Community-based anticipatory prescribing during COVID-19: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand healthcare professionals' experiences of delivering anticipatory prescribing (AP) during the first wave of the UK COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 16 healthcare professionals involved in community palliative care. Data were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Some of practitioners' fears about the pandemic's impact on delivering AP had not been realised during the first wave. Among patients with COVID-19 for whom community end-of-life care was deemed appropriate, deaths were perceived to be relatively easy to palliate with standard medications. These deaths were typically too rapid for AP to be appropriate or feasible. For non-COVID deaths, providing timely AP was more challenging: although community nurses and some palliative specialists continued to visit patients regularly, general practitioners did many fewer visits, moving abruptly to mainly remote consultations. This left some community nurses feeling undersupported, and prompted some palliative specialists to increase their direct involvement in AP. Several other changes were widely welcomed: collaboration to maintain drug supplies, adoption of online meetings and paperless practice, enhanced specialist helplines and a new policy allowing reuse of medication in care homes. The inclusion of more non-injectable options in AP protocols allowed clinicians to offer selected patients more choice, but few had yet done this in practice. No participants reported changing their prepandemic practice regarding administration of AP by lay caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Accomplishing AP during a pandemic was challenging, requiring healthcare professionals to make rapid changes to their systems and practices. Some changes may produce lasting improvements.

The difference an end-of-life diagnosis makes: qualitative interviews with providers of community health care for frail older people.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of people die of the frailty and multimorbidity associated with old age, often without receiving an end-of-life diagnosis. Compared to those with a single life-limiting condition such as cancer, frail older people are less likely to access adequate community care. To address this inequality, guidance for professional providers of community health care encourages them to make end-of-life diagnoses more often in such people. These diagnoses centre on prognosis, making them difficult to establish given the inherent unpredictability of age-related decline. This difficulty makes it important to ask how care provision is affected by not having an end-of-life diagnosis. AIM: To explore the role of an end-of-life diagnosis in shaping the provision of health care outside acute hospitals. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interviews with 19 healthcare providers from community-based settings, including nursing homes and out-of-hours services. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews (nine individual, three small group) were conducted. Data were analysed thematically and using constant comparison. RESULTS: In the participants' accounts, it was unusual and problematic to consider frail older people as candidates for end-of-life diagnosis. Participants talked of this diagnosis as being useful to them as care providers, helping them prioritise caring for people diagnosed as 'end-of-life' and enabling them to offer additional services. This prioritisation and additional help was identified as excluding people who die without an end-of-life diagnosis. CONCLUSION: End-of-life diagnosis is a first-class ticket to community care; people who die without such a diagnosis are potentially disadvantaged as regards care provision. Recognising this inequity should help policymakers and practitioners to mitigate it.