Eye donation in hospice and hospital palliative care settings: perceptions, practice, and service development needs - findings from a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: New routes for supply of eye tissue are needed in the UK to support transplant surgery and medical research. Hospice care (HC) and Hospital-based Palliative care (HPC) services represent potential supply routes. This paper reports findings from the survey arm of the Eye Donation from Palliative and Hospice Care-Investigating potential, practice preference and perceptions study (EDiPPPP), objectives of which were to: i) Investigate existing practice in relation to eye donation across HC and HPC settings; ii) identify perceptions of HCPs toward embedding eye donation into routine end of life care planning; iii) investigate the informational, training, or support needs of clinicians regarding eye donation. DESIGN: Online survey of UK-based HC and HPC clinicians, distributed through professional organisations (Association of Palliative Medicine (UK); Hospice UK). PARTICIPANTS: One hundred fifty-six participants completed (63% HC; 37% HPC-8% response rate, of n = 1894 approached). RESULTS: Majority of participants (63%, n = 99) supported raising eye donation (ED) with patients and families and agreed that ED should be discussed routinely with eligible patients. However, 72%, (n = 95) indicated that staff within their clinical setting did not routinely discuss the option of ED in end-of-life care planning conversations with the majority of participants reporting that the option of ED was not 'routinely discussed in multi-disciplinary team or other meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant support, ED is not part of routine practice. Attention to barriers to embedding ED and reducing knowledge deficits are urgently needed to increase the supply of eye tissue for use in transplant operations.

10†Eye donation in palliative and hospice care settings: patient views and missed opportunities!

Eye donation in Palliative and Hospice care settings: patient views and missed opportunities. BACKGROUND: There is a global shortage of donated eye tissue for use in sight saving and sight restoring operations such as corneal transplantation. In the UK the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) report that over two million people are currently living with sight loss with this figure predicted to rise to approx. four million by 2050. Patients who die in palliative and hospice care settings could potentially donate eye tissue, however, the option of eye donation is not routinely raised in end-of-life planning discussions. Research evidence suggests that health care professionals (HCP) are reluctant to discuss eye donation as they perceive it as something that will distress patients and family members. AIM: This presentation will share findings regarding the views of patients and carers, including: their feelings and thoughts about the option of eye donation being raised with them; who they think should raise this issue; when this option should be discussed and who should be included in the discussion. FINDINGS: Findings are drawn from the NIHR funded national study: Eye Donation from Palliative and Hospice care contexts: investigating Potential, Practice, Preference and Perceptions (EDiPPPP) in partnership with three palliative care and three hospice care settings in England. Findings indicate high potential for eye donation but very low levels of identification of potential donors; low levels of approach to patients and family members about the option of eye donation; lack of inclusion of eye donation in end-of-life care planning and/or clinical meeting discussions (i.e. Multi-Disciplinary Team (MDT) meetings) and very limited awareness raising initiatives or activity to inform patients and carers of the option of eye donation. CONCLUSION: It is imperative that patients who would want to be a donor are identified and assessed for eligibility for donation as part of high-quality end of life care. It is clear from studies reported over the past 10 years that not a lot has changed regarding the identification, approach, and referral of potential donors from palliative and hospice care settings, and this is due in part to perceptions held by HCPs that patients would be unwilling to engage in discussions regarding the option of eye donation in advance of their death. This perception that is not substantiated by empirical research.

Barriers and Facilitators to Eye Donation in Hospice and Palliative Care Settings: A Scoping Review.

Background: The need for eye tissue for use in sight saving and sight restoring surgery is a global issue. Approximately 53% of the world's population has no access to interventions such as corneal transplantation. Low levels of eye tissue impact on service providers such as National Health Service Blood and Transplant who aim to achieve a weekly stock of 350 eyes but do not meet this target. Aim: Patients who die in hospice and palliative care settings could be potential donors; therefore the aim of this systematic scoping review was to identify the potential for eye donation and barriers toward it from these clinical contexts. Design: A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs scoping review methodology was applied to search the global literature. Results: 13 articles from the global literature were retrieved. Evidence indicate that 542 patients could potentially have donated their eyes. Key barriers to increasing eye donation include the reluctance of healthcare professionals to raise the option of eye donation and the evidenced lack of awareness of patients and family members about donation options and eligibility. This review also indicates a lack of clinical guidance drawn from high-quality evidence proposing interventions that could inform clinical practice and service development. Conclusion: The scoping review presented here provides an up-to-date view of the current potential for, perceptions toward, and practice underpinning offering the option of eye donation to dying patients and their family members in hospice and palliative care context.

Exploring maintenance of physical activity behaviour change among people living with and beyond gastrointestinal cancer: a cross-sectional qualitative study and typology.

OBJECTIVES: In the last decade, there has been a rapid expansion of physical activity (PA) promotion programmes and interventions targeting people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC). The impact that these initiatives have on long-term maintenance of PA remains under-researched. This study sought to explore the experiences of participants in order to characterise those who have and have not successfully sustained increases in PA following participation in a PA intervention after a diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, and identify barriers and facilitators of this behaviour. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews with participants who had previously taken part in a PA programme in the UK, explored current and past PA behaviour and factors that promoted or inhibited regular PA participation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Themes and subthemes were identified. Differences between individuals were recognised and a typology of PA engagement was developed. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven individuals (n=15 male, mean age=66.3 years) with a diagnosis of GI cancer who had participated in one of four interventions designed to encourage PA participation. SETTING: UK. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified: disease processes, the role of ageing, emotion and psychological well-being, incorporating PA into everyday life, social interaction, support and self-monitoring and competing demands. A typology with three types describing long-term PA engagement was generated: (1) maintained PA, (2) intermittent PA, (3) low activity. Findings indicate that identifying an enjoyable activity that is appropriate to an individual's level of physical functioning and is highly valued is key to supporting long-term PA engagement. CONCLUSION: The typology described here can be used to guide stratified and personalised intervention development and support sustained PA engagement by people LWBC.

Patients and informal caregivers' experiences of burden of treatment in lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, characterise and explain common and specific features of the experience of treatment burden in relation to patients living with lung cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and their informal caregivers. DESIGN: Systematic review and interpretative synthesis of primary qualitative studies. Papers were analysed using constant comparison and directed qualitative content analysis. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, Scopus and Web of Science searched from January 2006 to December 2015. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary qualitative studies in English where participants were patients with lung cancer or COPD and/or their informal caregivers, aged >18 years that contain descriptions of experiences of interacting with health or social care in Europe, North America and Australia. RESULTS: We identified 127 articles with 1769 patients and 491 informal caregivers. Patients, informal caregivers and healthcare professionals (HCPs) acknowledged lung cancer's existential threat. Managing treatment workload was a priority in this condition, characterised by a short illness trajectory. Treatment workload was generally well supported by an immediacy of access to healthcare systems and a clear treatment pathway. Conversely, patients, informal caregivers and HCPs typically did not recognise or understand COPD. Treatment workload was balanced with the demands of everyday life throughout a characteristically long illness trajectory. Consequently, treatment workload was complicated by difficulties of access to, and navigation of, healthcare systems, and a fragmented treatment pathway. In both conditions, patients' capacity to manage workload was enhanced by the support of family and friends, peers and HCPs and diminished by illness/smoking-related stigma and social isolation. CONCLUSION: This interpretative synthesis has affirmed significant differences in treatment workload between lung cancer and COPD. It has demonstrated the importance of the capacity patients have to manage their workload in both conditions. This suggests a workload which exceeds capacity may be a primary driver of treatment burden. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016048191.

A web-based intervention (RESTORE) to support self-management of cancer-related fatigue following primary cancer treatment: a multi-centre proof of concept randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a frequent and distressing symptom experienced after cancer treatment. RESTORE is the first web-based resource designed to enhance self-efficacy to manage CRF following curative-intent treatment. The aim of this study is to test the proof of concept and inform the design of an effectiveness trial. METHODS: A multi-centre parallel-group two-armed (1:1) exploratory randomised controlled trial (RCT) with qualitative process evaluation was employed in the study. Participants (≥18 years; ≤5 years post treatment with moderate to severe fatigue) were recruited and randomly assigned to RESTORE or a leaflet. Feasibility and acceptability were measured by recruitment, attrition, intervention adherence, completion of outcome measures and process evaluation. Change in self-efficacy to manage CRF was also explored. Outcome measures were completed at baseline (T0), 6 weeks (T1) and 12 weeks (T2). Data were analysed using mixed-effects linear regression and directed content analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three people participated in the trial and 19 in the process evaluation. The intervention was feasible (39 % of eligible patients consented) and acceptable (attrition rate 36 %). There was evidence of higher fatigue self-efficacy at T1 in the intervention group vs comparator (mean difference 0.51 [-0.08 to 1.11]), though the difference in groups decreased by 12 weeks. Time since diagnosis influenced perceived usefulness of the intervention. Modifications were suggested. CONCLUSION: Proof of concept was achieved. The RESTORE intervention should be subject to a definitive trial with some adjustments. Provision of an effective supportive resource would empower cancer survivors to manage CRF after treatment completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67521059.

RESTORE: an exploratory trial of a web-based intervention to enhance self-management of cancer-related fatigue: findings from a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue is a distressing symptom experienced by many after cancer treatment. An exploratory randomised controlled trial was conducted to test proof of concept of RESTORE: a web-based tool to enhance self-efficacy to manage cancer-related fatigue. This paper reports findings from a qualitative process evaluation to determine feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. METHOD: Qualitative process evaluation carried out at the end of the trial to explore participants' experiences using semi-structured telephone interviews with a purposive sample of participants from both trial arms. Normalisation Process Theory informed data collection and analysis. Analysis involved directed content analysis within a Framework Approach. RESULTS: Nineteen participants took part. They understood the purpose and requirements of the trial and identified beneficial outcomes from taking part. For the majority, the work of the trial was easily accommodated into daily routines and did not require new skills. There were mixed views about the value of the information provided by RESTORE, depending on time since diagnosis and treatment. Personal factors, constraints of the intervention, and environmental context inhibited the integration and embedding of RESTORE into everyday life. Access to the intervention at an early stage in the treatment trajectory was important to effective utilisation, as were individual preferences for delivery of information. CONCLUSION: The theoretical foundations of the intervention were sound. Participants derived benefits from the intervention but barriers to implementation and integration suggest that RESTORE and the trial processes require some modification before testing in a full trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN67521059 (10(th) October 2012).

'You can't say, "what about me?" I'm not the one with cancer': information and support needs of relatives.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to explore relatives' experiences of talking about cancer within the family and to identify their information and support needs. METHOD: A cross-sectional in-depth interview study with relatives and partners (n = 22) of cancer patients recruited through community settings was conducted. A thematic approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Information sharing and communication within families operated within a context of cancer-related uncertainty. Discussion about cancer was generally viewed as beneficial, but relatives faced dilemmas, which inhibited information exchange. Participants often devised strategies to manage the challenges faced to fulfil their needs for information and support. This was deemed important as talking about cancer allowed relatives to support patients' preferences for care, deal with practical demands and come to terms with difficult issues. Lack of information was perceived to affect the quality of care participants could provide. CONCLUSION: Participants did not always want to know everything about the patient's illness, suggesting the importance of tailoring information to individual needs. Offering a range of different kinds of support directly to relatives may improve patient care and emotional well-being.