Updating a conceptual model of effective symptom management in palliative care to include patient and carer perspective: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: A conceptual model of effective symptom management was previously developed from interviews with multidisciplinary healthcare professionals (HCP) working in English hospices. Here we aimed to answer the question; does a HCP data-derived model represent the experience of patients and carers of people with advanced cancer? METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with six patients with advanced cancer and six carers to gain an in-depth understanding of their experience of symptom management. Analysis was based on the framework method; transcription, familiarisation, coding, applying analytical framework (conceptual model), charting, interpretation. Inductive framework analysis was used to align data with themes in the existing model. A deductive approach was also used to identify new themes. RESULTS: The experience of patients and carers aligned with key steps of engagement, decision making, partnership and delivery in the HCP-based model. The data aligned with 18 of 23 themes. These were; Role definition and boundaries, Multidisciplinary team decision making, Availability of services/staff, Clinician-Patient relationship/rapport, Patient preferences, Patient characteristics, Quality of life versus treatment need, Staff time/burden, Psychological support -informal, Appropriate understanding, expectations, acceptance and goals- patients, Appropriate understanding, expectations, acceptance and goals-HCPs, Appropriate understanding, expectations, acceptance and goals- family friends, carers, Professional, service and referral factors, Continuity of care, Multidisciplinary team working, Palliative care philosophy and culture, Physical environment and facilities, Referral process and delays. Four additional patient and carer-derived themes were identified: Carer Burden, Communication, Medicines management and COVID-19. Constructs that did not align were Experience (of staff), Training (of staff), Guidelines and evidence, Psychological support (for staff) and Formal psychological support (for patients). CONCLUSIONS: A healthcare professional-based conceptual model of effective symptom management aligned well with the experience of patients with advanced cancer and their carers. Additional domains were identified. We make four recommendations for change arising from this research. Routine appraisal and acknowledgement of carer burden, medicine management tasks and previous experience in healthcare roles; improved access to communication skills training for staff and review of patient communication needs. Further research should explore the symptom management experience of those living alone and how these people can be better supported.

Narrative review: what constitutes contemporary, high-quality end-of-life care and can lessons be learned from medieval history?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In modern Britain, palliative and end-of-life care is governed by quality standards and guidance, which should consider spiritual and psychological needs. However, there are significant gaps in provision of services which was highlighted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic where many individuals and families suffered profound spiritual and existential distress. Significant gaps remain in the provision of services to support patients with spiritual and psychological needs which can affect the management of physical symptoms. During the medieval period in Western Europe, it was important to prepare well for death throughout life. It has been suggested that lessons may be learned from medieval preparations for death which might benefit those approaching end-of-life in contemporary society. It is therefore timely to consider medieval attitudes to death and reflect on how these might inform modern end-of-life care. The objective of this review is to synthesise literature addressing modern end-of-life care in the UK and contrast this with literature on preparations for death during the medieval period in Western Europe. Our aim is to determine whether there is wisdom to be gained from history which could inform our approaches to end-of-life care today. METHODS: Using online databases and broad keyword searches along with experts in the field of medieval history, we identified literature and translations of texts with a focus on preparations for death during both periods. These were narratively synthesised and discussed. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: A key finding is that the medieval attitude to death was as an integral part of life, whereas in modern society death is not usually considered until the situation arises. The review highlights a need for a better understanding of the individuality of spiritual and existential needs during end-of-life care in modern society, which will vary according to individual choice, culture, societal group, religion, and belief. CONCLUSIONS: The lessons we can learn from our medieval counterparts include the need for lifelong and individual preparations for the end of life, with emphasis on spiritual needs. Alongside palliative interventions, we need to take time to appreciate what gives individuals spiritual support and provide the resources to facilitate this.

Staff well-being in UK children's hospices: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: Poor psychological well-being among healthcare workers can have numerous negative impacts, but evidence about levels of burnout in children's hospice care staff is limited. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of burnout and to explore the association between staff characteristics and support mechanisms with burnout among children's hospice care staff in the UK. METHODS: Two national online surveys collecting data on hospice care staff psychological well-being and hospice organisational characteristics. All children's hospices in the UK were invited.Thirty-one hospices (out of 52) responded to the hospice survey and 583 staff responded to the staff survey. Data collection took place between May and December 2020 and measures included the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory, Work Engagement and the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool. RESULTS: Burnout prevalence was 11% and mean burnout score was 32.5 (SD: 13.1). Burnout levels were independent of working arrangements (eg, working from home or at the hospice) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices performed well in most management standards, but poorly on the 'Control' domain. The average Work Engagement score for staff was 7.5 (SD: 1.5). CONCLUSIONS: Burnout levels for staff in children's hospices in the UK were lower than in other healthcare settings, with this comparing to 17.3% among palliative care staff generally. Overall, hospices performed well in management standards and there was no indication of urgent action needed. Work Engagement in our sample was higher compared with other National Health Service workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Acceptability of aspirin for cancer preventive therapy: a survey and qualitative study exploring the views of the UK general population.

OBJECTIVES: Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants' acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework. SETTING: Online survey and remote interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50-70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents. RESULTS: In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

Supporting Pain Self-Management in Patients With Cancer: App Development Based on a Theoretical and Evidence-Driven Approach.

BACKGROUND: To inform the development of an intervention, it is essential to have a well-developed theoretical understanding of how an intervention causes change, as stated in the UK Medical Research Council guidelines for developing complex interventions. Theoretical foundations are often ignored in the development of mobile health apps intended to support pain self-management for patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically set a theory- and evidence-driven design for a pain self-management app and specify the app's active features. METHODS: The Behavior Change Wheel (BCW) framework, a step-by-step theoretical approach to the development of interventions, was adopted to achieve the aim of this study. This started by understanding and identifying sources of behavior that could be targeted to support better pain management. Ultimately, the application of the BCW framework guided the identification of the active contents of the app, which were characterized using the Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy version 1. RESULTS: The theoretical analysis revealed that patients may have deficits in their capability, opportunity, and motivation that prevent them from performing pain self-management. The app needs to use education, persuasion, training, and enablement intervention functions because, based on the analysis, they were found the most likely to address the specified factors. Eighteen behavior change techniques were selected to describe precisely how the intervention functions can be presented to induce the desired change regarding the intervention context. In other words, they were selected to form the active contents of the app, potentially reducing barriers and serving to support patients in the self-management of pain while using the app. CONCLUSIONS: This study fully reports the design and development of a pain self-management app underpinned by theory and evidence and intended for patients with cancer. It provides a model example of the BCW framework application for health app development. The work presented in this study is the first systematic theory- and evidence-driven design for a pain app for patients with cancer. This systematic approach can support clarity in evaluating the intervention's underlying mechanisms and support future replication.

Non-pharmacological interventions to manage psychological distress in patients living with cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is common in patients with cancer; interfering with physical and psychological wellbeing, and hindering management of physical symptoms. Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related psychological distress, at all stages of the disease. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311729). Searches were made using eight online databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on outcome measures, modes of delivery, resources and evidence of efficacy. A meta-analysis was planned if data allowed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies with 17,628 participants were included. One third of studies included mindfulness, talking or group therapies. Half of all studies reported statistically significant improvements in distress. Statistically significant intervention effects on distress were most prevalent for mindfulness techniques. Four of these mindfulness studies had moderate effect sizes (d = -0.71[95% CI: -1.04, -0.37] p < 0.001) (d = -0.60 [95% CI: -3.44, -0.89] p < 0.001) (d = -0.77 [CI: -0.146, -1.954] p < 0.01) (d = -0.69 [CI: -0.18, -1.19] p = 0.008) and one had a large effect size (d = -1.03 [95% CI: -1.51, -0.54] p < 0.001). Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was variable and some had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies using a mindfulness intervention in this review are efficacious at alleviating distress. Mindfulness-including brief, self-administered interventions-merits further investigation, using adequately powered, high-quality studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022311729.

Characteristics of good home-based end-of-life care: analysis of 5-year data from a nationwide mortality follow-back survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been an emphasis on providing good-quality end-of-life care; however, little is known about it and its determinants for patients living at home. AIM: To determine what characterises good-quality end-of-life care for patients living at home. DESIGN AND SETTING: An observational study using 5-year data from the National Survey of Bereaved People (Views of Informal Carers - Evaluation of Services [VOICES]) in England. METHOD: Analysis was based on data for 63 598 decedents, who were cared for at home in the last 3 months of life. Data were drawn from 110 311 completed mortality follow-back surveys of a stratified sample of 246 763 deaths registered in England between 2011 and 2015. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent variables associated with overall quality of end-of-life care and other indicators of end-of-life care quality. RESULTS: Patients who received good continuity of primary care (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.01 to 2.06) and palliative care support (AOR 1.86; 95% CI = 1.84 to 1.89) experienced better overall quality of end-of-life care than those who did not, as perceived by relatives. Decedents who died from cancer (AOR 1.05; 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.06) or outside of hospital were more likely to receive good end-of-life care, as perceived by relatives. Being older, female (AOR 1.16; 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.17), from areas with least socioeconomic deprivation, and White (AOR 1.09; 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.12) were associated with better overall end-of-life care, as perceived by relatives. CONCLUSION: Better quality of end-of-life care was associated with good continuity of primary care, specialist palliative care support, and death outside of hospital. Disparities still exist for those from minority ethnic groups and those living in areas of socioeconomic deprivation. Future commissioning and initiatives must consider these variables to provide a more-equitable service.

GPs' willingness to prescribe aspirin for cancer preventive therapy in Lynch syndrome: a factorial randomised trial investigating factors influencing decisions.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2020 guidelines recommends aspirin for colorectal cancer prevention for people with Lynch syndrome. Strategies to change practice should be informed by understanding the factors influencing prescribing. AIM: To investigate the optimal type and level of information to communicate with GPs to increase willingness to prescribe aspirin. DESIGN AND SETTING: GPs in England and Wales (n = 672) were recruited to participate in an online survey with a 23 factorial design. GPs were randomised to one of eight vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with Lynch syndrome recommended to take aspirin by a clinical geneticist. METHOD: Across the vignettes, the presence or absence of three types of information was manipulated: 1) existence of NICE guidance; 2) results from the CAPP2 trial; 3) information comparing risks/benefits of aspirin. The main effects and all interactions on the primary (willingness to prescribe) and secondary outcomes (comfort discussing aspirin) were estimated. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant main effects or interactions of the three information components on willingness to prescribe aspirin or comfort discussing harms and benefits. In total, 80.4% (540/672) of GPs were willing to prescribe, with 19.7% (132/672) unwilling. GPs with prior awareness of aspirin for preventive therapy were more comfortable discussing the medication than those unaware (P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: It is unlikely that providing information on clinical guidance, trial results, and information comparing benefits and harms will increase aspirin prescribing for Lynch syndrome in primary care. Alternative multilevel strategies to support informed prescribing may be warranted.

Barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy: a qualitative study exploring the views and experiences of people with Lynch syndrome and healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NG151) recommends considering daily aspirin for people with Lynch syndrome to reduce colorectal cancer risk. However, deciding whether to initiate aspirin could be a complex decision for patients and their healthcare providers, as both the potential benefits and harms need to be considered. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy. We recruited 15 people with Lynch syndrome, and 23 healthcare providers across multiple professions in primary, and specialist care (e.g. clinical genetics) in the United Kingdom. Interview schedules were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: There were three themes: 1) Considering potential harms and benefits; 2) Healthcare pathway; 3) Patients' level of interest in aspirin. All healthcare providers, across primary and specialist care, viewed general practitioners (GPs) as being responsible for prescribing and overseeing the use of aspirin. However, GPs were unfamiliar with aspirin for preventive therapy, and concerned about prescribing at higher doses (300-600 mg). To support decision-making, GPs wanted clarification from specialist clinicians on the evidence and dose to prescribe. Not all participants with Lynch syndrome received information on aspirin from their healthcare provider, and several were unsure who to discuss aspirin with. GPs were more inclined to prescribe aspirin for patients with expressed preferences for the medication, however several patients were uncertain and wanted further guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated and multilevel strategies are needed, addressing the needs of both GPs and people with Lynch syndrome, to ensure consistent implementation of national guidance on aspirin for preventive therapy.

Aspirin use for cancer prevention: A systematic review of public, patient and healthcare provider attitudes and adherence behaviours.

We undertook a systematic review to synthesise the data on attitudes and behaviour towards the use of aspirin for cancer prevention, and healthcare providers' attitudes towards implementing aspirin in practice. Searches were carried out across 12 databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate study quality, and conducted a narrative synthesis of the data. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42018093453). Thirty-eight studies were identified. Uptake and adherence data were all from trials. Trials recruited healthy participants, those at higher risk of cancer, and those with cancer. Four studies reported moderate to high (40.9-77.7%) uptake to an aspirin trial among people who were eligible. Most trials (18/22) reported high day-to-day adherence (≥80%). Three trials observed no association between gender and adherence. One trial found no association between adherence and colorectal cancer risk. Three studies reported moderate to high (43.6-76.0%) hypothetical willingness to use aspirin. Two studies found that a high proportion of healthcare providers (72.0-76.0%) perceived aspirin to be a suitable cancer prevention option. No qualitative studies were identified. The likelihood that eligible users of aspirin would participate in a trial evaluating the use of aspirin for preventive therapy was moderate to high. Among participants in a trial, day-to-day adherence was high. Further research is needed to identify uptake and adherence rates in routine care, the factors affecting aspirin use, and the barriers to implementing aspirin into clinical care.

Breast cancer worry in higher-risk women offered preventive therapy: a UK multicentre prospective study.

PURPOSE: Women's worry about developing breast cancer may influence their decision to use preventive therapy. However, the direction of this relationship has been questioned. We prospectively investigated the relationship between breast cancer worry and uptake of preventive therapy. The socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with high breast cancer worry were also investigated. METHODS: Women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited from clinics across England (n = 408). Participants completed a survey on their breast cancer worry, socio-demographic and clinical factors. Uptake of tamoxifen was recorded at 3 months (n = 258 women, 63.2%). Both primary and sensitivity analyses were conducted using different classifications of low, medium and high worry. RESULTS: 39.5% of respondents reported medium breast cancer worry at baseline and 21.2% reported high worry. Ethnic minority women were more likely to report high worry than white women (OR = 3.02, 95%CI 1.02, 8.91, p = 0.046). Women educated below degree level were more likely to report high worry than those with higher education (OR = 2.29, 95%CI 1.28, 4.09, p = 0.005). No statistically significant association was observed between worry and uptake. In the primary analysis, fewer respondents with medium worry at baseline initiated tamoxifen (low worry = 15.5%, medium = 13.5%, high = 15.7%). In the sensitivity analysis, participants with medium worry reported the highest uptake of tamoxifen (19.7%). CONCLUSIONS: No association was observed between worry and uptake, although the relationship was affected by the categorisation of worry. Standardised reporting of the classification of worry is warranted to allow transparent comparisons across cohorts.

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

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

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

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

Pharmacist educational interventions for cancer pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Educational interventions by pharmacists for patients with cancer pain aim to improve pain management, but little is known about the different components of interventions and their effectiveness. Our aim was to assess the benefit of pharmacist delivered educational interventions for patients with cancer pain. A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental trials testing pharmacist delivered educational interventions for cancer pain was carried out to identify the components of interventions and effectiveness at improving pain-related outcomes for patients with cancer. A literature review was conducted in EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, Web of Science and CENTRAL from inception until January 2018 searching for educational interventions involving a pharmacist for patients with cancer pain. Four studies were included involving 944 patients. Meta-analysis was carried out where possible. KEY FINDINGS: Meta-analysis of three of the four studies found that mean pain intensity in the intervention group was reduced by 0.76 on a 0-10 scale (95% confidence interval), although only two of the studies used validated measures of pain. Improvements in knowledge, side effects and patient satisfaction were seen although with less reliable measures. SUMMARY: Pharmacist educational interventions for patients with cancer pain have been found to show promise in reducing pain intensity. Studies were few and of varying quality. Further, good quality studies should be carried out in this area and these should be comprehensively reported. Trials measuring patient self-efficacy and patient satisfaction are needed before the impact of the pharmacist delivered interventions on these outcomes can be established.

PROMs for Pain in Adult Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties.

CONTEXT: Pain is one of the most devastating symptoms for cancer patients. One third of patients who experience pain do not receive effective treatment. A key barrier to effective pain management is lack of routine measurement and monitoring of pain. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended for measuring cancer pain. However, evidence to guide the selection of the most appropriate measure to identify and monitor cancer pain is limited. A systematic review of measurement properties of PROMs for pain in cancer patients is needed to identify the best validated measure for adoption to an electronic platform. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review measurement properties of PROMs used for adult cancer patients to measure pain and, as a secondary goal, to investigate the evidence of validated mobile health (mHealth) applications used to measure pain (registration number: CRD42017065575). METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were systematically searched in March 2018 for studies examining measurement properties for PROMs for pain in adult cancer patients. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively. RESULTS: Sixteen studies evaluating 8 instruments were included. No studies using a PROM in an mHealth application were identified. The methodological quality of the measurement properties ranged between poor and fair. No instrument showed strong positive evidence for all the evaluated measurement properties. Based on the available evidence, the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) had the strongest evidence to support its selection for the measurement of cancer pain. CONCLUSION: The BPI-SF was the best performing measure across all properties evaluated through COSMIN. Better quality validation studies of PROMs for cancer pain are needed to explore the full range of measurement properties. Utilizing mHealth applications to measure pain in cancer patients is an innovative approach worthy of further investigation.

Primary palliative care team perspectives on coordinating and managing people with advanced cancer in the community: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Primary health care teams are key to the delivery of care for patients with advanced cancer during the last year of life. The Gold Standards Framework is proposed as a mechanism for coordinating and guiding identification, assessment, and support. There are still considerable variations in practice despite its introduction. The aim of this qualitative study is to improve understanding of variations in practice through exploring the perspectives and experiences of members of primary health care teams involved in the care of patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and non-participatory observations involving 67 members of primary health care teams providing palliative care. Data were analysed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified distinct differences in the drivers and barriers of community advanced cancer care coordination, which relate to identification and management, and access to effective pain management, and go some way to understanding variations in practice. These include proactive identification processes, time and resource pressures, unclear roles and responsibilities, poor multidisciplinary working, and inflexible models for referral and prescribing. These provide valuable insight into how professionals work together and independently within an infrastructure that can both support and hinder the provision of effective community palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst the GSF is a guide for good practice, alone it is not a mechanism for change. Rather it provides a framework for describing quality of practice that was already occurring. Consequently, there will continue to be variations in practice.

Access to hospital and community palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: A longitudinal population analysis.

BACKGROUND: The UK National Health Service is striving to improve access to palliative care for patients with advanced cancer however limited information exists on the level of palliative care support currently provided in the UK. We aimed to establish the duration and intensity of palliative care received by patients with advanced cancer and identify which cancer patients are missing out. METHODS: Retrospective cancer registry, primary care and secondary care data were obtained and linked for 2474 patients who died of cancer between 2010 and 2012 within a large metropolitan UK city. Associations between the type, duration, and amount of palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received were assessed using Chi-squared, Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multinomial multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the odds of receiving community and/or hospital palliative care compared to no palliative care by demographic characteristics, cancer type, and therapies received. RESULTS: Overall 64.6% of patients received palliative care. The average palliative care input was two contacts over six weeks. Community palliative care was associated with more palliative care events (p<0.001) for a longer duration (p<0.001). Patients were less likely to receive palliative care if they were: male (p = 0.002), aged 80 years or over (p<0.05), diagnosed with lung cancer (p<0.05), had not received an opioid prescription (p<0.001), or had not received chemotherapy (p<0.001). Patients given radiotherapy were more likely to receive community only palliative care compared to no palliative care (Odds Ratio = 1.49, 95% Confidence Interval = 1.16-1.90). CONCLUSION: Timely supportive care for cancer patients is advocated but these results suggest that older patients and those who do not receive anti-cancer treatment or opioid analgesics miss out. These patients should be targeted for assessment to identify unmet needs which could benefit from palliative care input.

Older age is associated with less cancer treatment: a longitudinal study of English cancer patients.

Background: making informed decisions about cancer care provision for older cancer patients can be challenging and complex. Evidence suggests cancer care varies by age, however the relationship between age and care experiences from diagnosis to death for cancer patients within the UK has not previously been examined in detail. Patients and methods: retrospective cohort linking cancer registry and secondary care data for 13,499 adult cancer patients who died between January 2005 and December 2011. Cancer therapies (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery), hospital palliative care referrals, hospital admissions and place of death were compared between age groups using multivariable regression models. Trends in cancer care over time, overall and within age groups were also assessed. Results: compared with adult patients under 60 years, patients aged 80 years and over were less likely to receive chemotherapy, radiotherapy, a hospital palliative care referral; or be admitted to hospital but were more likely to die in a care home. Overall, the percentage of patients receiving chemotherapy, surgery, hospital palliative care referrals and hospital admissions have increased while deaths in hospital have decreased. Deaths at home have increased for patients aged 80 years and over. Conclusion: older patients are less likely to receive cancer therapies or hospital palliative care before death. Further research is needed to identify the extent to which these results reflect unmet need.

Duration and determinants of hospice-based specialist palliative care: A national retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding service provision for patients with advanced disease is a research priority, with a need to identify barriers that limit widespread integration of palliative care. AIM: To identify patient and organisational factors that influence the duration of hospice-based palliative care in the United Kingdom prior to death. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 64 UK hospices providing specialist palliative care inpatient beds and community services extracted data for all adult decedents (aged over 17 years) with progressive, advanced disease, with a prior referral (e.g. inpatient, community teams, and outpatient) who died between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2015. Data were requested for factors relating to both the patient and hospice site. RESULTS: Across 42,758 decedents, the median time from referral to death was 48 days. Significant differences in referral to death days were found for those with cancer (53 days) and non-cancer (27 days) ( p < 0.0001). As age increases, the median days from referral to death decreases: for those under 50 years (78 days), 50-74 years (59 days), and 75 years and over (39 days) ( p = 0.0001). An adjusted multivariable negative binomial model demonstrated increasing age persisting as a significant predictor of fewer days of hospice care, as did being male, having a missing ethnicity classification and having a non-cancer diagnosis ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite increasing rhetoric around early referral, patients with advanced disease are receiving referrals to hospice specialist palliative care very late in their illness trajectory. Age and diagnosis persist as determinants of duration of hospice specialist palliative care before death.

Developing a complex intervention to support timely engagement with palliative care for patients with advanced cancer in primary and secondary care in the UK: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with advanced cancer, timely access to palliative care can improve quality of life and enable patients to participate in decisions about their end-of-life care. However, in a UK population of 2500 patients who died from cancer, one-third did not receive specialist palliative care, and of those who did, the duration of involvement was too short to maximise the benefits. Initiating a conversation about palliative care is challenging for some health professionals and patients often have unmet information needs and misconceptions about palliative care. We will work closely with patients and health professionals to develop a patient decision aid and health professional training module designed to facilitate a timely and informed conversation about palliative care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is being conducted over 24 months from November 2017 to October 2019 and follows the UK Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions and the International Patient Decision Aids Guideline. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework underpins the study. The Supporting Timely Engagement with Palliative care (STEP) intervention will be developed though an iterative process informed by interviews and focus groups with patients with advanced cancer, oncologists, general practitioners and palliative care doctors. An expert panel will also review each iteration. The expert panel will consist of a patient representative with experience of palliative care, health professionals who are involved in advanced cancer care decision-making, a medical education expert and the National Council for Palliative Care director of transformation. The feasibility and acceptability of the decision aid and doctor training will be tested in oncology and general practice settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (ORECNI), approval reference 17/NI/0249. Dissemination and knowledge transfer will be conducted via publications, national bodies and networks, and patient and family groups.