Between loss and restoration: The role of liminality in advancing theories of grief and bereavement.

A recent national survey of bereaved partners found high levels of complicated grief and psychological distress, with evidence that loneliness and isolation may contribute to these outcomes. However, the mechanisms of action for this have not been explored. To advance grief theory this paper reports analysis of the survey free-text data to examine the relationship between social support and emotional responses to bereavement. Individuals bereaved of a civil partner or spouse 6-10 months previously were identified through death registration data. 569/1945 (29 %) completed surveys were received. Of those, 311 participants (55 %) provided responses to two free-text questions which asked about their 'feelings since the death of their partner or spouse', and 'about the support around' them. Data were analysed using corpus-assisted discourse analysis and the discourse dynamics approach for figurative language. Participants described diverse emotional responses to the bereavement (e.g. sadness, anger, denial, acceptance), and the value of formal and informal bereavement support. Although many of the experiences described are accounted for in existing grief theory, some participants described a liminal experience not recognised within these theories. They felt trapped, unable to engage with loss or restoration, and unable to move forward as their planned future no longer existed. They sought out 'communitas' (solidarity in experiences), but often found support from their social networks had diminished. Metaphors were used to describe this liminality, with partner grief expressed as a dark agentic force, a monster, an abyss, and as water. The findings of this study offer original insights into experiences and trajectories of bereavement, and our understandings of prolonged or complicated grief. A novel model 'Between Loss and Restoration' is presented to include these experiences. Recognition of the place for liminality within the spectrum of grief experiences could enhance grief literacy and improve formal and informal bereavement support provision.

Implementation of frailty screening for older people living with HIV in Brighton, UK.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation of frailty screening in people living with HIV (PLWH) in a large urban cohort of patients in Brighton, UK. METHODS: Focus group discussions with HIV professionals and PLWH interviews helped inform the design and implementation of the frailty screening pathway in the clinic. Data were collected from PLWH aged over 60 years attending their HIV annual health check from July 2021 to January 2023 (n = 590), who were screened for frailty by nurses using the FRAIL scale. We assessed the proportions of PLWH who screened as frail, prefrail or robust and compared patient characteristics across groups. All PLWH identified as frail were offered a comprehensive geriatric assessment delivered by a combined HIV geriatric clinic, and uptake was recorded. RESULTS: A total of 456/590 (77.3%) PLWH aged over 60 years were screened for frailty. Median age and time since HIV diagnosis (range) for those screened were 66 (60-99) years and 21 (0-32) years, respectively. In total, 56 (12.1%) of those screened were identified as frail, 118 (25.9%) as prefrail and 282 (61.8%) as robust. A total of 10/56 (18%) people identified as frail declined an appointment in the geriatric clinic. Compared with non-frail individuals, frail PLWH had been living with HIV for longer and had a greater number of comorbidities and comedications but were not chronologically older. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing frailty screening in PLWH over 60 years old is feasible in a large cohort of PLWH, as recommended by the European AIDS Clinical Society. More research is needed to determine if frailty screening can improve clinical outcomes of older PLWH and the use of the comprehensive geriatric assessment within HIV services.

People with HIV and healthcare workers views on screening for cognitive impairment in people with HIV: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: People with HIV are an ageing population with an increased risk of cognitive impairment. Although cognitive impairment is dependent upon assessment, the acceptability of screening for cognitive impairment is unclear. This study aimed to explore the views of people with HIV and healthcare workers regarding routine screening for cognitive impairment. METHODS: In-depth individual qualitative interviews were conducted with purposively sampled people with HIV and focus groups of healthcare workers from a UK HIV service. Verbatim pseudonymized transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis supported by NVivo. RESULTS: Twenty people with HIV were interviewed and 12 healthcare workers participated in three focus groups. People with HIV were concerned about developing cognitive issues and were receptive to routine screening. Screening was seen as relevant and an important part of managing health in older age. Healthcare workers expressed concerns regarding the capacity of HIV services to implement routine screening and questioned the validity of screening measures used. People with HIV felt that screening and subsequent detection of cognitive impairment, if present, may help them to prepare for future issues and promote active management strategies and care pathways that would support cognitive health. People with HIV felt that screening should be brief and delivered by the HIV service and that they should be given a choice of administration method. Indications of cognitive impairment detected by a brief screening assessment should be discussed face to face and followed up with a comprehensive assessment. CONCLUSIONS: People with HIV are concerned about cognitive impairment and would welcome regular screening for this as part of the holistic care provided by the HIV team. Both people with HIV and healthcare workers would like more information on cognitive impairment, its screening and ways to support cognitive health.

Silver Clinic: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment for people living with HIV and frailty.

INTRODUCTION: Many people ageing with HIV are also living with multiple comorbidities and geriatric syndromes including frailty and cognitive deterioration. These complex needs can be challenging to meet within existing HIV care services. This study investigates the acceptability and feasibility of screening for frailty and of using a comprehensive geriatric assessment approach, delivered via the Silver Clinic, to support people living with HIV affected by frailty. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mixed-methods, parallel-group, randomised, controlled feasibility trial aiming to recruit 84 people living with HIV≥50, identified as frail. Participants will be recruited from the HIV unit at the Royal Sussex County Hospital, University Hospitals Sussex NHS Foundation Trust, Brighton, UK. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual HIV care or the Silver Clinic intervention, which uses a comprehensive geriatric assessment approach. Psychosocial, physical and service use outcomes will be measured at baseline, 26 weeks and 52 weeks. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with a subset of participants from both arms. Primary outcome measures include recruitment and retention rates and completion of clinical outcome measures. These will be used in conjunction with a priori progression criteria and the qualitative data (acceptability of trial procedures and intervention) to determine the feasibility and design of a definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by East Midlands-Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/EM/0200). All participants will receive written information about the study and be required to provide informed consent. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals, conferences and community engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14646435.

LGBT+ partner bereavement and appraisal of the Acceptance-Disclosure Model of LGBT+ bereavement: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Support from social networks is vital after the death of a partner. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people can face disenfranchisement and isolation in bereavement. The Acceptance-Disclosure Model (of LGBT+ bereavement) posits that experiences are shaped by the extent to which individuals feel able to disclose their bereavement to others, and whether that loss is acknowledged appropriately. AIM: To explore LGBT+ specific experiences of partner bereavement; determine decision-making processes regarding disclosure of relationships/identities; and appraise the Acceptance-Disclosure Model using primary qualitative data. DESIGN: Exploratory in-depth qualitative interview study positioned within a social constructivist paradigm. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 21 LGBT+ people from across England bereaved of their civil partner/spouse. RESULTS: Participants described LGBT+ specific stressors in bereavement: lack of recognition of their loss; inappropriate questioning; unwanted disclosure of gender history; and fears of discrimination when accessing support. Disclosure of LGBT+ identities varied across social networks. Some participants described hiding their identities and bereavement to preserve relationships, and challenging intersections between LGBT+ identities and other aspects of culture or self. These findings provide primary evidence to support the Acceptance-Disclosure Model. CONCLUSIONS: LGBT+ people face additional stressors in bereavement. Not all LGBT+ people want to talk directly about their relationships/identities. Sensitive exploration of support needs, aligned with preferences around disclosure of identities, can help foster trust. Five recommendations for inclusive practice are presented. Further research should consider whether the Acceptance-Disclosure Model has utility to explain bereavement experiences for other isolated or disenfranchised groups.

Frailty and frailty screening: A qualitative study to elicit perspectives of people living with HIV and their healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVES: People living with HIV are an ageing population with an increasing prevalence of frailty. Management of frailty requires assessment, communication and information sharing with patients. However, evidence regarding the meaning of frailty for this population, and the acceptability of frailty screening, is limited. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of older people living with HIV and HIV professionals towards frailty and routine screening for frailty. METHODS: Data collection consisted of in-depth individual qualitative interviews with older people living with HIV and focus groups with HIV professionals purposively sampled from outpatient HIV clinics in London and Brighton, UK. Verbatim pseudonymised transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis supported by NVivo. RESULTS: A total of 45 people living with HIV were interviewed, and 12 HIV professionals participated in two focus groups. Frailty was described as a series of losses around mobility, social inclusion, independence and mental acuity, which could happen at any age. Regarding language, for people living with HIV, explicitly using the word frail was acceptable during screening when approached sensitively and alongside provision of information and support to slow the progression of frailty. However, HIV professionals described concerns about using the word frail for fear of causing distress or offence. CONCLUSION: Professionals described frailty in terms of functional deficits, whereas people living with HIV described a loss of personhood. Although there is a clear desire among people living with HIV to be informed of their frailty status, approaching conversations about frailty with understanding and compassion is vital. To gain the most from the screening, it is essential that frailty status is shared alongside a clear plan of actionable steps in their care.

Optimising breathlessness triggered services for older people with advanced diseases: a multicentre economic study (OPTBreathe).

BACKGROUND: In advanced disease, breathlessness becomes severe, increasing health services use. Breathlessness triggered services demonstrate effectiveness in trials and meta-analyses but lack health economic assessment. METHODS: Our economic study included a discrete choice experiment (DCE), followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis modelling. The DCE comprised face-to-face interviews with older patients with chronic breathlessness and their carers across nine UK centres. Conditional logistic regression analysis of DCE data determined the preferences (or not, indicated by negative ß coefficients) for service attributes. Economic modelling estimated the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 5 years. FINDINGS: The DCE recruited 190 patients and 68 carers. Offering breathlessness services in person from general practitioner (GP) surgeries was not preferred (ß=-0.30, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.21); hospital outpatient clinics (0.16, 0.06 to 0.25) or via home visits (0.15, 0.06 to 0.24) were preferred. Inperson services with comprehensive treatment review (0.15, 0.07 to 0.21) and holistic support (0.19, 0.07 to 0.31) were preferred to those without. Cost-effectiveness analysis found the most and the least preferred models of breathlessness services were cost-effective compared with usual care. The most preferred service had £5719 lower costs (95% CI -6043 to 5395), with 0.004 (95% CI -0.003 to 0.011) QALY benefits per patient. Uptake was higher when attributes were tailored to individual preferences (86% vs 40%). CONCLUSION: Breathlessness services are cost-effective compared with usual care for health and social care, giving cost savings and better quality of life. Uptake of breathlessness services is higher when service attributes are individually tailored.

Primary care contacts, continuity, identification of palliative care needs, and hospital use: a population-based cohort study in people dying with dementia.

BACKGROUND: Reducing hospital admissions among people dying with dementia is a policy priority. AIM: To explore associations between primary care contacts, continuity of primary care, identification of palliative care needs, and unplanned hospital admissions among people dying with dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with hospital records and Office for National Statistics data. Adults (>18 years) who died between 2009 and 2018 with a diagnosis of dementia were included in the study. METHOD: The association between GP contacts, Herfindahl-Hirschman Index continuity of care score, palliative care needs identification before the last 90 days of life, and multiple unplanned hospital admissions in the last 90 days was evaluated using random-effects Poisson regression. RESULTS: In total, 33 714 decedents with dementia were identified: 64.1% (n = 21 623) female, mean age 86.6 years (SD 8.1), mean comorbidities 2.2 (SD 1.6). Of these, 1894 (5.6%) had multiple hospital admissions in the last 90 days of life (increase from 4.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.2 to 5.6 in 2009 to 7.1%, 95% CI = 5.7 to 8.4 in 2018). Participants with more GP contacts had higher risk of multiple hospital admissions (incidence risk ratio [IRR] 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.11). Higher continuity of care scores (IRR 0.79, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.92) and identification of palliative care needs (IRR 0.66, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.78) were associated with lower frequency of these admissions. CONCLUSION: Multiple hospital admissions among people dying with dementia are increasing. Higher continuity of care and identification of palliative care needs are associated with a lower risk of multiple hospital admissions in this population, and might help prevent these admissions at the end of life.

Formal and Informal Costs of Care for People With Dementia Who Experience a Transition to Hospital at the End of Life: A Secondary Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore formal and informal care costs in the last 3 months of life for people with dementia, and to evaluate the association between transitions to hospital and usual place of care with costs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using pooled data from 3 mortality follow-back surveys. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: People who died with dementia. METHODS: The Client Service Receipt Inventory survey was used to derive formal (health, social) and informal care costs in the last 3 months of life. Generalized linear models were used to explore the association between transitions to hospital and usual place of care with formal and informal care costs. RESULTS: A total of 146 people who died with dementia were included. The mean age was 88.1 years (SD 6.0), and 98 (67.1%) were female. The usual place of care was care home for 85 (58.2%). Sixty-five individuals (44.5%) died in a care home, and 85 (58.2%) experienced a transition to hospital in the last 3 months. The mean total costs of care in the last 3 months of life were £31,224.7 (SD 23,536.6). People with a transition to hospital had higher total costs (£33,239.2, 95% CI 28,301.8-39,037.8) than people without transition (£21,522.0, 95% CI 17,784.0-26,045.8), mainly explained by hospital costs. People whose usual place of care was care homes had lower total costs (£23,801.3, 95% CI 20,172.0-28,083.6) compared to home (£34,331.4, 95% CI 27,824.7-42,359.5), mainly explained by lower informal care costs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Total care costs are high among people dying with dementia, and informal care costs represent an important component of end-of-life care costs. Transitions to hospital have a large impact on total costs; preventing these transitions might reduce costs from the health care perspective, but not from patients' and families' perspectives. Access to care homes could help reduce transitions to hospital as well as reduce formal and informal care costs.

Common elements of service delivery models that optimise quality of life and health service use among older people with advanced progressive conditions: a tertiary systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Health and social care services worldwide need to support ageing populations to live well with advanced progressive conditions while adapting to functional decline and finitude. We aimed to identify and map common elements of effective geriatric and palliative care services and consider their scalability and generalisability to high, middle and low-income countries. METHODS: Tertiary systematic review (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Embase, January 2000-October 2019) of studies in geriatric or palliative care that demonstrated improved quality of life and/or health service use outcomes among older people with advanced progressive conditions. Using frameworks for health system analysis, service elements were identified. We used a staged, iterative process to develop a 'common components' logic model and consulted experts in geriatric or palliative care from high, middle and low-income countries on its scalability. RESULTS: 78 studies (59 geriatric and 19 palliative) spanning all WHO regions were included. Data were available from 17 739 participants. Nearly half the studies recruited patients with heart failure (n=36) and one-third recruited patients with mixed diagnoses (n=26). Common service elements (≥80% of studies) included collaborative working, ongoing assessment, active patient participation, patient/family education and patient self-management. Effective services incorporated patient engagement, patient goal-driven care and the centrality of patient needs. Stakeholders (n=20) emphasised that wider implementation of such services would require access to skilled, multidisciplinary teams with sufficient resource to meet patients' needs. Identified barriers to scalability included the political and societal will to invest in and prioritise palliative and geriatric care for older people, alongside geographical and socioeconomic factors. CONCLUSION: Our logic model combines elements of effective services to achieve optimal quality of life and health service use among older people with advanced progressive conditions. The model transcends current best practice in geriatric and palliative care and applies across the care continuum, from prevention of functional decline to end-of-life care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020150252.

Preferences and priorities to manage clinical uncertainty for older people with frailty and multimorbidity: a discrete choice experiment and stakeholder consultations.

BACKGROUND: Clinical uncertainty is inherent for people with frailty and multimorbidity. Depleted physiological reserves increase vulnerability to a decline in health and adverse outcomes from a stressor event. Evidence-based tools can improve care processes and outcomes, but little is known about priorities to deliver care for older people with frailty and multimorbidity. This study aimed to explore the preferences and priorities for patients, family carers and healthcare practitioners to enhance care processes of comprehensive assessment, communication and continuity of care in managing clinical uncertainty using evidence-based tools. METHODS: A parallel mixed method observational study in four inpatient intermediate care units (community hospitals) for patients in transition between hospital and home. We used a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to examine patient and family preferences and priorities on the attributes of enhanced services; and stakeholder consultations with practitioners to discuss and generate recommendations on using tools to augment care processes. Data analysis used logit modelling in the DCE, and framework analysis for consultation data. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients participated in the DCE (mean age 84 years, SD 7.76). Patients preferred a service where family were contacted on admission and discharge (ß 0.36, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.61), care received closer to home (ß - 0.04, 95% CI - 0.06 to - 0.02) and the GP is fully informed about care (ß 0.29, 95% CI 0.05-0.52). Four stakeholder consultations (n = 48 participants) generated 20 recommendations centred around three main themes: tailoring care processes to manage multiple care needs for an ageing population with frailty and multimorbidity; the importance of ongoing communication with patient and family; and clear and concise evidence-based tools to enhance communication between clinical teams and continuity of care on discharge. CONCLUSION: Family engagement is vital to manage clinical uncertainty. Both patients and practitioners prioritise engaging the family to support person-centred care and continuity of care within and across care settings. Patients wished to maximise family involvement by enabling their support with a preference for care close to home. Evidence-based tools used across disciplines and services can provide a shared succinct language to facilitate communication and continuity of care at points of transition in care settings.

Exploring costs, cost components, and associated factors among people with dementia approaching the end of life: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding costs of care for people dying with dementia is essential to guide service development, but information has not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to understand (1) which cost components have been measured in studies reporting the costs of care in people with dementia approaching the end of life, (2) what the costs are and how they change closer to death, and (3) which factors are associated with these costs. METHODS: We searched the electronic databases CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, EconLit, and Embase and reference lists of included studies. We included any type of study published between 1999 and 2019, in any language, reporting primary data on costs of health care in individuals with dementia approaching the end of life. Two independent reviewers screened all full-text articles. We used the Evers' Consensus on Health Economic Criteria checklist to appraise the risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS: We identified 2843 articles after removing duplicates; 19 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 16 were from the United States. Only two studies measured informal costs including out-of-pocket expenses and informal caregiving. The monthly total direct cost of care rose toward death, from $1787 to $2999 USD in the last 12 months, to $4570 to $11921 USD in the last month of life. Female sex, Black ethnicity, higher educational background, more comorbidities, and greater cognitive impairment were associated with higher costs. DISCUSSION: Costs of dementia care rise closer to death. Informal costs of care are high but infrequently included in analyses. Research exploring the costs of care for people with dementia by proximity to death, including informal care costs and from outside the United States, is urgently needed.

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

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

Identification of palliative care needs among people with dementia and its association with acute hospital care and community service use at the end-of-life: A retrospective cohort study using linked primary, community and secondary care data.

BACKGROUND: Hospital admissions among people dying with dementia are common. It is not known whether identification of palliative care needs could help prevent unnecessary admissions. AIM: To examine the proportion of people with dementia identified as having palliative care needs in their last year of life, and the association between identification of needs and primary, community and hospital services in the last 90 days. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Discover, an administrative and clinical dataset from 365 primary care practices in London with deterministic individual-level data linkage to community and hospital records. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: People diagnosed with dementia and registered with a general practitioner in North West London (UK) who died between 2016 and 2019. The primary outcome was multiple non-elective hospital admissions in the last 90 days of life. Secondary outcomes included contacts with primary and community care providers. We examined the association between identification of palliative care needs with outcomes. RESULTS: Among 5804 decedents with dementia, 1953 (33.6%) were identified as having palliative care needs, including 1141 (19.7%) identified before the last 90 days of life. Identification of palliative care needs before the last 90 days was associated with a lower risk of multiple hospital admissions (Relative Risk 0.70, 95% CI 0.58-0.85) and more contacts with the primary care practice, community nurses and palliative care teams in the last 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: Further investigation of the mechanisms underlying the association between identification of palliative care needs and reduced hospital admissions could help reduce reliance on acute care for this population.

Integrating Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for people with COPD and frailty starting pulmonary rehabilitation: the Breathe Plus feasibility trial protocol.

One in five people with COPD also lives with frailty. People living with both COPD and frailty are at increased risk of poorer health and outcomes, and face challenges to completing pulmonary rehabilitation. Integrated approaches that are adapted to the additional context of frailty are required. The aim of the present study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of an integrated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for people with COPD and frailty starting pulmonary rehabilitation. This is a multicentre, mixed-methods, assessor-blinded, randomised, parallel group, controlled feasibility trial ("Breathe Plus"; ISRCTN13051922). We aim to recruit 60 people aged ≥50 with both COPD and frailty referred for pulmonary rehabilitation. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation with an additional Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Outcomes (physical, psycho-social and service use) will be measured at baseline, 90 days and 180 days. We will also collect service and trial process data, and conduct qualitative interviews with a sub-group of participants and staff. We will undertake descriptive analysis of quantitative feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, missing data, blinding, contamination, fidelity), and framework analysis of qualitative feasibility outcomes (intervention acceptability and theory, outcome acceptability). Recommendations on progression to a full trial will comprise integration of quantitative and qualitative data, with input from relevant stakeholders. This study has been approved by a UK Research Ethics Committee (ref.: 19/LO/1402). This protocol describes the first study testing the feasibility of integrating a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment alongside pulmonary rehabilitation, and testing this intervention within a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

Associations between informal care costs, care quality, carer rewards, burden and subsequent grief: the international, access, rights and empowerment mortality follow-back study of the last 3 months of life (IARE I study).

BACKGROUND: At the end of life, formal care costs are high. Informal care (IC) costs, and their effects on outcomes, are not known. This study aimed to determine the IC costs for older adults in the last 3 months of life, and their relationships with outcomes, adjusting for care quality. METHODS: Mortality follow-back postal survey. SETTING: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the USA (New York, San Francisco). PARTICIPANTS: Informal carers (ICrs) of decedents who had received palliative care. DATA: ICrs reported hours and activities, care quality, positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and completed the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG). ANALYSIS: All costs (formal, informal) were calculated by multiplying reported hours of activities by country-specific costs for that activity. IC costs used country-specific shadow prices, e.g. average hourly wages and unit costs for nursing care. Multivariable logistic regression analysis explored the association of potential explanatory variables, including IC costs and care quality, on three outcomes: positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and subsequent grief. RESULTS: We received 767 completed surveys, 245 from London, 282 Dublin, 131 New York and 109 San Francisco. Most respondents were women (70%); average age was 60 years. On average, patients received 66-76 h per week from ICrs for 'being on call', 52-55 h for ICrs being with them, 19-21 h for personal care, 17-21 h for household tasks, 15-18 h for medical procedures and 7-10 h for appointments. Mean (SD) IC costs were as follows: USA $32,468 (28,578), England $36,170 (31,104) and Ireland $43,760 (36,930). IC costs accounted for 58% of total (formal plus informal) costs. Higher IC costs were associated with less grief and more positive perspectives of caregiving. Poor home care was associated with greater caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Costs to informal carers are larger than those to formal care services for people in the last three months of life. If well supported ICrs can play a role in providing care, and this can be done without detriment to them, providing that they are helped. Improving community palliative care and informal carer support should be a focus for future investment.

Implementation of a complex intervention to improve care for patients whose situations are clinically uncertain in hospital settings: A multi-method study using normalisation process theory.

PURPOSE: To examine the use of Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to establish if, and in what ways, the AMBER care bundle can be successfully normalised into acute hospital practice, and to identify necessary modifications to optimise its implementation. METHOD: Multi-method process evaluation embedded within a mixed-method feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial in two district general hospitals in England. Data were collected using (i) focus groups with health professionals (HPs), (ii) semi-structured interviews with patients and/or carers, (iii) non-participant observations of multi-disciplinary team meetings and (iv) patient clinical note review. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, with interpretation guided by NPT components (coherence; cognitive participation; collective action; reflexive monitoring). Data triangulated across sources. RESULTS: Two focus groups (26 HPs), nine non-participant observations, 12 interviews (two patients, 10 relatives), 29 clinical note reviews were conducted. While coherence was evident, with HPs recognising the value of the AMBER care bundle, cognitive participation and collective action presented challenges. Specifically: (1) HPs were unable and unwilling to operationalise the concept of 'risk of dying' intervention eligibility criteria (2) integration relied on a 'champion' to drive participation and ensure sustainability; and (3) differing skills and confidence led to variable engagement with difficult conversations with patients and families about, for example, nearness to end of life. Opportunities for reflexive monitoring were not routinely embedded within the intervention. Reflections on the use of the AMBER care bundle from HPs and patients and families, including recommended modifications became evident through this NPT-driven analysis. CONCLUSION: To be successfully normalised, new clinical practices, such as the AMBER care bundle, must be studied within the wider context in which they operate. NPT can be used to the aid identification of practical strategies to assist in normalisation of complex interventions where the focus of care is on clinical uncertainty in acute hospital settings.

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.

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

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