Experiences of pain and pain management in advanced disease and serious illness for people from South Asian communities in Leeds and Bradford: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a significant problem for many people with advanced disease or a serious illness. Culture and ethnicity can affect the experience and management of pain. However, there is limited research in South Asian communities in the UK on their experiences of pain. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences and attitudes of patients and family carers from South Asian communities about pain and its management within advanced disease or serious illness. METHODS: Qualitative thematic analysis based on descriptive phenomenology (Sundler et al. 2019). Qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients or family carers from South Asian communities (N = 15). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using an inductive approach. Public and Patient Involvement representatives from British South Asian communities were consulted for guidance. RESULTS: There were five key themes from the interviews: The importance of communication about pain with healthcare professionals; Concerns about taking pain medication; Personal resilience, privacy and self-management; Gender, culture and pain; Home pain management as struggle and frustration. CONCLUSION: To improve pain management for people from South Asian communities with advanced disease or a serious illness, there are a number of important issues for healthcare professionals from palliative and primary care services to address. These include: greater awareness around people's fears and concerns about pain medication; their potential use of alternative pain management strategies; and cultural issues such as resilience, privacy, dignity and gender roles. Effective communication between doctors, patients and family members could be improved by using a 'cultural humility' model; providing clear and accessible pain medication information; understanding and taking account of people with both low, and medium levels, of English language proficiency; and improving patient trust. Additionally, improvements to out of hours services could improve pain management for all patients managing their pain at home.

Attitudes, Knowledge, and Perceived Barriers Towards Cancer Pain Management Among Healthcare Professionals in Libya: a National Multicenter Survey.

Cancer pain presents in approximately 66% of patients in advanced stages. Although several guidelines and pharmacological options are available for cancer pain management (CPM), assessment and treatment of cancer pain remain inadequate globally, particularly in developing countries. Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes towards CPM among healthcare professionals (HCPs) are important barriers to CPM. This survey aimed to evaluate nurses' and physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and potential barriers regarding CPM in Libya. This cross-sectional survey involved a convenience sample of 152 oncology nurses and physicians working in six oncology settings in Libya. The response rate was 76%. The Barriers Questionnaire II (BQ-II) was used for data collection (higher scores signify greater attitudinal barriers and poorer knowledge). Data analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 26 software. An independent t-test (unadjusted estimate) indicated that Libyan nurses showed higher mean barrier scores (mean = 3.8, SD = 0.7) to CPM than physicians (mean = 2.9, SD = 0.8), p < 0.001. The six most common differences in attitudinal barriers between nurses and physicians were "opioid side effects," "poor tolerance," "strong patient endures pain," "distract the physician," "drug addiction," and "opioids impair immune function," p < 0.001. Multiple regression results (adjusted estimate) indicated that nurses had more barrier scores to CPM than physicians (B = - 0.530, p < 0.05), and participants with higher educational levels were associated with lower barrier scores to CPM (B = - 0.641, p < 0.05). Our results suggest that Libyan oncology HCPs hold perceived barriers, lack of knowledge, and negative attitudes towards CPM. Professional education and training in CPM, addressing phobia and myths on opioid usage, and the benefits and complications of using opioids are likely to result in reduced barriers to CPM in Libya.

Libyan Healthcare Professionals', Patients' and Caregivers' Perceptions and Religious Beliefs about Cancer Pain and its Management: A Descriptive Qualitative Study.

Cancer pain remains a significant problem worldwide. It is often undertreated and presents in about half of cancer patients. Although several guidelines and pharmacological interventions for cancer pain management (CPM) exist, inadequate assessment and undertreatment of cancer pain are well-documented globally, especially in developing countries, including Libya. Perceptions, cultural and religious beliefs of healthcare professionals (HCP), patients, and caregivers about cancer pain and opioids are reported as barriers to CPM globally. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to explore Libyan HCPs', patients', and caregivers' views and religious beliefs about CPM and involved semi-structured interviews with 36 participants: 18 Libyan cancer patients, 6 caregivers, and 12 Libyan HCPs. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Patients, caregivers, and newly qualified HCPs were concerned about poor tolerance and drug addiction. HCPs perceived a lack of policies and guidelines, pain rating scales, and professional education and training as CPM barriers. Some patients were unable to pay for medicines if they faced financial difficulties. Instead, patients and caregivers emphasised religious and cultural beliefs for managing cancer pain, including the use of the Qur'an and cautery. Our results suggest that religious and cultural beliefs, lack of knowledge and training in CPM among HCPs, and economic and Libyan healthcare system-related factors negatively affect CPM in Libya.

Evidence-based management approaches for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): A practice review.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) face limited treatment options and inadequate access to palliative care. AIM: To provide a pragmatic overview of clinical guidelines and produce evidence-based recommendations for severe COPD. Interventions for which there is inconsistent evidence to support their use and areas requiring further research were identified. DESIGN: Practice review of guidelines supported by scoping review methodology to examine the evidence reporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, complemented by web searching for guidelines and publications providing primary evidence (July 2021). Guidelines published within the last 5 years and evidence in the last 10 years were included. RESULTS: Severe COPD should be managed using a multidisciplinary approach with a holistic assessment. For stable patients, long-acting beta-agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist and pulmonary rehabilitation are recommended. Low dose opioids, self-management, handheld fan and nutritional support may provide small benefits, whereas routine corticosteroids should be avoided. For COPD exacerbations, systematic corticosteroids, non-invasive ventilation and exacerbation action plans are recommended. Short-acting inhaled beta-agonists and antibiotics may be considered but pulmonary rehabilitation should be avoided during hospitalisation. Long term oxygen therapy is only recommended for patients with chronic severe hypoxaemia. Short-acting anticholinergic inhalers, nebulised opioids, oral theophylline or telehealth are not recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Recommended interventions by guidelines are not always supported by high-quality evidence. Further research is required on efficacy and safety of inhaled corticosteroids, antidepressants, benzodiazepines, mucolytics, relaxation and breathing exercises.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of anaemia in palliative care patients.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is a common sequela of advanced disease and is associated with significant symptom burden. No specific guidance exists for the investigation and management of anaemia in palliative care patients. AIM: We aim to offer a pragmatic overview of the approaches to investigate and manage anaemia in advanced disease, based on guidelines and evidence in disease specific patient groups, including cancer, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. DESIGN: Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting the investigation and management of anaemia in patients with advanced disease. DATA SOURCES: A search for guidelines was performed in 2020. National or international guidelines were examined if they described the investigation or management of anaemia in adult patients with health conditions seen by palliative care services written within the last 5 years in the English language. Searches of MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and WHO guidance were made in 2019 to identify key publications that provided additional primary data. RESULTS: Evidence supports patient-centred investigation of anaemia, results of which should guide targeted intervention. Blanket use of blood transfusion should be avoided, with evidence supporting a more restrictive approach to transfusion. Routine use of oral iron and erythropoetin stimulating agents (ESAs) are not recommended. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the effectiveness of IV iron in this patient group. CONCLUSION: We advocate early consideration and investigation of anaemia, guided by symptom burden and patient preferences. Correction of reversible causes should be the mainstay of treatment, with a restrictive approach to blood transfusion. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of IV iron in these patients.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue affects most patients living with advanced cancer and is a symptom that healthcare professionals can find difficult to manage. AIM: To provide healthcare professionals with a pragmatic overview of approaches to management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer that are commonly recommended by guidelines and to evaluate evidence underpinning them. DESIGN: Scoping review methodology was used to determine the strength of evidence supporting use of interventions recommended in management of fatigue in patients with advanced cancer. DATA SOURCES: National or international guidelines were examined if they described the management of fatigue in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 6 years (2015-2021) in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2011-December 2021) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'fatigue' in title, abstract or keywords. A PubMed search was also made. RESULTS: Evidence indicates physical exercise interventions are effective and patients may benefit from energy conservation tactics. Evidence does not support use of psychostimulants such as methylphenidate. Limited data were found on efficacy of corticosteroids, psychological interventions, nutritional intervention, sleep optimization or complementary therapies for management of fatigue in advanced cancer. CONCLUSION: We recommend regular assessment, review and acknowledgement of the impact of fatigue. Exercise and energy conservation should be considered. Pharmacological interventions are not endorsed as a routine approach. Many interventions currently recommended by guidelines are not supported by a robust evidence base and further research on their efficacy is required.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in cancer pain: A database analysis to determine recruitment feasibility for a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient evidence exists to support or refute use of NSAIDs for managing cancer pain. Palliative physicians support a placebo-controlled trial of NSAIDs as strong opioid adjuncts for cancer-induced bone pain as the most pragmatic design to benefit clinical practice. AIM: We aimed to determine patient numbers receiving palliative radiotherapy for cancer-induced bone pain, estimate the suitability of NSAID prescription and determine survival, guiding future trial feasibility. DESIGN: A retrospective observational database analysis was undertaken using 5 years of routinely collected regional radiotherapy and healthcare data, filtered to achieve a cohort with cancer-induced bone pain. Demographics and survival were linked to available serology and co-morbidity data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data was sourced from the regional Leeds Cancer Centre, a tertiary care setting. Patients who underwent palliative single fraction 8 gray (Gy) radiotherapy treatment for cancer-induced bone pain were included, totalling 2411 over 5 years. RESULTS: A mean of 478 patients received palliative radiotherapy for cancer-induced bone pain annually. Median age (IQR) was 70 (62-77); negatively skewed (-0.69). 65.3% died within 1 year of radiotherapy; 48.0% within 6 months. Age was not associated with survival on univariable analysis (HR 0.999 (95% CI 0.996-1.003)). Serology from 1063 patients (44.2%) were available; eGFR was ⩾60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 83.0%. From available data (1352 pts; 51.6% of sample), 20.2% had a coded co-morbidity contra-indicating NSAIDs. Combining serology and co-morbidities, 68.5% could be considered for NSAID prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Patient numbers at a regional radiotherapy centre support the feasibility of trial recruitment. Available serology and co-morbidity data suggest two-thirds may be suitable for NSAID prescription.

Oxycodone for cancer-related pain.

BACKGROUND: Many people with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, such as oxycodone and morphine. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all people, neither are they well tolerated by all people. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for adults with cancer pain. This is an updated Cochrane review previously published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of oxycodone by any route of administration for pain in adults with cancer. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (ISI Web of Science), BIOSIS (ISI), and PsycINFO (Ovid) to November 2021. We also searched four trial registries, checked the bibliographic references of relevant studies, and contacted the authors of the included studies. We applied no language, date, or publication status restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cross-over) comparing oxycodone (any formulation or route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including oxycodone) for cancer background pain in adults by examining pain intensity/relief, adverse events, quality of life, and participant preference. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently sifted the search, extracted data and assessed the included studies using standard Cochrane methodology. We meta-analysed pain intensity data using the generic inverse variance method, and pain relief and adverse events using the Mantel-Haenszel method, or summarised these data narratively along with the quality of life and participant preference data. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: For this update, we identified 19 new studies (1836 participants) for inclusion. In total, we included 42 studies which enrolled/randomised 4485 participants, with 3945 of these analysed for efficacy and 4176 for safety. The studies examined a number of different drug comparisons. Controlled-release (CR; typically taken every 12 hours) oxycodone versus immediate-release (IR; taken every 4-6 hours) oxycodone Pooled analysis of three of the four studies comparing CR oxycodone to IR oxycodone suggest that there is little to no difference between CR and IR oxycodone in pain intensity (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.1 to 0.34; n = 319; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on adverse events, including constipation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.13), drowsiness/somnolence (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.54), nausea (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.28), and vomiting (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15) (very low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for quality of life or participant preference, however, three studies suggested that treatment acceptability may be similar between groups (low-certainty evidence). CR oxycodone versus CR morphine The majority of the 24 studies comparing CR oxycodone to CR morphine reported either pain intensity (continuous variable), pain relief (dichotomous variable), or both. Pooled analysis indicated that pain intensity may be lower (better) after treatment with CR morphine than CR oxycodone (SMD 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.27; n = 882 in 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). This SMD is equivalent to a difference of 0.27 points on the Brief Pain Inventory scale (0-10 numerical rating scale), which is not clinically significant. Pooled analyses also suggested that there may be little to no difference in the proportion of participants achieving complete or significant pain relief (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10; n = 1249 in 13 studies; low-certainty evidence). The RR for constipation (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86) may be lower after treatment with CR oxycodone than after CR morphine. Pooled analyses showed that, for most of the adverse events, the CIs were wide, including no effect as well as potential benefit and harm: drowsiness/somnolence (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05), nausea (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.12), and vomiting (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.04) (low or very low-certainty evidence). No data were available for quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the treatment effects on treatment acceptability and participant preference. Other comparisons The remaining studies either compared oxycodone in various formulations or compared oxycodone to different alternative opioids. None found any clear superiority or inferiority of oxycodone for cancer pain, neither as an analgesic agent nor in terms of adverse event rates and treatment acceptability. The certainty of this evidence base was limited by the high or unclear risk of bias of the studies and by imprecision due to low or very low event rates or participant numbers for many outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions have not changed since the previous version of this review (in 2017). We found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no difference in pain intensity, pain relief and adverse events between oxycodone and other strong opioids including morphine, commonly considered the gold standard strong opioid. Although we identified a benefit for pain relief in favour of CR morphine over CR oxycodone, this was not clinically significant and did not persist following sensitivity analysis and so we do not consider this important. However, we found that constipation and hallucinations occurred less often with CR oxycodone than with CR morphine; but the certainty of this evidence was either very low or the finding did not persist following sensitivity analysis, so these findings should be treated with utmost caution. Our conclusions are consistent with other reviews and suggest that, while the reliability of the evidence base is low, given the absence of important differences within this analysis, it seems unlikely that larger head-to-head studies of oxycodone versus morphine are justified, although well-designed trials comparing oxycodone to other strong analgesics may well be useful. For clinical purposes, oxycodone or morphine can be used as first-line oral opioids for relief of cancer pain in adults.

Does ethnicity affect pain management for people with advanced disease? A mixed methods cross-national systematic review of 'very high' Human Development Index English-speaking countries.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in pain management have been observed in the USA since the 1990s in settings such as the emergency department and oncology. However, the palliative care context is not well described, and little research has focused outside of the USA or on advanced disease. This review takes a cross-national approach to exploring pain management in advanced disease for people of different racial and ethnic groups. METHODS: Mixed methods systematic review. The primary outcome measure was differences in receiving pain medication between people from different racial and ethnic groups. Five electronic databases were searched. Two researchers independently assessed quality using JBI checklists, weighted evidence, and extracted data. The quantitative findings on the primary outcome measure were cross-tabulated, and a thematic analysis was undertaken on the mixed methods studies. Themes were formulated into a conceptual/thematic matrix. Patient representatives from UK ethnically diverse groups were consulted. PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Eighteen papers were included in the primary outcome analysis. Three papers were rated 'High' weight of evidence, and 17/18 (94%) were based in the USA. Ten of the eighteen (56%) found no significant difference in the pain medication received between people of different ethnic groups. Forty-six papers were included in the mixed methods synthesis; 41/46 (89%) were based in the USA. Key themes: Patients from different ethnically diverse groups had concerns about tolerance, addiction and side effects. The evidence also showed: cultural and social doctor-patient communication issues; many patients with unmet pain management needs; differences in pain assessment by racial group, and two studies found racial and ethnic stereotyping. CONCLUSIONS: There was not enough high quality evidence to draw a conclusion on differences in receiving pain medication for people with advanced disease from different racial and ethnic groups. The mixed methods findings showed commonalities in fears about pain medication side effects, tolerance and addiction across diverse ethnic groups. However, these fears may have different foundations and are differently prioritised according to culture, faith, educational and social factors. There is a need to develop culturally competent pain management to address doctor-patient communication issues and patients' pain management concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO- CRD42020167890 .

Conceptualising effective symptom management in palliative care: a novel model derived from qualitative data.

BACKGROUND: Pain, breathlessness and fatigue are some of the most challenging symptoms to manage in patients with advanced disease. Specialist palliative care leads to better symptom management, but factors contributing to successful symptom management in this context have not been explored. Our aim was to understand what facilitates effective symptom management in specialist palliative care within UK hospices and investigate what barriers are experienced. METHODS: This was a grounded theory study using qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Participants were recruited from multidisciplinary specialist palliative care teams (doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, complementary therapists, social workers and chaplains) working in inpatient, outpatient and community services provided by five hospices in the United Kingdom. RESULTS: We present a novel qualitative data-derived model of effective symptom management in specialist palliative care. We describe a co-ordinated, multi-faceted, sequential approach involving a process of engagement, partnership, decision-making, and delivery. Interventions to manage symptoms are less effective in psychologically distressed patients. Our data highlights that families of patients have a key role in determining effectiveness of symptom management interventions A holistic approach by a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary team, including support to recognise and minimise psychological distress might facilitate more effective symptom management. Barriers to symptom management include team discordance and lack of understanding about symptom management by patient and families. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making between patients and professionals and co-ordination of care by a multi-disciplinary team are key components of effective symptom management. Actions to address psychological distress and evaluate the understanding and expectations of patients and their families would enable more effective symptom management. A more effective multi-disciplinary approach would be facilitated by discussion within teams about role competencies and boundaries.

Implementing person-centred outcome measures in palliative care: An exploratory qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory to understand processes and context.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence demonstrating the utility of using Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care settings, implementing them into routine practice is challenging. Most research has described barriers to, without explaining the causal mechanisms underpinning, implementation. Implementation theories explain how, why, and in which contexts specific relationships between barriers/enablers might improve implementation effectiveness but have rarely been used in palliative care outcomes research. AIM: To use Normalisation Process Theory to understand and explain the causal mechanisms that underpin successful implementation of Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative study. Data collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using a Framework approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 63 healthcare professionals, across 11 specialist palliative care services, were purposefully sampled by role, experience, seniority, and settings (inpatient, outpatient/day therapy, home-based/community). RESULTS: Seven main themes were developed, representing the causal mechanisms and relationships underpinning successful implementation of outcome measures into routine practice. Themes were: Subjectivity of measures; Frequency and version of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; Training, education, and peer support; Building and sustaining community engagement; Electronic system readiness; The art of communication; Reinforcing use through demonstrating value. CONCLUSIONS: Relationships influencing implementation resided at individual and organisational levels. Addressing these factors is key to driving the implementation of outcome measures into routine practice so that those using palliative care services can benefit from the systematic identification, management, and measurement of their symptoms and concerns. We provide key questions that are essential for those implementing and using outcome measures to consider in order to facilitate the integration of outcome measures into routine palliative care practice.

Patient and professional experiences of palliative care referral discussions from cancer services: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this paper was to identify current barriers, facilitators and experiences of raising and discussing palliative care with people with advanced cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with advanced cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Patients were included who had and had not been referred to palliative care. Transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients and eight HCPs participated. Two overarching themes and five sub-themes emerged: Theme one-referral process: timing and triggers, responsibility. Theme two-engagement: perception of treatment, prognosis and palliative care, psychological and emotional preparedness for discussion, and understanding how palliative care could benefit present and future care. CONCLUSION: There is a need to identify suitable patients earlier in their cancer trajectory, address misconceptions about palliative care, treatment and prognosis, and better prepare patients and HCPs to have meaningful conversations about palliative care. Patients and HCPs need to establish and communicate the relevance of palliative care to the patient's current and future care, and be clear about the referral process.

Duration of palliative care before death in international routine practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early provision of palliative care, at least 3-4 months before death, can improve patient quality of life and reduce burdensome treatments and financial costs. However, there is wide variation in the duration of palliative care received before death reported across the research literature. This study aims to determine the duration of time from initiation of palliative care to death for adults receiving palliative care across the international literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094718). Six databases were searched for articles published between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, as well undertaking citation list searches. Following PRISMA guidelines, articles were screened using inclusion (any study design reporting duration from initiation to death in adults palliative care services) and exclusion (paediatric/non-English language studies, trials influencing the timing of palliative care) criteria. Quality appraisal was completed using Hawker's criteria and the main outcome was the duration of palliative care (median/mean days from initiation to death). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine studies from 23 countries were included, involving 11,996,479 patients. Prior to death, the median duration from initiation of palliative care to death was 18.9 days (IQR 0.1), weighted by the number of participants. Significant differences between duration were found by disease type (15 days for cancer vs 6 days for non-cancer conditions), service type (19 days for specialist palliative care unit, 20 days for community/home care, and 6 days for general hospital ward) and development index of countries (18.91 days for very high development vs 34 days for all other levels of development). Forty-three per cent of studies were rated as 'good' quality. Limitations include a preponderance of data from high-income countries, with unclear implications for low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of palliative care is much shorter than the 3-4 months of input by a multidisciplinary team necessary in order for the full benefits of palliative care to be realised. Furthermore, the findings highlight inequity in access across patient, service and country characteristics. We welcome more consistent terminology and methodology in the assessment of duration of palliative care from all countries, alongside increased reporting from less-developed settings, to inform benchmarking, service evaluation and quality improvement.

Palliative care assessment of dry mouth: what matters most to patients with advanced disease?

PURPOSE: Dry mouth is a highly prevalent and significant symptom in patients with advanced progressive diseases. It is a poorly understood area of research, and currently, there is no standardised outcome measure or assessment tool for dry mouth. METHODS: To assess responses to self-reported dry mouth questions, the impact of dry mouth, methods used to reduce symptoms and relevance of the questionnaire. A cross-sectional multisite study of 135 patients with advanced progressive disease experiencing dry mouth. Participants were located in the inpatient, day care, outpatient or community setting. RESULTS: The majority (84.4%) of patients rated their dry mouth as moderate or severe using the verbal rating scale (VRS). Seventy-five percent (74.7%) had a numeric rating scale (NRS) score of 6 or more for dry mouth severity. Patients reported that dry mouth interfered most with talking and was the most important function to assess (median score 6 out of 10) followed by eating (median 5) and taste (median 5). Taking sips of drink was the most common and most effective self-management strategy. Over half of patients (54.6%) also reported impact on swallow and sleep and associated dryness of lips, throat and nasal passages. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the severity of dry mouth in advanced disease. Important factors when assessing patients with dry mouth should include the functional impact on day-to-day activities including talking, dysphagia and sleep. Simple considerations for patients include provision of drinks and reviewing medications. This study could be used to develop a standardised assessment tool for dry mouth to use in clinical practice.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.

PURPOSE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS. METHODS: A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain ≥ 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a "slight improvement." RESULTS: Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: - 0.2, 95% confidence interval - 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS. CONCLUSION: TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least "slight pain relief" from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.

Identification of patients with potential palliative care needs: A systematic review of screening tools in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing evidence of the benefits of early access to palliative care, many patients do not receive palliative care in a timely manner. A systematic approach in primary care can facilitate earlier identification of patients with potential palliative care needs and prompt further assessment. AIM: To identify existing screening tools for identification of patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary healthcare and evaluate their accuracy. DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42019111568). DATA SOURCES: Cochrane, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2019. RESULTS: From 4,127 unique articles screened, 25 reported the use or development of 10 screening tools. Most tools use prediction of death and/or deterioration as a proxy for the identification of people with potential palliative care needs. The tools are based on a wide range of general and disease-specific indicators. The accuracy of five tools was assessed in eight studies; these tools differed significantly in their ability to identify patients with potential palliative care needs with sensitivity ranging from 3% to 94% and specificity ranging from 26% to 99%. CONCLUSION: The ability of current screening tools to identify patients with advanced progressive diseases who are likely to have palliative care needs in primary care is limited. Further research is needed to identify standardised screening processes that are based not only on predicting mortality and deterioration but also on anticipating the palliative care needs and predicting the rate and course of functional decline. This would prompt a comprehensive assessment to identify and meet their needs on time.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients. AIM: The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required. DESIGN: A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice. DATA SOURCES: National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made. RESULTS: A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only. CONCLUSION: Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Supporting patient access to medicines in community palliative care: on-line survey of health professionals' practice, perceived effectiveness and influencing factors.

BACKGROUND: Patient access to medicines at home during the last year of life is critical for symptom control, but is thought to be problematic. Little is known about healthcare professionals' practices in supporting timely medicines access and what influences their effectiveness. The purpose of the study was to evaluate health professionals' medicines access practices, perceived effectiveness and influencing factors. METHODS: On-line questionnaire survey of health care professionals (General Practitioners, Community Pharmacists, community-based Clinical Nurse Specialists and Community Nurses) delivering end-of-life care in primary and community care settings in England. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred twenty-seven responses were received. All health professional groups are engaged in supporting access to prescriptions, using a number of different methods. GPs remain a predominant route for patients to access new prescriptions in working hours. However, nurses and, increasingly, primary care-based pharmacists are also actively contributing. However, only 42% (160) of Clinical Nurse Specialists and 27% (27) of Community Nurses were trained as prescribers. The majority (58% 142) of prescribing nurses and pharmacists did not have access to an electronic prescribing system. Satisfaction with access to shared patient records to facilitate medicines access was low: 39% (507) were either Not At All or only Slightly satisfied. Out-of-hours specialist cover was reported by less than half (49%; 656) and many General Practitioners and pharmacists lacked confidence advising about out-of-hours services. Respondents perceived there would be a significant improvement in pain control if access to medicines was greater. Those with shared records access reported significantly lower pain estimates for their caseload patients. CONCLUSIONS: Action is required to support a greater number of nurses and pharmacists to prescribe end-of-life medicines. Solutions are also required to enable shared access to patient records across health professional groups. Coverage and awareness of out-of-hours services to access medicines needs to be improved.

Managing Pain in People with Cancer-a Systematic Review of the Attitudes and Knowledge of Professionals, Patients, Caregivers and Public.

Cancer pain is a common symptom experienced by patients, caused either by the disease or its treatment. Morphine remains the most effective and recommended treatment for cancer pain. However, cancer patients still do not receive appropriate management for their pain, and under-treatment is common. Lack of knowledge and negative attitudes towards cancer pain and analgesia among professionals, patients and family caregivers are reported as one of the most common barriers to effective cancer pain management (CPM). To systematically review research on the nature and impact of attitudes and knowledge towards CPM, a systematic literature search of 6 databases (the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and EMBASE) was undertaken in July 2018. Additionally, hand-searching of Google, Google Scholar and reference lists was conducted. The inclusion criteria were adult (18-65 years of age), studies which included attitudes and knowledge towards CPM, studies written in English, published literature only and cross-sectional design. Included studies were critically appraised by two researchers independently using the Joanna Briggs Institute Analytical Cross Sectional Studies Assessment (JBI-ACSSA). A total of 36 studies met the inclusion criteria. The main finding was that among professionals, patients, caregivers and the public there were similar attitudinal barriers to effective CPM. The most commonly cited barriers were fear of drug addiction, tolerance of medication and side effects of opioids. We also found differences between professional groups (physicians versus nurses) and between different countries based on their potential exposure to palliative care training and services. There are still barriers to effective CPM, which might result in unrelieved cancer pain. Therefore, more educational programmes and training for professionals on CPM are needed. Furthermore, patients, caregivers, and the public need more general awareness and adequate level of knowledge about CPM.

Specialist palliative care support is associated with improved pain relief at home during the last 3 months of life in patients with advanced disease: analysis of 5-year data from the national survey of bereaved people (VOICES).

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that more than half of patients with advanced progressive diseases approaching the end-of-life report pain and that pain relief for these patients is poorest at home compared to other care settings such as acute care facilities and hospice. Although home is the most common preferred place of death, the majority of deaths occur outside the home. Specialist palliative care is associated with improved quality of life, but systematic reviews of RCTs have failed to show a consistent association with better pain relief. The aim of this study was to examine the factors associated with good pain relief at home in the last 3 months of life for people with advanced progressive disease. METHODS: Data were obtained from the National Bereavement Survey in England, a cross-sectional post-bereavement survey of a stratified random sample of 246,763 deaths which were registered in England from 2011 to 2015. From 110,311 completed surveys (45% response rate), the analysis was based on individual-level data from 43,509 decedents who were cared for at home before death. RESULTS: Decedents who experienced good pain relief at home before death were significantly more likely to have received specialist palliative care (adjusted OR = 2.67; 95% CI, 2.62 to 2.72) and to have a recorded preferred place of death (adjusted OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.84 to 1.90) compared to those who did not. Good pain relief was more likely to be reported by a spouse or partner of the decedents compared to reports from their son or daughter (adjusted OR = 1.50, 95% CI, 1.47 to 1.53). CONCLUSION: This study indicates that patients at home who are approaching the end-of-life experience substantially better pain relief if they receive specialist palliative care and their preferred place of death is recorded regardless of their disease aetiology.