Integration of primary care and palliative care services to improve equality and equity at the end-of-life: Findings from realist stakeholder workshops.

BACKGROUND: Inequalities in access to palliative and end of life care are longstanding. Integration of primary and palliative care has the potential to improve equity in the community. Evidence to inform integration is scarce as research that considers integration of primary care and palliative care services is rare. AIM: To address the questions: 'how can inequalities in access to community palliative and end of life care be improved through the integration of primary and palliative care, and what are the benefits?' DESIGN: A theory-driven realist inquiry with two stakeholder workshops to explore how, when and why inequalities can be improved through integration. Realist analysis leading to explanatory context(c)-mechanism(m)-outcome(o) configurations(c) (CMOCs). FINDINGS: A total of 27 participants attended online workshops (July and September 2022): patient and public members (n = 6), commissioners (n = 2), primary care (n = 5) and specialist palliative care professionals (n = 14). Most were White British (n = 22), other ethnicities were Asian (n = 3), Black African (n = 1) and British mixed race (n = 1). Power imbalances and racism hinder people from ethnic minority backgrounds accessing current services. Shared commitment to addressing these across palliative care and primary care is required in integrated partnerships. Partnership functioning depends on trusted relationships and effective communication, enabled by co-location and record sharing. Positive patient experiences provide affirmation for the multi-disciplinary team, grow confidence and drive improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Integration to address inequalities needs recognition of current barriers. Integration grounded in trust, faith and confidence can lead to a cycle of positive patient, carer and professional experience. Prioritising inequalities as whole system concern is required for future service delivery and research.

Symptom burden, service use and care dissatisfaction among older adults with cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, dementia and neurological disease during the last 3 months before death: A pooled analysis of mortality follow-back surveys.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the provision of care and outcomes in the last months of life by cancer and non-cancer conditions is poorly understood. AIMS: (1) To describe patient conditions, symptom burden, practical problems, service use and dissatisfaction with end-of-life care for older adults based on the cause of death. (2) To explore factors related to these variables focussing on the causes of death. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of pooled data using cross-sectional mortality follow-back surveys from three studies: QUALYCARE; OPTCare Elderly; and International Access, Right, and Empowerment 1. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data reported by bereaved relatives of people aged ⩾75 years who died of cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, dementia or neurological disease. RESULTS: The pooled dataset contained 885 responses. Overall, service use and circumstances surrounding death differed significantly across causes of death. Bereaved relatives reported symptom severity from moderate to overwhelming in over 30% of cases for all causes of death. Across all causes of death, 28%-38% of bereaved relatives reported some level of dissatisfaction with care. Patients with cardiovascular disease and dementia experienced lower symptom burden and dissatisfaction than those with cancer. The absence of a reliable key health professional was consistently associated with higher symptom burden (p = 0.002), practical problems (p = 0.001) and dissatisfaction with care (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We showed different trajectories towards death depending on cause. Improving symptom burden and satisfaction in patients at the end-of-life is challenging, and the presence of a reliable key health professional may be helpful.

Co-design of the EMBED-Care Framework as an intervention to enhance shared decision-making for people affected by dementia and practitioners, comprising holistic assessment, linked with clinical decision support tools: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making intends to align care provision with individuals' preferences. However, the involvement of people living with dementia in decision-making about their care varies. We aimed to co-design the EMBED-Care Framework, to enhance shared decision-making between people affected by dementia and practitioners. METHODS: A theory and evidence driven co-design study was conducted, using iterative workshops, informed by a theoretical model of shared decision-making and the EMBED-Care Framework (the intervention) for person-centred holistic palliative dementia care. The intervention incorporates a holistic outcome measure for assessment and review, linked with clinical decision-support tools to support shared decision-making. We drew on the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Participants included people with dementia of any type, current or bereaved family carers and practitioners. We recruited via established dementia groups and research and clinical networks. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to explore how and when the intervention could enhance communication and shared decision-making, and the requirements for use, presented as a logic model. RESULTS: Five co-design workshops were undertaken with participants comprising people affected by dementia (n = 18) and practitioners (n = 36). Three themes were generated, comprising: (1) 'knowing the person and personalisation of care', involving the person with dementia and/or family carer identifying the needs of the person using a holistic assessment. (2) 'engaging and considering the perspectives of all involved in decision-making' required listening to the person and the family to understand their priorities, and to manage multiple preferences. (3) 'Training and support activities' to use the Framework through use of animated videos to convey information, such as to understand the outcome measure used to assess symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention developed sought to enhance shared decision-making with individuals affected by dementia and practitioners, through increased shared knowledge of individual priorities and choices for care and treatment. The workshops generated understanding to manage disagreements in determining priorities. Practitioners require face-to-face training on the intervention, and on communication to manage sensitive conversations about symptoms, care and treatment with individuals and their family. The findings informed the construction of a logic model to illustrate how the intervention is intended to work.

How is community based 'out-of-hours' care provided to patients with advanced illness near the end of life: A systematic review of care provision.

BACKGROUND: Deaths in the community are increasing. However, community palliative care out-of-hours is variable. We lack detailed understanding of how care is provided out-of-hours and the associated outcomes. AIM: To review systematically the components, outcomes and economic evaluation of community-based 'out-of-hours' care for patients near the end of life and their families. DESIGN: Mixed method systematic narrative review. Narrative synthesis, development and application of a typology to categorise out-of-hours provision. Qualitative data were synthesised thematically and integrated at the level of interpretation and reporting. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review searching; MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL from January 1990 to 1st August 2022. RESULTS: About 64 publications from 54 studies were synthesised (from 9259 retrieved). Two main themes were identified: (1) importance of being known to a service and (2) high-quality coordination of care. A typology of out-of-hours service provision was constructed using three overarching dimensions (service times, focus of team delivering the care and type of care delivered) resulting in 15 categories of care. Only nine papers were randomised control trials or controlled cohorts reporting outcomes. Evidence on effectiveness was apparent for providing 24/7 specialist palliative care with both hands-on clinical care and advisory care. Only nine publications reported economic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The typological framework allows models of out-of-hours care to be systematically defined and compared. We highlight the models of out-of-hours care which are linked with improvement of patient outcomes. There is a need for effectiveness and cost effectiveness studies which define and categorise out-of-hours care to allow thorough evaluation of services.

Formal and Informal Costs of Care for People With Dementia Who Experience a Transition to Hospital at the End of Life: A Secondary Data Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore formal and informal care costs in the last 3 months of life for people with dementia, and to evaluate the association between transitions to hospital and usual place of care with costs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using pooled data from 3 mortality follow-back surveys. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: People who died with dementia. METHODS: The Client Service Receipt Inventory survey was used to derive formal (health, social) and informal care costs in the last 3 months of life. Generalized linear models were used to explore the association between transitions to hospital and usual place of care with formal and informal care costs. RESULTS: A total of 146 people who died with dementia were included. The mean age was 88.1 years (SD 6.0), and 98 (67.1%) were female. The usual place of care was care home for 85 (58.2%). Sixty-five individuals (44.5%) died in a care home, and 85 (58.2%) experienced a transition to hospital in the last 3 months. The mean total costs of care in the last 3 months of life were £31,224.7 (SD 23,536.6). People with a transition to hospital had higher total costs (£33,239.2, 95% CI 28,301.8-39,037.8) than people without transition (£21,522.0, 95% CI 17,784.0-26,045.8), mainly explained by hospital costs. People whose usual place of care was care homes had lower total costs (£23,801.3, 95% CI 20,172.0-28,083.6) compared to home (£34,331.4, 95% CI 27,824.7-42,359.5), mainly explained by lower informal care costs. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Total care costs are high among people dying with dementia, and informal care costs represent an important component of end-of-life care costs. Transitions to hospital have a large impact on total costs; preventing these transitions might reduce costs from the health care perspective, but not from patients' and families' perspectives. Access to care homes could help reduce transitions to hospital as well as reduce formal and informal care costs.

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.

Community-based short-term integrated palliative and supportive care reduces symptom distress for older people with chronic noncancer conditions compared with usual care: A randomised controlled single-blind mixed method trial.

BACKGROUND: Globally, a rising number of people live into advanced age and die with multimorbidity and frailty. Palliative care is advocated as a person-centred approach to reduce health-related suffering and promote quality of life. However, no evidence-based interventions exist to deliver community-based palliative care for this population. AIM: To evaluate the impact of the short-term integrated palliative and supportive care intervention for older people living with chronic noncancer conditions and frailty on clinical and economic outcomes and perceptions of care. DESIGN: Single-blind trial with random block assignment to usual care or the intervention and usual care. The intervention comprised integrated person-centred palliative care delivered by multidisciplinary palliative care teams working with general practitioners and community nurses. Main outcome was change in five key palliative care symptoms from baseline to 12-weeks. Data analysis used intention to treat and complete cases to examine the mean difference in change scores and effect size between the trial arms. Economic evaluation used cost-effectiveness planes and qualitative interviews explored perceptions of the intervention. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four National Health Service general practices in England with recruitment of patients aged ≥75 years, with moderate to severe frailty, chronic noncancer condition(s) and ≥2 symptoms or concerns, and family caregivers when available. RESULTS: 50 patients were randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 26, mean age 86.0 years) or the intervention and usual care (n = 24, mean age 85.3 years), and 26 caregivers (control n = 16, mean age 77.0 years; intervention n = 10, mean age 77.3 years). Participants lived at home (n = 48) or care home (n = 2). Complete case analysis (n = 48) on the main outcome showed reduced symptom distress between the intervention compared with usual care (mean difference -1.20, 95% confidence interval -2.37 to -0.027) and medium effect size (omega squared = 0.071). Symptom distress reduced with decreased costs from the intervention compared with usual care, demonstrating cost-effectiveness. Patient (n = 19) and caregiver (n = 9) interviews generated themes about the intervention of 'Little things make a big difference' with optimal management of symptoms and 'Care beyond medicines' of psychosocial support to accommodate decline and maintain independence. CONCLUSIONS: This palliative and supportive care intervention is an effective and cost-effective approach to reduce symptom distress for older people severely affected by chronic noncancer conditions. It is a clinically effective way to integrate specialist palliative care with primary and community care for older people with chronic conditions. Further research is indicated to examine its implementation more widely for people at home and in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN 45837097 Tweetable abstract: Specialist palliative care integrated with district nurses and GPs is cost-effective to reduce symptom distress for older people severely affected by chronic conditions.

Integrating Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for people with COPD and frailty starting pulmonary rehabilitation: the Breathe Plus feasibility trial protocol.

One in five people with COPD also lives with frailty. People living with both COPD and frailty are at increased risk of poorer health and outcomes, and face challenges to completing pulmonary rehabilitation. Integrated approaches that are adapted to the additional context of frailty are required. The aim of the present study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial of an integrated Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for people with COPD and frailty starting pulmonary rehabilitation. This is a multicentre, mixed-methods, assessor-blinded, randomised, parallel group, controlled feasibility trial ("Breathe Plus"; ISRCTN13051922). We aim to recruit 60 people aged ≥50 with both COPD and frailty referred for pulmonary rehabilitation. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive usual pulmonary rehabilitation, or pulmonary rehabilitation with an additional Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. Outcomes (physical, psycho-social and service use) will be measured at baseline, 90 days and 180 days. We will also collect service and trial process data, and conduct qualitative interviews with a sub-group of participants and staff. We will undertake descriptive analysis of quantitative feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention, missing data, blinding, contamination, fidelity), and framework analysis of qualitative feasibility outcomes (intervention acceptability and theory, outcome acceptability). Recommendations on progression to a full trial will comprise integration of quantitative and qualitative data, with input from relevant stakeholders. This study has been approved by a UK Research Ethics Committee (ref.: 19/LO/1402). This protocol describes the first study testing the feasibility of integrating a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment alongside pulmonary rehabilitation, and testing this intervention within a mixed-methods randomised controlled trial.

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.

Service Delivery Models to Maximize Quality of Life for Older People at the End of Life: A Rapid Review.

Policy Points We identified two overarching classifications of integrated geriatric and palliative care to maximize older people's quality of life at the end of life. Both are oriented to person-centered care, but with differing emphasis on either function or symptoms and concerns. Policymakers should both improve access to palliative care beyond just the last months of life and increase geriatric care provision to maintain and optimize function. This would ensure that continuity and coordination for potentially complex care needs across the continuum of late life would be maintained, where the demarcation of boundaries between healthy aging and healthy dying become increasingly blurred. Our findings highlight the urgent need for health system change to improve end-of-life care as part of universal health coverage. The use of health services should be informed by the likelihood of benefits and intended outcomes rather than on prognosis. CONTEXT: In an era of unprecedented global aging, a key priority is to align health and social services for older populations in order to support the dual priorities of living well while adapting to a gradual decline in function. We aimed to provide a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding service delivery models that optimize the quality of life (QoL) for older people at the end of life across health, social, and welfare services worldwide. METHODS: We conducted a rapid scoping review of systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CDSR databases from 2000 to 2017 for reviews reporting the effectiveness of service models aimed at optimizing QoL for older people, more than 50% of whom were older than 60 and in the last one or two years of life. We assessed the quality of these included reviews using AMSTAR and synthesized the findings narratively. RESULTS: Of the 2,238 reviews identified, we included 72, with 20 reporting meta-analysis. Although all the World Health Organization (WHO) regions were represented, most of the reviews reported data from the Americas (52 of 72), Europe (46 of 72), and/or the Western Pacific (28 of 72). We identified two overarching classifications of service models but with different target outcomes: Integrated Geriatric Care, emphasizing physical function, and Integrated Palliative Care, focusing mainly on symptoms and concerns. Areas of synergy across the overarching classifications included person-centered care, education, and a multiprofessional workforce. The reviews assessed 117 separate outcomes. A meta-analysis demonstrated effectiveness for both classifications on QoL, including symptoms such as pain, depression, and psychological well-being. Economic analysis and its implications were poorly considered. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their different target outcomes, those service models classified as Integrated Geriatric Care or Integrated Palliative Care were effective in improving QoL for older people nearing the end of life. Both approaches highlight the imperative for integrating services across the care continuum, with service involvement triggered by the patient's needs and likelihood of benefits. To inform the sustainability of health system change we encourage economic analyses that span health and social care and examine all sources of finance to understand contextual inequalities.

How can a measure improve assessment and management of symptoms and concerns for people with dementia in care homes? A mixed-methods feasibility and process evaluation of IPOS-Dem.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of people with dementia is challenging; with undetected and under treated symptoms and concerns resulting in avoidable distress, and few evidence-based interventions to support this. We aimed to understand the mechanisms of action of a measure to support comprehensive assessment of people with dementia in care homes; and its acceptability, feasibility, and implementation requirements. METHODS: A qualitative study with an embedded quantitative component in three residential care homes, underpinned by an initial theoretical model of mechanisms of action. The measure, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia (IPOS-Dem), was introduced into the care of residents with dementia for 12 weeks. Qualitative data comprised focus groups and semi-structured interviews with family, care home staff, general practitioners and district nurses; and non-participant observations. Quantitative data comprised IPOS-Dem data. Directed content analysis for qualitative data, and descriptive statistics were used for quantitative data. FINDINGS: Key mechanisms of action were: improved observation and awareness of residents, collaborative assessment, comprehensive 'picture of the person', systematic record keeping, improved review and monitoring, care planning and changes to care provision, and facilitated multi-agency communication. Potential benefit included improved symptom management, improved comprehensive care, and increased family empowerment and engagement. IPOS-Dem was found to be acceptable and feasible. It was perceived as quick and easy to use, with proportion of overall missing data decreasing from 2.1% to 1.1% from baseline to final time points. 'Trust' in the measure was important; and leadership essential to ensure integration into care processes. CONCLUSIONS: In a population with complex care needs, with challenges to assessment and barriers to multi-agency working, a measure introduced into routine care is feasible and acceptable, and supports assessment and management of symptoms and concerns. A refined theoretical model demonstrating the likely mechanisms of action was developed. Further evaluation is required to test its effectiveness.

What is the impact of population ageing on the future provision of end-of-life care? Population-based projections of place of death.

BACKGROUND: Population ageing represents a global challenge for future end-of-life care. Given new trends in place of death, it is vital to examine where the rising number of deaths will occur in future years and implications for health and social care. AIM: To project where people will die from 2015 to 2040 across all care settings in England and Wales. DESIGN: Population-based trend analysis and projections using simple linear modelling. Age- and gender-specific proportions of deaths in hospital, care home, home, hospice and 'other' were applied to numbers of expected future deaths. Setting/population: All deaths (2004-2014) from death registration data and predicted deaths (2015-2040) from official population forecasts in England and Wales. RESULTS: Annual deaths are projected to increase from 501,424 in 2014 (38.8% aged 85 years and over) to 635,814 in 2040 (53.6% aged 85 years and over). Between 2004 and 2014, proportions of home and care home deaths increased (18.3%-22.9% and 16.7%- 21.2%) while hospital deaths declined (57.9%-48.1%). If current trends continue, numbers of deaths in care homes and homes will increase by 108.1% and 88.6%, with care home the most common place of death by 2040. If care home capacity does not expand and additional deaths occur in hospital, hospital deaths will start rising by 2023. CONCLUSION: To sustain current trends, end-of-life care provision in care homes and the community needs to double by 2040. An infrastructure across care settings that supports rising annual deaths is urgently needed; otherwise, hospital deaths will increase.

Development of a caregiver-reported measure to support systematic assessment of people with dementia in long-term care: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Symptom burden is common for long-term care residents with dementia which if untreated compromises quality of life. Measurement tools can support assessment of symptoms and problems but are not widely used in long-term care settings. We developed the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia derived from the Palliative care Outcome Scale, Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptom and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. AIM: To examine the content validity, acceptability and comprehension of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia for routine use in long-term care settings for people with dementia and to refine Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia. DESIGN: A multi-method qualitative study consisting of focus groups, semi-structured interviews and cognitive interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Three residential long-term care settings in London, UK. Focus group and semi-structured interview participants included caregiver staff, family, general practitioners and district nurses. Caregiver staff were sampled purposively for cognitive interviews. RESULTS: A total of 26 respondents participated in the focus groups ( n = 21) or semi-structured interviews ( n = 5) and 10 caregiver staff completed cognitive interviews. Additional symptoms and problems included agitation, wandering, sleep problems, communication problems and diarrhoea. Refinements or lay terms were required to improve comprehension and consistency of item response for nausea, drowsiness, delusions/hallucinations, agitation, loss of interest, communication problems and interaction. A video presentation was required to support comprehension of instructions and assessment of verbally compromised residents. CONCLUSION: Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia is a comprehensive and acceptable caregiver-reported measure to detect symptoms and problems in dementia. It is suitable for caregiver staff without professional training as it has been refined and tailored to maximise caregiver expertise, ready for further psychometric testing.

Measures to assess commonly experienced symptoms for people with dementia in long-term care settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: High symptom burden is common in long-term care residents with dementia and results in distress and behavioral challenges if undetected. Physicians may have limited time to regularly examine all residents, particularly those unable to self-report, and may rely on reports from caregivers who are frequently in a good position to detect symptoms quickly. We aimed to identify proxy-completed assessment measures of symptoms experienced by people with dementia, and critically appraise the psychometric properties and applicability for use in long-term care settings by caregivers. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ASSIA from inception to 23 June 2015, supplemented by citation and reference searches. The search strategy used a combination of terms: dementia OR long-term care AND assessment AND symptoms (e.g. pain). Studies were included if they evaluated psychometric properties of proxy-completed symptom assessment measures for people with dementia in any setting or those of mixed cognitive abilities residing in long-term care settings. Measures were included if they did not require clinical training, and used proxy-observed behaviors to support assessment in verbally compromised people with dementia. Data were extracted on study setting and sample, measurement properties and psychometric properties. Measures were independently evaluated by two investigators using quality criteria for measurement properties, and evaluated for clinical applicability in long-term settings. RESULTS: Of the 19,942 studies identified, 40 studies evaluating 32 measures assessing pain (n = 12), oral health (n = 2), multiple neuropsychiatric symptoms (n = 2), depression (n = 8), anxiety (n = 2), psychological wellbeing (n = 4), and discomfort (n = 2) were included. The majority of studies (31/40) were conducted in long-term care settings although none of the neuropsychiatric or anxiety measures were validated in this setting. The pain assessments, PAINAD and PACSLAC had the strongest psychometric evidence. The oral health, discomfort, and three psychological wellbeing measures were validated in this setting but require further psychometric evaluation. Depression measures were poor at detecting depression in this population. All measures require further investigation into agreement, responsiveness and interpretability. CONCLUSIONS: Measures for pain are best developed for this population and setting. All other measures require further validation. A multi-symptom measure to support comprehensive assessment and monitoring in this population is required.

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field. METHODS: The Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC. RESULTS: We integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project. CONCLUSIONS: The MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.

'Best practice' in developing and evaluating palliative and end-of-life care services: a meta-synthesis of research methods for the MORECare project.

BACKGROUND: Improved and cost-effective palliative and end-of-life care is an international policy imperative. Developments are impeded by a weak and often inconsistent evidence base. AIM: To examine the main methodological challenges and limitations to developing and evaluating palliative and end-of-life care services and requirements to further this field of research. DESIGN: A meta-synthesis to systematically appraise the evidence from systematic reviews on the research methods used in studies evaluating the effectiveness of palliative care services for patients with advanced illness and/or carers meeting inclusion and quality criteria. We extracted data from the reviews on the methodological issues reported on the included studies into Excel spreadsheets and generated textual descriptions coded and analysed in NVivo. DATA SOURCES: Six electronic databases, reference chaining and expert advice. RESULTS: In total, 27 systematic reviews were included on the effectiveness of palliative care services for patients with cancer (n = 6), advanced illness (n = 10) or mixed populations (n = 11) across care settings. Main methodological challenges were implementation as a continuum, active precise recruitment, addressing randomisation and economic evaluation beyond cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: The complexity of delivering and evaluating palliative and end-of-life care services requires the accumulation of knowledge from multiple sources to understand the active components of an intervention to deliver patient benefit and examine the evaluation methods to detect change and reveal processes prior to a definitive trial. The implementation of evidence into practice should form a continuum throughout the evaluation stages to reveal understanding on the process of intervention delivery, the context and the intended outcome(s).