How do people in prison access palliative care? A scoping review of models of palliative care delivery for people in prison in high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: An ageing prison population with complex health needs combined with punitive sentencing practices means palliative care for incarcerated individuals is increasingly important. However, there is limited evidence regarding the models of care delivery in high-income countries, and their associated challenges and benefits. AIM: To develop a typology of models of palliative care provision for incarcerated individuals, synthesise evidence of their outcomes and describe facilitators of and challenges in delivering different models of palliative and end-of-life care in prisons. DESIGN: Scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley, with narrative synthesis. The protocol was registered prospectively (reviewregistry1260). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Social Sciences Citation Index and grey literature were searched on 15th March 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal. RESULTS: A total of 16,865 records were screened; 22 peer-reviewed articles and 18 grey literature sources met the inclusion criteria. Three models were identified: Embedded Hospice, Outsourcing Care and Community Collaboration. The Embedded Hospice model shows potential benefits for patients and prisons. Outsourcing Care may miss opportunities for comprehensive care. Collaborative Care relies on proactive prison-community relationships that could be formalised for improvement. Psychosocial and bereavement needs of those dying in prison and their caregivers lack sufficient documentation. CONCLUSION: Further research is needed to evaluate prison hospice costs and examine how prison hospices impact compassionate release usage. Beyond the USA, policies might formalise care pathways and recognise best practices. Further investigation to address psychosocial needs of people in prison with life-limiting illnesses and post-death bereavement support is required.

Enhanced supportive care in cancer centres: national cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: 'Early' specialist palliative care (SPC) has been shown to improve outcomes for patients with advanced cancer, yet patients are often referred late. 'Enhanced supportive care' (ESC) aims to facilitate earlier integrated supportive care for those with incurable cancer. This study aimed to explore clinicians' understanding of ESC/SPC delivery through description of current service provision. METHODS: This national cross-sectional survey of 53 cancer centres had two parts. Part 1: Service details, was directed to lead ESC/SPC nurses or consultants about service configuration, and Part 2: Clinician understanding, targeting conceptual understanding of service aims including ESC/SPC teams and oncology consultants (n=262 surveys). Multiple-choice questions explored service provision, referral triggers and evidence of integration with oncology, with free-text responses. Quantitative results were analysed with Fischer's exact test. Qualitative free text was line-by-line coded by two authors independently to derive themes. RESULTS: 56% (30/53) of SPC and ESC teams and 14% (14/100) of oncologists responded. Those involved in ESC self-reported greater integration with oncology compared with non-ESC teams, for example, joint case discussions (64.3%, 9/14 vs 23.1%, 3/13, p=0.05), and timelier patient referral ((>6 months before death vs <6 months) (10/14 vs 4/13, p=0.06)). Qualitative themes described ambiguity in definitions of supportive and palliative terms and a perception of timelier identification of patients when ESC was involved. CONCLUSION: Providers of ESC perceive greater integration with oncology and potentially timelier referral for patients compared with teams not delivering ESC. Terminology around SPC and ESC remains uncertain across England.

Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in specialist palliative care: a qualitative study of barriers and facilitators.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced illness and their family caregivers can be mutually supportive. However, what facilitates and/or restricts supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers in palliative care remains unclear. We aimed to identify key barriers to and facilitators of supportive relationships between people with advanced illness and family caregivers in specialist palliative care. METHODS: A qualitative study using grounded theory methodology was conducted. Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 15 patients with advanced illness and 21 family caregivers purposively and theoretically sampled from a large regional specialist palliative care service. Verbatim transcripts were analysed in line with grounded theory coding procedures. RESULTS: Mutual support was underpinned by mutual concern and understanding. Facilitators of supportive relationships included patients and family caregivers already having a close relationship, caregivers assuming caregiving duties by choice, caregivers feeling competent in a caregiving role, patients valuing caregiver efforts, availability of respite for the caregiver and direct support from healthcare professionals to help both patients and caregivers adjust to advanced illness. Barriers to supportive relationships included absence of support from the wider family, prior mutual conflict between the patient and caregiver, caregivers feeling constrained in their caregiving role and patient and caregiver distress induced by mutual loss. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors at both a micro (eg, relationship based) and mesolevel (eg, assistance from services) impact patient and family caregiver ability to support one another in specialist palliative care. Supportive relationships between patients and family caregivers are mediated by feelings pertaining to both control and loss.

Decision-making in palliative care: patient and family caregiver concordance and discordance-systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and function between patients and family caregivers in palliative care is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To identify key factors and/or processes which underpin concordance and/or discordance between patients and family caregivers with respect to their preferences for and decisions about palliative care; and ascertain how patients and family caregivers manage discordance in decision-making in palliative care. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis of original studies published in full between January 2000 and June 2021 was conducted using the following databases: Embase; Medline; CINAHL; AMED; Web of Science; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES; and Social Sciences Full Text. RESULTS: After full-text review, 39 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies focused primarily on end-of-life care and on patient and family caregiver preferences for patient care. We found that discordance between patients and family caregivers in palliative care can manifest in relational conflict and can result from a lack of awareness of and communication about each other's preferences for care. Patients' advancing illness and impending death together with open dialogue about future care including advance care planning can foster consensus between patients and family caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and family caregivers in palliative care can accommodate each other's preferences for care. Further research is needed to fully understand how patients and family caregivers move towards consensus in the context of advancing illness.

Treatment decision-making among men with lower urinary tract symptoms: A qualitative study of men's experiences with recommendations for patient-centred practice.

AIMS: To inform and guide patient-centred care for men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), by providing in-depth qualitative evidence regarding men's perspectives on treatment decision-making for LUTS. METHODS: An interview study of men recruited from 26 English urology departments. Purposive sampling captured surgical/nonsurgical treatment decisions, and diversity in demographics and symptom burden, in men who had urodynamics and those who did not. After diagnostic assessments, men were interviewed either pre-treatment or after LUTS surgery. Thematic analysis was conducted. Participants' descriptions of how LUTS treatment decisions were made were categorised as patient-led, doctor-led, or shared. RESULTS: A total of 41 men participated (25 pre-treatment, 16 post-surgery), ages 52-89. Twenty out of 41 described the treatment decision as shared with their consultant, 14 as doctor-led, and seven as patient-led. There was no obvious association between treatment decision-making style and patients' satisfaction with either clinicians' role in their decision or their treatment decision. Incomplete or rushed discussions and misperceptions of LUTS and its treatment were reported, indicating a risk of suboptimal decision-making support by clinicians. As well as clinician opinion, men's treatment decision-making was influenced by the results of urological assessments, comparing current symptoms with possible side-effects of surgery, and others' experiences and opinions. CONCLUSIONS: Men with LUTS report and prefer different kinds of decision-making support from their clinicians, who must tailor their input to patients' preferences and needs. Patients' treatment decision-making involves multiple factors and can be challenging, and areas of inadequate clinician support were identified. Recommendations for patient-centred consultations about LUTS treatment are presented.

Urodynamics tests for the diagnosis and management of bladder outlet obstruction in men: the UPSTREAM non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men may indicate bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) or weakness, known as detrusor underactivity (DU). Severe bothersome LUTS are a common indication for surgery. The diagnostic tests may include urodynamics (UDS) to confirm whether BOO or DU is the cause, potentially reducing the number of people receiving (inappropriate) surgery. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to determine whether a care pathway including UDS is no worse for symptom outcome than one in which it is omitted, at 18 months after randomisation. Rates of surgery was the key secondary outcome. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm (unblinded) randomised controlled trial, incorporating a health economic analysis and qualitative research. SETTING: Urology departments of 26 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men (aged ≥ 18 years) seeking further treatment, potentially including surgery, for bothersome LUTS. Exclusion criteria were as follows: unable to pass urine without a catheter, having a relevant neurological disease, currently undergoing treatment for prostate or bladder cancer, previously had prostate surgery, not medically fit for surgery and/or unwilling to be randomised. INTERVENTIONS: Men were randomised to a care pathway based on non-invasive routine tests (control) or routine care plus invasive UDS (intervention arm). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) at 18 months after randomisation and the key secondary outcome was rates of surgery. Additional secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), quality of life, urinary and sexual symptoms, UDS satisfaction, maximum urinary flow rate and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 820 men were randomised (UDS, 427; routine care, 393). Sixty-seven men withdrew before 18 months and 11 died (unrelated to trial procedures). UDS was non-inferior to routine care for IPSS 18 months after randomisation, with a confidence interval (CI) within the margin of 1 point (-0.33, 95% CI -1.47 to 0.80). A lower surgery rate in the UDS arm was not found (38% and 36% for UDS and routine care, respectively), with overall rates lower than expected. AEs were similar between the arms at 43-44%. There were more cases of acute urinary retention in the routine care arm. Patient-reported outcomes for LUTS improved in both arms and satisfaction with UDS was high in men who received it. UDS was more expensive than routine care. From a secondary care perspective, UDS cost an additional £216 over an 18-month time horizon. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were similar, with a QALY difference of 0.006 in favour of UDS over 18 months. It was established that UDS was acceptable to patients, and valued by both patients and clinicians for its perceived additional insight into the cause and probable best treatment of LUTS. LIMITATIONS: The trial met its predefined recruitment target, but surgery rates were lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of UDS in the diagnostic tests results in a symptom outcome that is non-inferior to a routine care pathway, but does not affect surgical rates for treating BOO. Results do not support the routine use of UDS in men undergoing investigation of LUTS. FUTURE WORK: Focus should be placed on indications for selective utilisation of UDS in individual cases and long-term outcomes of diagnosis and therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN56164274. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 42. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

After hospital referral, men with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) are assessed with standard tests. These include measurement of urine flow rate, bladder diaries and questionnaires, including the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). UPSTREAM (Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery Trial; Randomised Evaluation of Assessment Methods) researched whether or not including an extra test, urodynamics (UDS), helps when considering treatment options. UDS is a more invasive test and measures pressure in the bladder to check whether or not the prostate is causing obstruction. It was presumed that, if there is no obstruction, surgery would not be offered, so that using UDS would reduce the number of prostate operations. Each man participating (820 in total) was assessed with the standard tests. Around half of them had no extra tests (the 'routine care' arm of the trial); the rest had the UDS tests (the 'UDS' arm). Men then went on to have treatment, which they chose having discussed their test results with a urologist. IPSS and other symptom scores were examined for each man 18 months after joining the trial. At 18 months, surgery outcomes were known for 792 men and IPSS was known for 669 men. We investigated if the two trial arms showed similar changes in the IPSS and if there were fewer operations done in the UDS arm. We identified similar reductions in the IPSS in both arms. However, UDS tests did not reduce the number of operations. Analysing all the costs, it was found that a pathway including UDS costs more than routine care. Interviews were conducted that showed that men found UDS acceptable, and that the additional information helped both the men and their doctors consider which treatment would be most appropriate. These results do not support the routine use of UDS in the assessment of every man considering prostate surgery for LUTS. Further exploration of the data may identify circumstances in which UDS could be helpful.

Bereavement Support on the Frontline of COVID-19: Recommendations for Hospital Clinicians.

Deaths due to COVID-19 are associated with risk factors which can lead to prolonged grief disorder, post-traumatic stress, and other poor bereavement outcomes among relatives, as well as moral injury and distress in frontline staff. Here we review relevant research evidence and provide evidence-based recommendations and resources for hospital clinicians to mitigate poor bereavement outcomes and support staff. For relatives, bereavement risk factors include dying in an intensive care unit, severe breathlessness, patient isolation or restricted access, significant patient and family emotional distress, and disruption to relatives' social support networks. Recommendations include advance care planning; proactive, sensitive, and regular communication with family members alongside accurate information provision; enabling family members to say goodbye in person where possible; supporting virtual communication; providing excellent symptom management and emotional and spiritual support; and providing and/or sign-posting to bereavement services. To mitigate effects of this emotionally challenging work on staff, we recommend an organizational and systemic approach which includes access to informal and professional support.

Invisible and intangible illness: a qualitative interview study of patients' experiences and understandings of conservatively managed end-stage kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of older adults are living with kidney disease. For those with comorbidities, conservative management of end-stage kidney disease is a viable option: dialysis may afford limited or no survival benefit, and perceived burdens may outweigh benefits. Conservative management focuses on: maintaining remaining kidney function; symptom management; and quality of life. Common symptoms in conservatively managed kidney disease include: fatigue; anorexia; nausea and vomiting; pain and pruritis. Chronic disease is associated with biographical disruption and a loss of sense of self. Coping strategies are shaped by illness perceptions, but little is known of illness perceptions of people living with conservatively managed kidney disease. This study aimed to explore the experience, impact and understanding of conservatively managed end-stage kidney disease among older adults. METHODS: Secondary analysis of qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. Twenty people with conservatively managed end-stage kidney disease were recruited from 3 UK renal units: median age was 82 (range, 69-95); 9 women, 11 men. RESULTS: Participants described the invisibility and intangibility of kidney disease, and challenges in attributing symptoms to the disease. They described a spectre-like presence, sapping their energy and holding them down. For some, it was hard to differentiate symptoms of the illness from characteristics of aging, resulting in challenges in illness attribution, and disconnectedness from the illness. CONCLUSIONS: Participants described challenges in attributing their symptoms to kidney disease which negatively impacted upon their wellbeing, and ability to accept an adjusted sense of self. Understanding these challenges is critical in the management conditions such as end-stage kidney disease where prognosis may be poor, and where an increase in symptom distress may suggest a marked deterioration in their condition, or a change in phase of illness. Clinical services need to recognize the illness experience (alongside more symptom led approaches), including the invisibility, intangibility, and disconnectedness, and address this through specific interventions focused on improving clinical assessment, communication and education, alongside peer and professional support.

Recommendations for conducting invasive urodynamics for men with lower urinary tract symptoms: Qualitative interview findings from a large randomized controlled trial (UPSTREAM).

AIMS: To capture in-depth qualitative evidence regarding attitudes to and experiences of urodynamic testing among men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) at each end of the clinical pathway. METHODS: Semi-structured interview study conducted within the Urodynamics for Prostate Surgery: Randomized Evaluation of Assessment Methods (UPSTREAM) trial, which randomized men to a care pathway including urodynamics or routine non-invasive tests from 26 secondary care urology sites across England. Men were interviewed after assessments but prior to treatment, or after surgery for LUTS. Men were purposively sampled to include those who had urodynamics and those who did not, and diversity in demographic characteristics and symptom burden. Interviews were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Forty-one men participated (25 pre-treatment, 16 post-surgery), ages 52-89. The 16 men who had not previously experienced urodynamics said they would accept the test in their assessment, but some were apprehensive or wanted more information. The 25 men who had experienced urodynamics all found it acceptable, though some reported pain, infection, or embarrassment. Embarrassment was minimized by informing patients what the procedure would be like, and ensuring privacy. Urodynamics was valued for its perceived diagnostic insight. Information deficits were reported before, during, and after the test. How and when results were explained and the adequacy of explanations varied. CONCLUSIONS: Urodynamics is acceptable to men with LUTS and generally well-tolerated. To ensure patients are prepared and informed, good communication before and during the procedure is essential. Privacy should be prioritized, and test results discussed promptly and in sufficient detail. Staff require training and guidance in these areas.

Self-report measurement of pain & symptoms in palliative care patients: a comparison of verbal, visual and hand scoring methods in Sub-Saharan Africa.

BACKGROUND: Despite a high incidence of life-limiting disease, there is a deficit of palliative care outcome evidence in sub-Saharan Africa. Providers of end of life care call for appropriate measurement tools. The objective is to compare four approaches to self-report pain and symptom measurement among African palliative care patients completing the African Palliative Care Association African Palliative Outcome Scale (APCA African POS). METHODS: Patients were recruited from five services (4 in South Africa and 1 in Uganda). Research nurses cross-sectionally administered POS pain and symptom items in local languages. Both questions were scored from 0 to 5 using 4 methods: verbal rating, demonstrating the score using the hand (H), selecting a face on a visual scale (F), and indicating a point on the Jerrycan visual scale (J). H, F and J scores were correlated with verbal scores as reference using Spearman's rank and weighted Kappa. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed. RESULTS: 315 patients participated (mean age 43.5 years, 69.8% female), 71.1% were HIV positive and 35.6% had cancer, 49.2% lived in rural areas. Spearman's rank correlations for pain scores were: H: 0.879, F: 0.823, J: 0.728 (all p < 0.001); for symptoms H: 0.876, F: 0.808, J: 0.721 (all p < 0.001). Weighted Kappa for pain was H: 0.798, F: 0.719 J: 0.548 and for symptoms: H: 0.818, F: 0.718, J: 0.571. There was lower agreement between verbal and both hand and face scoring methods in the Ugandan sample. Compared to the verbal scale the accuracy of predicting high pain/symptoms was H > F > J (0.96-0.89) in ROC analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Hands and faces scoring methods correlate highly with verbal scoring. The Jerrycan method had only moderate weighted Kappa. POS scores can be reliably measured using hand or face score.

Quality of life among patients receiving palliative care in South Africa and Uganda: a multi-centred study.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) is a core outcome of palliative care, yet in African settings there is a lack of evidence on patients' levels of QOL. We aimed to describe QOL among patients with incurable, progressive disease receiving palliative care in South Africa and Uganda, to compare QOL in cancer and HIV, to determine how domains of QOL correlate with overall QOL, and compare levels of QOL in this population with those in other studies using the same tool. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the Missoula Vitas Quality of Life Index (MVQOLI), a 26-item QOL questionnaire with five subscales (Function, Symptom, Interpersonal, Well being, Transcendent) covering physical, social, psychological and spiritual domains and one global QOL item. One item in each subscale assesses the subjective importance of the domain on a score from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important), used to weight the contribution of the subscale towards the Total QOL score. The tool was translated into 6 languages and administered to consecutively recruited patients at four facilities in South Africa and one in Uganda. RESULTS: 285 patients were recruited, with a mean age of 40.1; 197 (69.1%) were female. Patients' primary diagnoses were HIV (80.7%), cancer (17.9%) and other conditions (1.4%). The mean global QOL score was 2.81 (possible range 0 (worst) to 5 (best)); mean Total score 17.32 (possible range 0 to 30). Patients scored most poorly on Function (mean 0.21), followed by Well being (2.59), Symptoms (5.38), Transcendent (5.50), Interpersonal (9.53) (possible range for subscale scores -30 to 30). Most important to patients were: close relationships (mean 4.13), feeling at peace (4.12), sense of meaning in life (4.10), being active (3.84), physical comfort (2.58). Cancer patients were predominantly recruited at three of the sites; hence comparison with HIV-infected patients was restricted to these sites. HIV+ patients (n = 115) scored significantly worse than cancer patients (n = 50) on Well being (Z = -2.778, p = 0.005), Transcendence (Z = -2.693, p = 0.007) and Total QOL (Z = -2.564, p = 0.01). Global QOL score was most weakly correlated with Total QOL (r = 0.37) and the Transcendent subscale was most highly correlated (r = 0.77) (both p < 0.001). Patients receiving palliative care in South Africa and Uganda exhibited significantly poorer QOL compared to similar populations in the USA. CONCLUSIONS: Feeling at peace and having a sense of meaning in life were more important to patients than being active or physical comfort, and spiritual wellbeing correlated most highly with overall QOL. It is therefore vital to identify and meet the psychological and spiritual care needs of patients, as well as to assess and treat pain and other symptoms. Our finding that patients scored most poorly on the Function domain warrants further research.