European Respiratory Society clinical practice guideline on symptom management for adults with serious respiratory illness.

Respiratory symptoms are ubiquitous and impair health-related quality of life in people with respiratory disease. This European Respiratory Society (ERS) task force aimed to provide recommendations for symptomatic treatment in people with serious respiratory illness. The ERS task force comprised 16 members, including representatives of people with serious respiratory illness and informal caregivers. Seven questions were formulated, six in the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format, which were addressed with full systematic reviews and evidence assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). One question was addressed narratively. An "evidence-to-decision" framework was used to formulate recommendations. To treat symptoms in people with serious respiratory illness, the task force suggests the use of graded exercise therapy (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence); and suggests the use of a multicomponent services, handheld fan and breathing techniques (conditional recommendations, very low certainty of evidence). The task force suggests not to use opioids (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence); and suggests either administering or not administering supplemental oxygen therapy (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The task force suggests that needs assessment tools may be used as part of a comprehensive needs assessment, but do not replace patient-centred care and shared decision making (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence). The low certainty of evidence, modest impact of interventions on patient-centred outcomes, and absence of effective strategies to ameliorate cough highlight the need for new approaches to reduce symptoms and enhance wellbeing for individuals who live with serious respiratory illness.

More than the sum of its parts-A constructivist grounded-theory study on specialist palliative care during crises like the COVID pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID pandemic is an example of a crisis challenging healthcare systems worldwide. The impact of the pandemic on providing high-quality palliative care calls for a deeper understanding of specialist services during crises. This is essential in preparation for further crises. AIM: To develop a conceptual understanding of the impact of the pandemic on specialist palliative care as an example for arising future crises. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study across Germany, following a constructivist grounded theory methodology. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Eleven semi-structured interviews with experts with overarching knowledge of structures and processes in specialist palliative care between 05-07/2020 and between 02-06/2021, 23 semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals working in a specialist palliative care setting. RESULTS: The complex system of palliative care provision during crises has properties that cannot be understood as separated parts of the care process. The pandemic led to unique structural and processual challenges characterized by interconnectedness, uncertainty, dynamic, underlying dilemmas, and unclear long-term goal. In response to the pandemic, teams experienced different phases, which enhanced adaption, innovation, and progress within complex care situations. Creative strategy approaches and dynamic responsiveness facilitated innovative development and could lead to long-lasting improvement within services. Availability of information, transparent communication, comprehensible instructions, participation in decision-making, and search for solutions contributed to teams' proactive development throughout the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Addressing the complex problems in specialist palliative care caused by crises requires system thinking and a learning mindset. This can facilitate teams to overcome the crisis and move forward rather than bounce back to normal.

Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care-a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Standardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring). CONCLUSIONS: Although benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs.

Terminological Confusion About Sedation in Palliative Care: Results of an International Online Vignette Survey.

Background: Terminological problems concerning sedation in palliative care and consequences for research and clinical decision making have been reported frequently. Objectives: To gather data on the application of definitions of sedation practices in palliative care to clinical cases and to analyze implications for high-quality definitions. Design: We conducted an online survey with a convenience sample of international experts involved in the development of guidelines on sedation in palliative care and members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC). Participants were asked to apply four published definitions to four case vignettes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 32 experts and 271 EAPC members completed the survey. The definitions were applied correctly in n = 2200/4848 cases (45.4%). The mean number of correct applications of the definitions (4 points max.) was 2.2 ± 1.14 for the definition of the SedPall study group, 1.8 ± 1.03 for the EAPC definition, 1.7 ± 0.98 for the definition of the Norwegian Medical Association, and 1.6 ± 1.01 for the definition of the Japanese Society of Palliative Medicine. The rate of correct applications for the 16 vignette-definition pairs varied between 70/303 (23.1%) and 227/303 (74.9%). The content of definitions and vignettes together with free-text comments explains participants' decisions and misunderstandings. Conclusions: Definitions of sedation in palliative care are frequently incorrectly applied to clinical case scenarios under simplified conditions. This suggests that clinical communication and research might be negatively influenced by misunderstandings and inconsistent labeling or reporting of data. Clinical Trial Registration Number: DRKS00015047.