Modified-release morphine or placebo for chronic breathlessness: the MABEL trial protocol.

Chronic breathlessness, a persistent and disabling symptom despite optimal treatment of underlying causes, is a frightening symptom with serious and widespread impact on patients and their carers. Clinical guidelines support the use of morphine for the relief of chronic breathlessness in common long-term conditions, but questions remain around clinical effectiveness, safety and longer term (>7 days) administration. This trial will evaluate the effectiveness of low-dose oral modified-release morphine in chronic breathlessness. This is a multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Participants (n=158) will be opioid-naïve with chronic breathlessness due to heart or lung disease, cancer or post-coronavirus disease 2019. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to 5 mg oral modified-release morphine/placebo twice daily and docusate/placebo 100 mg twice daily for 56 days. Non-responders at Day 7 will dose escalate to 10 mg morphine/placebo twice daily at Day 15. The primary end-point (Day 28) measure will be worst breathlessness severity (previous 24 h). Secondary outcome measures include worst cough, distress, pain, functional status, physical activity, quality of life, and early identification and management of morphine-related side-effects. At Day 56, participants may opt to take open-label, oral modified-release morphine as part of usual care and complete quarterly breathlessness and toxicity questionnaires. The study is powered to be able to reject the null hypothesis and an embedded normalisation process theory-informed qualitative substudy will explore the adoption of morphine as a first-line pharmacological treatment for chronic breathlessness in clinical practice if effective.

European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline: palliative care for people with COPD or interstitial lung disease.

There is increased awareness of palliative care needs in people with COPD or interstitial lung disease (ILD). This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force aimed to provide recommendations for initiation and integration of palliative care into the respiratory care of adult people with COPD or ILD. The ERS task force consisted of 20 members, including representatives of people with COPD or ILD and informal caregivers. Eight questions were formulated, four in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome format. These were addressed with full systematic reviews and application of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the evidence. Four additional questions were addressed narratively. An "evidence-to-decision" framework was used to formulate recommendations. The following definition of palliative care for people with COPD or ILD was agreed. A holistic and multidisciplinary person-centred approach aiming to control symptoms and improve quality of life of people with serious health-related suffering because of COPD or ILD, and to support their informal caregivers. Recommendations were made regarding people with COPD or ILD and their informal caregivers: to consider palliative care when physical, psychological, social or existential needs are identified through holistic needs assessment; to offer palliative care interventions, including support for informal caregivers, in accordance with such needs; to offer advance care planning in accordance with preferences; and to integrate palliative care into routine COPD and ILD care. Recommendations should be reconsidered as new evidence becomes available.

Adaptation and multicentre validation of a patient-centred outcome scale for people severely ill with COVID (IPOS-COV).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach. METHODS: We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined. RESULTS: In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died. CONCLUSIONS: IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.

Researching minoritised communities in palliative care: An agenda for change.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care access, experiences and outcomes of care disadvantage those from ethnically diverse, Indigenous, First nation and First people communities. Research into this field of inquiry raises unique theoretical, methodological, and moral issues. Without the critical reflection of methods of study and reporting of findings, researchers may inadvertently compromise their contribution to reducing injustices and perpetuating racism. AIM: To examine key evidence of the place of minoritised communities in palliative care research to devise recommendations that improve the precision and rigour of research and reporting of findings. METHODS: Narrative review of articles identified from PubMed, CINAHL and Google Scholar for 10 years augmented with supplementary searches. RESULTS: We identified and appraised 109 relevant articles. Four main themes were identified (i) Lack of precision when working with a difference; (ii) 'black box epidemiology' and its presence in palliative care research; (iii) the inclusion of minoritised communities in palliative care research; and (iv) the potential to cause harm. All stymie opportunities to 'level up' health experiences and outcomes across the palliative care spectrum. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of this review palliative care research must reflect on and justify the classification of minoritised communities, explore and understand intersectionality, optimise data quality, decolonise research teams and methods, and focus on reducing inequities to level up end-of-life care experiences and outcomes. Palliative care research must be forthright in explicitly indentifying instances of structural and systemic racism in palliative care research and engaging in non-judgemental debate on changes required.

Symptom management in people dying with COVID-19: multinational observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe multinational prescribing practices by palliative care services for symptom management in patients dying with COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of medicines. METHODS: We surveyed specialist palliative care services, contacted via relevant organisations between April and July 2020. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages. Content analysis explored free text responses about symptom management in COVID-19. Medicines were classified using British National Formulary categories. Perceptions on effectiveness of medicines were grouped into five categories; effective, some, limited or unclear effectiveness, no effect. RESULTS: 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world, 1 missing country. 358 services had managed patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 289 services had protocols for symptom management in COVID-19. Services tended to prescribe medicines for symptom control comparable to medicines used in people without COVID-19; mainly opioids and benzodiazepines for breathlessness, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation, opioids and cough linctus for cough, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fever, and opioids and paracetamol for pain. Medicines were considered to be mostly effective but varied by patient's condition, route of administration and dose. CONCLUSIONS: Services were largely consistent in prescribing for symptom management in people dying with COVID-19. Medicines used prior to COVID-19 were mostly considered effective in controlling common symptoms.

Charitably funded hospices and the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data. RESULTS: 143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services. CONCLUSION: Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient.

Symptom Control and Survival for People Severely ill With COVID: A Multicentre Cohort Study (CovPall-Symptom).

CONTEXT: Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant. OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival. METHODS: Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version. RESULTS: We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study.

Experiences of staff providing specialist palliative care during COVID-19: a multiple qualitative case study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. SETTING: Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting. PARTICIPANTS: Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants' ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a 'crescendo effect' in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided 'moral comfort' for some. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.

Prohibit, Protect, or Adapt? The Changing Role of Volunteers in Palliative and Hospice Care Services During the COVID-19 Pandemic. A Multinational Survey (Covpall).

BACKGROUND: Volunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic are unknown. The aim of this study is to understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Multi-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: 458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19 across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient facing support (58.7%), indirect support (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (odds ratio [OR]=0.15, 95% CI=0.07-0.3, P<.001). This reduction in volunteers was felt to protect potentially vulnerable volunteers, with policy changes preventing volunteer support. However, adapting was also seen where new roles were created, or existing roles pivoted to provide virtual support. CONCLUSION: Volunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Change in Activity of Palliative Care Services during the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Multinational Survey (CovPall).

Objectives: To identify factors associated with palliative care services being busier during Covid-19. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey of UK palliative care services (April to July 2020) (CovPall). Ethical approval was received from King's College London Research Ethics committee (LRS-19/20-18541). The primary outcome was change in busyness (five-point ordinal scale). Ordinal logistic regression investigated factors associated with the primary outcome. Results: Of 277 responses, 71 (26%) reported being a lot more busy, 62 (22%) slightly more, 53 (19%) about the same, 50 (18%) slightly less, and 28 (10%) much less busy. Increased business was associated with homecare services (odds ratio [OR] 1.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-3.25), nursing care at home (OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.70-6.19), publicly managed services (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.11-4.34), Covid-19 cases (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.01), and staff shortages (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.64-4.48). Conclusion: Services providing community care, and publicly managed services, may have been better able to respond to escalating needs during Covid-19. This has potential implications for both service delivery and funding models.

Understanding the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on delivery of rehabilitation in specialist palliative care services: An analysis of the CovPall-Rehab survey data.

BACKGROUND: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients' symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIM: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national online survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. FINDINGS: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

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.

The association between ethnicity, socioeconomic deprivation and receipt of hospital-based palliative care for people with Covid-19: A dual centre service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People from ethnic minority groups and deprived socioeconomic backgrounds have worse outcomes from COVID-19. AIM: To examine associations between ethnicity and deprivation with timing of palliative care referral for inpatients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Service evaluation of consecutive patients with COVID-19 referred to palliative care. Sociodemographic (including age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity coded as White/non-White) and clinical variables were described. The primary outcome was timing of referral to palliative care. Associations between ethnicity and socioeconomic deprivation with the primary outcome were explored using multivariable regression. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with COVID-19 referred to a hospital palliative care service across two London hospitals February-May 2020. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were included. 119 (36%) were from a non-White ethnic group; most commonly Black British (77, 23%) and Asian British (26, 8%). A longer time between admission and palliative care referral was associated with male gender (IRR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.34) and lower levels of socioeconomic deprivation (IRR 1.61, 95% CI 1.36-1.90) but not ethnicity (IRR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.87-1.06). CONCLUSIONS: This large service evaluation showed no evidence that patients from ethnic minority or more deprived socioeconomic groups had longer time to palliative care referral. Ongoing data monitoring is essential for equitable service delivery.

Understanding and addressing challenges for advance care planning in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the UK CovPall survey data from specialist palliative care services.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. AIM: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. DESIGN: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services' response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. RESPONDENTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. RESULTS: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.

The impact of COVID-19 on palliative care for people with Parkinson's and response to future pandemics.

Introduction: Although in some countries, palliative care (PC) still remains poorly implemented, its importance throughout the course of Parkinson's disease (PD) is increasingly being acknowledged. With an emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, growing emphasis has been placed on the palliative needs of people with Parkinson's (PwP), particularly elderly, frail, and with comorbidities.Areas covered: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses an enormous challenge on aspects of daily living in PwP and might interact negatively with a range of motor and non-motor symptoms (NMS), both directly and indirectly - as a consequence of pandemic-related social and health care restrictions. Here, the authors outline some of the motor and NMS relevant to PC, and propose a pragmatic and rapidly deployable, consensus-based PC approach for PwP during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, potentially relevant also for future pandemics.Expert opinion: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic poses a considerable impact on PwP and their caregivers, ranging from mental health issues to worsening of physical symptoms - both in the short- and long-term, (Long-COVID) and calls for specific, personalized PC strategies relevant in a lockdown setting globally. Validated assessment tools should be applied remotely to flag up particular motor or NMS that require special attention, both in short- and long-term.

'Necessity is the mother of invention': Specialist palliative care service innovation and practice change in response to COVID-19. Results from a multinational survey (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care. AIM: To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use.ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.

The Challenges of Caring for People Dying From COVID-19: A Multinational, Observational Study (CovPall).

CONTEXT: Systematic data on the care of people dying with COVID-19 are scarce. OBJECTIVES: To understand the response of and challenges faced by palliative care services during the COVID-19 pandemic, and identify associated factors. METHODS: We surveyed palliative care and hospice services, contacted via relevant organizations. Multivariable logistic regression identified associations with challenges. Content analysis explored free text responses. RESULTS: A total of 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world; 81% cared for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19, 77% had staff with suspected or confirmed COVID-19; 48% reported shortages of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), 40% staff shortages, 24% medicines shortages, 14% shortages of other equipment. Services provided direct care and education in symptom management and communication; 91% changed how they worked. Care often shifted to increased community and hospital care, with fewer admissions to inpatient palliative care units. Factors associated with increased odds of PPE shortages were: charity rather than public management (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.81-5.20), inpatient palliative care unit rather than other settings (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.46-3.75). Being outside the UK was associated with lower odds of staff shortages (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26-0.76). Staff described increased workload, concerns for their colleagues who were ill, whilst expending time struggling to get essential equipment and medicines, perceiving they were not a front-line service. CONCLUSION: Palliative care services were often overwhelmed, yet felt ignored in the COVID-19 response. Palliative care needs better integration with health care systems when planning and responding to future epidemics/pandemics.

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.