Consensus-building to improve implementation of NICE guidance on planning for end-of-life treatment and care: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of guidance for the provision of good end-of-life care, there are significant variations across the UK in its delivery. This study sought to identify the influences on end-of-life treatment and care planning across several areas where deficiencies in evidence-based practice have been identified, and to develop consensus among healthcare providers and users for recommendations on how to address these deficits. METHODS: An online survey (106 responses), qualitative interviews (55 participants) and a consensus-building exercise (475 participants in the initial round) were undertaken. Participants included people approaching the end of life, people important to them, and health and care practitioners who help people plan for the end of life or provide end-of-life care. Recruitment was via online methods, including social media and online newsletters of relevant charities and professional organisations. Thematic analysis using the framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data led to the development of statements regarding recommendations for advancing implementation of good practice. A two-stage consensus-building exercise asked respondents first to rate these statements and then to rate and rank further sub-recommendations in three areas. RESULTS: Results from the consensus building exercise confirmed that end-of-life care planning conversations are to be welcomed and encouraged, and that the priority should be to have the conversation (which could be initiated by a range of professionals, or people planning end-of-life care themselves), rather than to wait for an ideal time to have it. Further rounds identified specific components of a standardised record of end-of-life treatment and care preferences that should be prioritised, specific health and care staff that should be empowered through training in advanced communication, and aspects of communication most important to include in training for healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has identified opportunities for action to improve end-of-life treatment and care by combining multiple stakeholder perspectives and building consensus among them: the resulting recommendations have sufficient granularity to be implemented and evaluated. They are of relevance to policy makers, those who train healthcare professionals, and those looking after patients approaching the end of life.

Towards cataloguing and characterising advance care planning and end-of-life care resources.

BACKGROUND: Resources for healthcare professionals, patients and those important to them relating to planning and coordinating treatment and care at the end of life are abundant, and can be difficult to navigate. However, they have not been systematically collated or catalogued in terms of their purpose, scope or intended audience. AIM: To collate, categorise and characterise advance care planning and end-of-life treatment and care (EoLT + C) resources directed towards healthcare professionals, patients and their families. METHODS: Rapid review and thematic synthesis of resources available in the United Kingdom. Google searches and reviews of websites belonging to selected organisations that develop and publish materials relating to EoLT + C, and advance care planning were used. Materials were included if they were intended for those over 18 living in the UK and pertained to five domains of EoLT + C: identifying those approaching end of life; accessing EoLT + C services; conducting important conversations about EoLT + C and preferences; advance care planning, including recording of preferences and plans; and ensuring that plans and preferences are accessed and used by health and social care services. RESULTS: 246 resources directed at healthcare professionals, patients and their families were identified, collated, catalogued and made internationally available for clinicians, researchers, patients and the public. 61 were classified as interactive, providing decision support in EoLT + C that went beyond simply providing information. Of these, there was notable content overlap among tools for identifying patients in their last year of life. There was variation in the development of tools across all domains of end-of-life care by geography and patient group. Few interactive resources integrated seamlessly with a digital interface or healthcare provider workflows. Incentives for the adoption of best-practice appeared rare. CONCLUSIONS: We present a repeatable and scalable approach to the cataloguing and characterisation of palliative care resources. The identified resources will be of benefit not only to those in the UK but to those in other countries, developing or evaluating their own resources for aiding professionals and patients to plan and deliver excellent treatment and care at the end of life.

Investigation of healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 infection: Learning outcomes from an investigative process in the initial phase of the pandemic.

Background: Healthcare-associated (HCA) SARS-CoV-2 infection is a significant contributor to the spread of the 2020 pandemic. Timely review of HCA cases is essential to identify learning to inform infection prevention and control (IPC) policies and organisational response. Aim: To identify key areas for improvement through rapid investigation of HCA SARS-CoV-2 cases and to implement change. Methods: Cases were identified based on date of first positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR sample in relation to date of hospital admission. Cases were reviewed using a structured gap analysis tool to identify key learning points. These were discussed in weekly multidisciplinary meetings to gain consensus on learning outcomes, level of harm incurred by the patient and required actions. Learning was then promptly fed back to individual teams and the organisation. Findings: Of the 489 SARS-CoV-2 cases admitted between 10th March and 23rd June 2020, 114 suspected HCA cases (23.3%) were reviewed; 58/489 (11.8%) were ultimately deemed to be HCA. Five themes were identified: individual patient vulnerability, communication, IPC implementation, policy issues and organisational response. Adaptations to policies based on these reviews were completed within the course of the initial phase of the pandemic. Conclusion: This approach enabled timely learning and implementation of control measures and policy development.

Rebooting medical education with virtual grand rounds during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Social distancing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has necessitated drastic changes in the practice of hospital medicine, including the cancellation of many educational activities. At the same time, the emergence of a new disease with a rapidly evolving knowledge base has mandated timely educational updates. To resolve this conflict in our hospital, we substituted 'traditional' grand rounds with 'virtual' grand rounds delivered over Zoom, consisting of a local situation report and operational update, followed by a specialty-specific clinical presentation on management of COVID-19. Attendance was greatly increased (mean 384 attendees) compared to traditional grand rounds (mean 44 attendees) and included a diverse audience of medical professionals. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive, with >80% of responders stating that the sessions would or might inform their clinical practice. COVID-19 has therefore provided an opportunity to modernise grand rounds, and develop a new model matching the needs of medical education beyond the pandemic.

Point of Care Nucleic Acid Testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Hospitalized Patients: A Clinical Validation Trial and Implementation Study.

There is an urgent need for rapid SARS-CoV-2 testing in hospitals to limit nosocomial spread. We report an evaluation of point of care (POC) nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) in 149 participants with parallel combined nasal and throat swabbing for POC versus standard lab RT-PCR testing. Median time to result is 2.6 (IQR 2.3-4.8) versus 26.4 h (IQR 21.4-31.4, p < 0.001), with 32 (21.5%) positive and 117 (78.5%) negative. Cohen's κ correlation between tests is 0.96 (95% CI 0.91-1.00). When comparing nearly 1,000 tests pre- and post-implementation, the median time to definitive bed placement from admission is 23.4 (8.6-41.9) versus 17.1 h (9.0-28.8), p = 0.02. Mean length of stay on COVID-19 "holding" wards is 58.5 versus 29.9 h (p < 0.001). POC testing increases isolation room availability, avoids bed closures, allows discharge to care homes, and expedites access to hospital procedures. POC testing could mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on hospital systems.