 participants/month across sites with 50% of treated participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, meeting feasibility criteria set a priori. There were no clinically relevant harms encountered. CONCLUSIONS: A future definitive trial exploring the effectiveness of subcutaneous infusion of ketamine for major depressive disorder in the palliative care setting may be feasible by addressing identified study barriers. Individual dose-titration of subcutaneous ketamine infusions over two hours from 0.1mg/kg can be well-tolerated and appears to produce transient antidepressant signals over hours to days.

BREATHLEssness in INDIA (BREATHE-INDIA)-Study protocol for the co-design of a community breathlessness intervention in India using realist methods and intervention mapping.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness that persists despite treatment of causal disease(s) is disabling, associated with high therapy-related costs and poor socioeconomic outcomes. Low resource countries bear a disproportionate burden of respiratory problems, often characterised by disabling breathlessness. Low-cost self-management breathlessness-targeted interventions are effective and deliverable in community settings but have been developed in high-income countries. We aim to understand how breathlessness self-management works in 'real life' populations and cultural contexts, to develop programme theory and co-design a prototype intervention to improve persistent breathlessness management in India. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a Realist approach, Intervention Mapping and the Medical Research Council Complex Intervention Framework we will undertake two phases of work supported by our Expert Group (of respiratory, primary, palliative care physicians) and key stakeholder groups (opinion leader clinicians, community health workers and people with lived experiences of breathlessness). 1) Realist review and evaluation to identify and refine evidence and theory for breathlessness self-management, producing intervention and implementation programme theory. We will identify literature through our Expert Group, scoping searches and systematic searches (Medline, Ebscohost, CINAHL, Scopus, Psychinfo). We will map intervention components to 'what works, for whom, and where.' 2) Intervention development using Intervention Mapping to map intervention and implementation programme theory to intervention components, develop materials to support intervention delivery, and co-design a prototype educational intervention ready for early acceptability and delivery-feasibility testing and evaluation planning in India. Use of stakeholder groups is to allow people with experience of breathlessness and/or its management to contribute their views on content developed by our team based upon review of secondary data sources. Experts and Stakeholders are therefore not research subjects but are included as extended members of the study team and will not follow informed consent procedures. Experts and stakeholders will be acknowledge in outputs arising from our project if they wish to be. Our review conduct will be consistent with RAMESES quality standards. DISCUSSION: At the conclusion of our study, we will have co-designed a breathlessness intervention for use in the community setting in India ready for further evaluation of: effectiveness, socioeconomic outcomes, acceptability and transferability to other low resource settings.

Views and experiences of opioid access amongst palliative care providers and public representatives in a low-resource setting: A qualitative interview study.

Opioids (e.g. morphine) are affordable, effective interventions for cancer-related pain. However, equity of access to this key medication remains a global challenge, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. We aimed to explore views of palliative care providers and public-representatives about opioid analgesia access in two States in India. We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Transcribed audio-recordings were subjected to thematic analysis using a Framework Approach. Palliative care providers and public-representatives were purposively sampled from services reporting consistent opioid availability and prescribing (≥4kg per annum) from Karnataka and Kerala. Twenty participants (doctors (10), nurses (4), pharmacists (2), service managers (2) and public-representatives (2) were interviewed. Three themes were identified: 1) Attitudes and awareness: opioid treatments are perceived as end-of-life (last days/weeks) interventions; fears of addiction and misunderstanding of pain management goals limit access. 2) Expected and unexpected inequities: patients/carers from lower socioeconomic strata accept doctor recommendations if opioids are affordable, more educated patients/families have reservations about opioids, delay access and perceive expensive medicines as better. Non-palliative care specialist doctors have negative entrenched views and require specialist training. 3) Experiential learning-positive experiences can positively alter attitudes (e.g., participants in Kerala report improved attitudes, awareness and understanding influenced by exposure and community awareness, but experience can also reinforce perceptions as end-of-life care. Entrenched negative views are reinforced by poor experiences while positive experiences improve attitudes. To promote access, opioid prescribing must be needs-based rather than prognosis-based. Addressing the lack of training for non-palliative care workforce would help overcome a major barrier.

Breathlessness limiting exertion in very old adults: findings from the Newcastle 85+ study.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term breathlessness is more common with age. However, in the oldest old (>85 years), little is known about the prevalence, or impact of breathlessness. We estimated breathlessness limiting exertion prevalence and explored (i) associated characteristics; and (ii) whether breathlessness limiting exertion explains clinical and social/functional outcomes. METHODS: Health and socio-demographic characteristics were extracted from the Newcastle 85+ Study cohort. Phase 1 (baseline) and follow-up data (18 months, Phase 2; 36 months, Phase 3; 60 months, Phase 4 after baseline) were examined using descriptive statistics and cross-sectional regression models. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventeen participants provided baseline breathlessness data (38.2% men; mean 84.5 years; SD 0.4). The proportions with any limitation of exertion, or severe limitation by breathlessness were 23% (95% confidence intervals (CIs) 20-25%) and 9% (95%CIs 7-11%) at baseline; 20% (16-25%) and 5% (3-8%) at Phase 4. Having more co-morbidities (odds ratio (OR) 1.34, 1.18-1.54; P < 0.001), or self-reported respiratory (OR 1.88, 1.25-2.82; P = 0.003) or cardiovascular disease (OR 2.38, 1.58-3.58; P < 0.001) were associated with breathlessness limiting exertion. Breathlessness severely limiting exertion was associated with poorer self-rated health (OR 0.50, 029-0.86; P = 0.012), depression (beta-coefficient 0.11, P = 0.001), increased primary care contacts (beta-co-efficient 0.13, P = 0.001) and number of nights in hospital (OR 1.81; 1.02-3.20; P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Breathlessness limiting exertion appears to become less prevalent over time due to death or withdrawal of participants with cardio-respiratory illness. Breathlessness severely limiting exertion had a wide range of service utilisation and wellbeing impacts.

Five-Year Trajectories of Prescription Opioid Use.

Importance: There are known risks of using opioids for extended periods. However, less is known about the long-term trajectories of opioid use following initiation. Objective: To identify 5-year trajectories of prescription opioid use, and to examine the characteristics of each trajectory group. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study conducted in New South Wales, Australia, linked national pharmaceutical claims data to 10 national and state data sets to determine sociodemographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, drug use, and health services use. The cohort included adult residents (aged ≥18 years) of New South Wales who initiated a prescription opioid between July 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Statistical analyses were conducted from February to September 2022. Exposure: Dispensing of a prescription opioid, with no evidence of opioid dispensing in the preceding 365 days, identified from pharmaceutical claims data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the trajectories of monthly opioid use over 60 months from opioid initiation. Group-based trajectory modeling was used to classify these trajectories. Linked health care data sets were used to examine characteristics of individuals in different trajectory groups. Results: Among 3 474 490 individuals who initiated a prescription opioid (1 831 230 females [52.7%]; mean [SD] age, 49.7 [19.3] years), 5 trajectories of long-term opioid use were identified: very low use (75.4%), low use (16.6%), moderate decreasing to low use (2.6%), low increasing to moderate use (2.6%), and sustained use (2.8%). Compared with individuals in the very low use trajectory group, those in the sustained use trajectory group were older (age ≥65 years: 22.0% vs 58.4%); had more comorbidities, including cancer (4.1% vs 22.2%); had increased health services contact, including hospital admissions (36.9% vs 51.6%); had higher use of psychotropic (16.4% vs 42.4%) and other analgesic drugs (22.9% vs 47.3%) prior to opioid initiation, and were initiated on stronger opioids (20.0% vs 50.2%). Conclusions and relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that most individuals commencing treatment with prescription opioids had relatively low and time-limited exposure to opioids over a 5-year period. The small proportion of individuals with sustained or increasing use was older with more comorbidities and use of psychotropic and other analgesic drugs, likely reflecting a higher prevalence of pain and treatment needs in these individuals.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment. AIMS: To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials). METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set. RESULTS: 130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.