Implementing palliative care in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and mapping of knowledge to the implementation research logic model.

PURPOSE: The importance and effectiveness of palliative care (PC) in intensive care units (ICU) are known. Less is known about the implementation and integration of ICU-based PC interventions. This systematic review aims to use a modified implementation research logic model (IRLM) to identify, map, and synthesise evidence on implementation of ICU-PC (primary and/or specialist) interventions. METHODS: This systematic review used an adapted Smith's IRLM to understand relationships between implementation factors-determinants (barriers and facilitators), strategies, and mechanisms-and report intervention characteristics and outcomes. Searches up to 2nd December 2023, of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, combined PC, intensive care, and implementation terms. RESULTS: 84 studies (8 process evaluations, 76 effectiveness studies) were included. Published evidence on ICU-PC interventions is substantial, but reporting on implementation factors is variable and often lacking, especially for patient and family-related determinants and for all aspects of mechanisms. Main facilitators for implementation are adequate resources and collaboration between PC and ICU teams. Main barriers to implementation are lack of resources, negative perceptions of PC, and high ICU acuity. Implementation strategies include auditing resources, building stakeholder collaboratives, creating adaptable interventions, utilising champions, and supporting education. Mechanisms most commonly worked by facilitating collaborative working. CONCLUSION: This review provides recommendations for ICUs when designing (stakeholder involvement, ICU-PC collaboration, assessment of culture and resources); implementing (targeted and adapted strategies, champions, and education); and evaluating/reporting (collect effectiveness and implementation data, including mechanisms) ICU-PC interventions. Use of implementation structures and patient/family involvement are both needed and important to be included.

Improving the Detection, Assessment, Management and Prevention of Delirium in Hospices (the DAMPen-D study): Feasibility study of a flexible and scalable implementation strategy to deliver guideline-adherent delirium care.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a complex condition, stressful for all involved. Although highly prevalent in palliative care settings, it remains underdiagnosed and associated with poor outcomes. Guideline-adherent delirium care may improve its detection, assessment and management. AIM: To inform a future definitive study that tests whether an implementation strategy designed to improve guideline-adherent delirium care in palliative care settings improves patient outcomes (reduced proportion of in-patient days with delirium). DESIGN: With Patient Involvement members, we conducted a feasibility study to assess the acceptability of and engagement with the implementation strategy by hospice staff (intervention), and whether clinical record data collection of process (e.g. guideline-adherent delirium care) and clinical outcomes (evidence of delirium using a validated chart-based instrument;) pre- and 12-weeks post-implementation of the intervention would be possible. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In-patient admissions in three English hospices. RESULTS: Between June 2021 and December 2022, clinical record data were extracted from 300 consecutive admissions. Despite data collection during COVID-19, target clinical record data collection (n = 300) was achieved. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a delirium episode during in-patient stay at both timepoints. A 6% absolute reduction in proportion of delirium days in those with a delirium episode was observed. Post-implementation improvements in guideline-adherent metrics include: clinical delirium diagnosis 15%-28%; delirium risk assessment 0%-16%; screening on admission 7%-35%. CONCLUSIONS: Collection of data on delirium outcomes and guideline-adherence from clinical records is feasible. The signal of patient benefit supports formal evaluation in a large-scale study.

New UK palliative medicine consultants: clinical and non-clinical preparedness after higher specialty training.

OBJECTIVES: Higher specialty trainees are expected to achieve clinical and non-clinical skills during training in preparation for a consultant role. However, evidence from many specialties from different countries suggests that new consultants are less prepared in non-clinical skills. The transition from trainee to a consultant phase can be challenging. The study aims to identify if new UK Palliative Medicine consultants, within 5 years of their appointment, feel prepared in clinical and non-clinical skills after completing specialty training and understand the support available for them. METHOD: An online survey, designed using previous literature, was distributed via the Association for Palliative Medicine email and social media. Five-point Likert scales and drop-down options to record preparedness were used. Ethics approval was obtained. RESULTS: Forty-four participants from different UK regions completed the survey; 80% were female. The majority felt very/extremely prepared in audit (84%), clinical skills (71%), interaction with colleagues (70%). Majority moderate preparation was human resources (50%), organisation structure (68%) and leadership (52%). Most were not at all or slightly prepared in financial management (70%) and in complaint management (43%). The majority (75%) reported that departmental colleagues gave the most support in stressful situations but almost 49% did not have formal support. CONCLUSION: New palliative medicine consultants require support with some non-clinical roles such as management of complaints and finances. This is consistent with findings from other specialties. New consultants would benefit from formal support. Future research could focus on how trainees could be supported to gain more experience in non-clinical domains.

Exploring pathways to optimise care in malignant bowel obstruction (EPOC): Protocol for a three-phase critical realist approach to theory-led intervention development for shared decision-making.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant bowel obstruction is a distressing complication of cancer, causing pain, nausea and vomiting, and often has a poor prognosis. Severe and rapidly developing symptoms, a lack of robust clinical guidelines and the need for multidisciplinary input make treatment decision-making challenging. Sharing decision-making with people with malignant bowel obstruction and their caregivers can be difficult, and inconsistent communication creates serious deficiencies in care by amplifying patients' distress and uncertainty. Little attention has been paid to the implicit influences on this process-for example, the role of discipline-related norms and the beliefs of decision-makers. This study will explore how these processes work and develop interventions to improve shared decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Exploring Pathways to Optimise Care (EPOC) is a three-phase study set within a critical realist framework: (i) realist review, to develop explanatory theory describing collaborative decision-making in the management of malignant bowel obstruction; (ii) an in-depth interview study using modified grounded theory to explore the active ingredients of this collaboration in practice settings; and (iii) the presentation to stakeholders (practitioners, patients and caregivers) of integrated results from Phase I (theory developed from the literature) and Phase II (theory developed from current practice) as a basis for intervention mapping. We aim to produce recommendations to address the challenges, and to develop a set of tools to (i) aid interaction around shared decision-making and (ii) aid interprofessional interaction around the management of this condition. Registration details: The realist review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022308251).

Educational impact of COVID-19 on foundation doctors and the decision to take a break from structured approved training programmes in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the Foundation Programme for doctors in the United Kingdom. Foundation doctors were working under increased pressure and significant changes were made to their training. AIMS: The aim of this study is to explore the educational impact the COVID-19 pandemic had on foundation doctors and to understand how this resulted in doctors choosing to take time away from structured training programmes within the United Kingdom to make up for lost educational opportunities. METHODS: In this phenomenological research, semi-structured interviews were carried out with post-foundation doctors who had completed their training during the pandemic. The data collected from these interviews were coded to carry out a thematic analysis. RESULTS: All 12 participants reported that their formalised teaching had been cancelled, and due to the pandemic, many doctors felt that service provision was prioritised over their postgraduate education. Some doctors had positive experiences of informal teaching; however, many felt they missed out on educational opportunities. Doctors acknowledged that this was a contributing factor when deciding to take time out of training. This also resulted in doctors seeking educational opportunities outside of training. DISCUSSION: The pandemic created many educational challenges for foundation doctors; this has contributed to doctors deciding to take time away from training. In some cases, due to a focus on service provision and their 'lost education', doctors are using time away from training to address their own specific educational needs. The impact of this 'lost education' requires further research and needs to be considered when doctors do apply to speciality training.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in hospice/palliative care: an international pharmacovigilance study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current, real-world use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain and the associated benefits and harms. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, consecutive cohort pharmacovigilance study conducted at 14 sites across Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the UK including hospital, hospice inpatient and outpatient services. Pain scores and harms were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events at baseline, 2 days and 14 days. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued until day 28. RESULTS: Data were collected from 92 patients between March 2018 and October 2021. Most patients had cancer (91%) and were coprescribed opioids (90%). At 14 days, 83% of patients had benefit from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 22% had harm. The most common harms were nausea (8%), vomiting (3%), acute kidney injury (3%) and non-gastrointestinal bleeding (3%); only 2% were severe and no patients ceased their non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs due to toxicity. Overall, 65% had benefit without harm and 3% had harm without benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients benefited from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with only one in five patients experiencing tolerable harm. This suggests that short-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients receiving palliative care is safer than previously thought and may be underused.

Experiences of a Novel Integrated Service for Older Adults at Risk of Frailty: A Qualitative Study.

The UK has a significant and growing population of older adults with frailty and complex healthcare needs, necessitating innovative care solutions. This study aimed to explore patients' and carers' experiences of a novel integrated service that was set up to address the increasing healthcare needs of older people living with frailty. A qualitative study that combined free-text survey questions with in-depth interviews. This study is part of a larger non-randomized trial of the service, with evaluation of wellbeing and quality of life at baseline, 2 to 4 weeks, and 10 to 14 weeks. Patients (aged 65 and above) with an electronic Frailty Index in the severe range and their informal family carers participated in this study. Data were collected between April 2019 and March 2020. Free text survey responses and interview data were subjected to reflexive thematic analyses. Four themes were generated: the overall experience of the service; interactions within the service; treatment and interventions; and outcomes due to the service. Most participants wanted further follow-up and more extensive integration with other services. Most participants described their overall experience positively, especially the available time to address their full range of concerns, but opportunities to integrate the service more fully and to extend follow-up remain.

Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment. AIMS: To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials). METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set. RESULTS: 130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.