Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research. METHODS: A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

Adaptation and multicentre validation of a patient-centred outcome scale for people severely ill with COVID (IPOS-COV).

BACKGROUND: Patient-centred measures to capture symptoms and concerns have rarely been reported in severe COVID. We adapted and tested the measurement properties of the proxy version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-IPOS-COV for severe COVID using psychometric approach. METHODS: We consulted experts and followed consensus-based standards for the selection of health status measurement instruments and United States Food and Drug Administration guidance for adaptation and analysis. Exploratory Factor Analysis and clinical perspective informed subscales. We tested the internal consistency reliability, calculated item total correlations, examined re-test reliability in stable patients, and also evaluated inter-rater reproducibility. We examined convergent and divergent validity of IPOS-COV with the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Scale and evaluated known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was examined. RESULTS: In the adaptation phase, 6 new items were added, 7 items were removed from the original measure. The recall period was revised to be the last 12-24 h to capture fast deterioration in COVID. General format and response options of the original Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were preserved. Data from 572 patients with COVID from across England and Wales seen by palliative care services were included. Four subscales were supported by the 4-factor solution explaining 53.5% of total variance. Breathlessness-Agitation and Gastro-intestinal subscales demonstrated good reliability with high to moderate (a = 0.70 and a = 0.67) internal consistency, and item-total correlations (0.62-0.21). All except the Flu subscale discriminated well between patients with differing disease severity. Inter-rater reliability was fair with ICC of 0.40 (0.3-0.5, 95% CI, n = 324). Correlations between the subscales and AKPS as predicted were weak (r = 0.13-0.26) but significant (p < 0.01). Breathlessness-Agitation and Drowsiness-Delirium subscales demonstrated good divergent validity. Patients with low oxygen saturation had higher mean Breathlessness-Agitation scores (M = 5.3) than those with normal levels (M = 3.4), t = 6.4 (186), p < 0.001. Change in Drowsiness-Delirium subscale correctly classified patients who died. CONCLUSIONS: IPOS-COV is the first patient-centred measure adapted for severe COVID to support timely management. Future studies could further evaluate its responsiveness and clinical utility with clinimetric approaches.

Health care professional recruitment of patients and family carers to palliative care randomised controlled trials: A qualitative multiple case study.

BACKGROUND: Trial participant recruitment is an interactional process between health care professionals, patients and carers. Little is known about how clinicians carry out this role in palliative care trials and the reasons why they do or do not recruit participants. AIMS: To explore how clinicians recruit to palliative care trials, why they choose to implement particular recruitment strategies, and the factors that influence their choices. DESIGN: A qualitative multiple case study of three UK palliative care trials. Data collection included interviews and study documentation. Analysis involved developing and refining theoretical propositions, guided by the '6Ps' of the 'Social Marketing Mix Framework' as an a priori framework (identifying participants, product, price, place, promotion and working with partners). Framework Analysis guided within and then cross-case analysis. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Study investigators and research staff (n = 3, 9, 7) from trial coordinating centres and recruitment sites (hospice and hospital). RESULTS: Cross-case analysis suggests the 'Social Marketing Mix Framework' is useful for understanding recruitment processes but wider contextual issues need to be incorporated. These include the 'emotional labour' of diagnosing dying and communicating palliative and end-of-life care to potential participants and how the recruitment process is influenced by the power relationships and hierarchies that exist among professional groups. These factors can lead to and support paternalistic practices. CONCLUSIONS: Those planning trials need to ensure that trial recruiters, depending on their experience and trial characteristics, have access to training and support to address the 'emotional labour' of recruitment. The type of training required requires further research.

Healthcare use and healthcare costs for patients with advanced cancer; the international ACTION cluster-randomised trial on advance care planning.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning supports patients to reflect on and discuss preferences for future treatment and care. Studies of the impact of advance care planning on healthcare use and healthcare costs are scarce. AIM: To determine the impact on healthcare use and costs of an advance care planning intervention across six European countries. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised trial, registered as ISRCTN63110516, of advance care planning conversations supported by certified facilitators. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer from 23 hospitals in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the UK. Data on healthcare use were collected from hospital medical files during 12 months after inclusion. RESULTS: Patients with a good performance status were underrepresented in the intervention group (p< 0.001). Intervention and control patients spent on average 9 versus 8 days in hospital (p = 0.07) and the average number of X-rays was 1.9 in both groups. Fewer intervention than control patients received systemic cancer treatment; 79% versus 89%, respectively (p< 0.001). Total average costs of hospital care during 12 months follow-up were €32,700 for intervention versus €40,700 for control patients (p = 0.04 with bootstrap analyses). Multivariable multilevel models showed that lower average costs of care in the intervention group related to differences between study groups in country, religion and WHO-status. No effect of the intervention on differences in costs between study groups was observed (p = 0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Lower care costs as observed in the intervention group were mainly related to patients' characteristics. A definite impact of the intervention itself could not be established.

Understanding the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on delivery of rehabilitation in specialist palliative care services: An analysis of the CovPall-Rehab survey data.

BACKGROUND: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients' symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. AIM: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national online survey. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. FINDINGS: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

Charitably funded hospices and the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Independent charitably funded hospices have been an important element of the UK healthcare response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospices usually have different funding streams, procurement processes, and governance arrangements compared to NHS provision, which may affect their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study is to understand the challenges faced by charitably funded hospices during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Eligible Organisations providing specialist palliative or hospice care completed the online CovPall survey (2020) which explored their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible organisations were then purposively selected to participate in interviews as part of qualitative case studies (2020-21) to understand challenges in more depth. Free-text responses from the survey were analysed using content analysis and were categorised accordingly. These categorisations were used a priori for a reflexive thematic analysis of interview data. RESULTS: 143 UK independent charitably funded hospices completed the online CovPall survey. Five hospices subsequently participated in qualitative case studies (n = 24 staff interviews). Key themes include: vulnerabilities of funding; infection control during patient care; and bereavement support provision. Interviewees discussed the fragility of income due to fundraising events stopping; the difficulties of providing care to COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients within relatively small organisations; and challenges with maintaining the quality of bereavement services. CONCLUSION: Some unique care and provision challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic were highlighted by charitably funded hospices. Funding core services charitably and independently may affect their ability to respond to pandemics, or scenarios where resources are unexpectedly insufficient.

'Necessity is the mother of invention': Specialist palliative care service innovation and practice change in response to COVID-19. Results from a multinational survey (CovPall).

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services have a key role in a whole system response to COVID-19, a disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is a need to understand service response to share good practice and prepare for future care. AIM: To map and understand specialist palliative care services innovations and practice changes in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: Online survey of specialist palliative care providers (CovPall), disseminated via key stakeholders. Data collected on service characteristics, innovations and changes in response to COVID-19. Statistical analysis included frequencies, proportions and means, and free-text comments were analysed using a qualitative framework approach. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient palliative care units, home nursing services, hospital and home palliative care teams from any country. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-eight respondents: 277 UK, 85 Europe (except UK), 95 World (except UK and Europe), 1 missing country. 54.8% provided care across 2+ settings; 47.4% hospital palliative care teams, 57% in-patient palliative care units and 57% home palliative care teams. The crisis context meant services implemented rapid changes. Changes involved streamlining, extending and increasing outreach of services, using technology to facilitate communication, and implementing staff wellbeing innovations. Barriers included; fear and anxiety, duplication of effort, information overload and funding. Enablers included; collaborative teamwork, staff flexibility, a pre-existing IT infrastructure and strong leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Specialist palliative care services have been flexible, highly adaptive and have adopted low-cost solutions, also called 'frugal innovations', in response to COVID-19. In addition to financial support, greater collaboration is essential to minimise duplication of effort and optimise resource use.ISRCTN16561225 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16561225.

Understanding and addressing challenges for advance care planning in the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of the UK CovPall survey data from specialist palliative care services.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services play an important role in conducting advance care planning during COVID-19. Little is known about the challenges to advance care planning in this context, or the changes services made to adapt. AIM: Describe the challenges that UK specialist palliative care services experienced regarding advance care planning during COVID-19 and changes made to support timely conversations. DESIGN: Online survey of UK palliative/hospice services' response to COVID-19. Closed-ended responses are reported descriptively. Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic Framework approach using the Social Ecological Model to understand challenges. RESPONDENTS: Two hundred and seventy-seven services. RESULTS: More direct advance care planning was provided by 38% of services, and 59% provided more support to others. Some challenges to advance care planning pre-dated the pandemic, whilst others were specific to/exacerbated by COVID-19. Challenges are demonstrated through six themes: complex decision making in the face of a new infectious disease; maintaining a personalised approach; COVID-19-specific communication difficulties; workload and pressure; sharing information; and national context of fear and uncertainty. Two themes demonstrate changes made to support: adapting local processes and adapting local structures. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals and healthcare providers need to ensure advance care planning is individualised by tailoring it to the values, priorities, and ethnic/cultural/religious context of each person. Policymakers need to consider how high-quality advance care planning can be resourced as a part of standard healthcare ahead of future pandemic waves. In facilitating this, we provide questions to consider at each level of the Social Ecological Model.

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials. METHODS: The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures. RESULTS: The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

Ethical and research governance approval across Europe: Experiences from three European palliative care studies.

BACKGROUND: Research requires high-quality ethical and governance scrutiny and approval. However, when research is conducted across different countries, this can cause challenges due to the differing ethico-legal framework requirements of ethical boards. There is no specific guidance for research which does not involve non-medicinal products. AIM: To describe and address differences in ethical and research governance procedures applied by research ethics committees for non-pharmaceutical palliative care studies including adult participants in collaborative European studies. DESIGN: An online survey analysed using descriptive statistics. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen principal investigators in 11 countries conducting one of three European-funded studies. RESULTS: There was variation in practice including whether ethical approval was required. The time to gain full approvals differed with the United Kingdom having governance procedures that took the longest time. Written consent was not required in all countries nor were data safety monitoring committees for trials. There were additional differences in relation to other data management issues. CONCLUSION: Researchers need to take the differences in research approval procedures into account when planning studies. Future research is needed to establish European-wide recommendations for policy and practice that dovetail ethical procedures and enhance transnational research collaborations.

Exploring the psychological impact of life-limiting illness using the Attitude to Health Change scales: A qualitative focus group study in a hospice palliative care setting.

OBJECTIVE: Practitioners are often reluctant to engage in conversations that acknowledge patient's health concerns. This can affect patient and family carer psychological well-being. The Attitude to Health Change scales, adapted from the validated Adult Attitude to Grief scale, may have potential to address the psychological impact of illness and facilitate conversations in palliative care. To explore how health and social care professionals experience using the Attitude to Health Change Scales within hospice settings. METHODS: Qualitative focus groups with practitioners currently using the Attitude to Health Change scales in three UK hospices. Two researchers conducted the interviews, developed the thematic framework and independently coded the transcripts using a framework analysis approach. RESULTS: Three focus groups (n = 21 practitioners). The scale was used to assess and reassess levels of vulnerability and resilience to identify the need for support and to facilitate structured in-depth conversations. Factors that influenced scale implementation included the following: practitioner personal comfort and training; patient and family carer willingness to engage with the scales and having a practitioner "champion" within the organisation. CONCLUSION: This exploratory work has identified the potential value of the scales for assessment and to facilitate conversations. Further research needs to incorporate the views of patients and family carers.

Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18-34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20-29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22-36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10-23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations. CONCLUSION: Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.

Using the 'Social Marketing Mix Framework' to explore recruitment barriers and facilitators in palliative care randomised controlled trials? A narrative synthesis review.

BACKGROUND: Effective recruitment to randomised controlled trials is critically important for a robust, trustworthy evidence base in palliative care. Many trials fail to achieve recruitment targets, but the reasons for this are poorly understood. Understanding barriers and facilitators is a critical step in designing optimal recruitment strategies. AIM: To identify, explore and synthesise knowledge about recruitment barriers and facilitators in palliative care trials using the '6 Ps' of the 'Social Marketing Mix Framework'. DESIGN: A systematic review with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase databases (from January 1990 to early October 2016) were searched. Papers included the following: interventional and qualitative studies addressing recruitment, palliative care randomised controlled trial papers or reports containing narrative observations about the barriers, facilitators or strategies to increase recruitment. RESULTS: A total of 48 papers met the inclusion criteria. Uninterested participants (Product), burden of illness (Price) and 'identifying eligible participants' were barriers. Careful messaging and the use of scripts/role play (Promotion) were recommended. The need for intensive resources and gatekeeping by professionals were barriers while having research staff on-site and lead clinician support (Working with Partners) was advocated. Most evidence is based on researchers' own reports of experiences of recruiting to trials rather than independent evaluation. CONCLUSION: The 'Social Marketing Mix Framework' can help guide researchers when planning and implementing their recruitment strategy but suggested strategies need to be tested within embedded clinical trials. The findings of this review are applicable to all palliative care research and not just randomised controlled trials.

Advance care planning--a multi-centre cluster randomised clinical trial: the research protocol of the ACTION study.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of preferences regarding medical care should be a central component of the care of patients with advanced cancer. Open communication can facilitate this but can occur in an ad hoc or variable manner. Advance care planning (ACP) is a formalized process of communication between patients, relatives and professional caregivers about patients' values and care preferences. It raises awareness of the need to anticipate possible future deterioration of health. ACP has the potential to improve current and future healthcare decision-making, provide patients with a sense of control, and improve their quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: We will study the effects of the ACP program Respecting Choices on the quality of life of patients with advanced lung or colorectal cancer. In a phase III multicenter cluster randomised controlled trial, 22 hospitals in 6 countries will be randomised. In the intervention sites, patients will be offered interviews with a trained facilitator. In the control sites, patients will receive care as usual. In total, 1360 patients will be included. All participating patients will be asked to complete questionnaires at inclusion, and again after 2.5 and 4.5 months. If a patient dies within a year after inclusion, a relative will be asked to complete a questionnaire on end-of-life care. Use of medical care will be assessed by checking medical files. The primary endpoint is patients' quality of life at 2.5 months post-inclusion. Secondary endpoints are the extent to which care as received is aligned with patients' preferences, patients' evaluation of decision-making processes, quality of end-of-life care and cost-effectiveness of the intervention. A complementary qualitative study will be carried out to explore the lived experience of engagement with the Respecting Choices program from the perspectives of patients, their Personal Representatives, healthcare providers and facilitators. DISCUSSION: Transferring the concept of ACP from care of the elderly to patients with advanced cancer, who on average are younger and retain their mental capacity for a larger part of their disease trajectory, is an important next step in an era of increased focus on patient centered healthcare and shared decision-making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN63110516. Date of registration: 10/3/2014.

Deathbed Etiquette - The Guide: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Views of Practitioners on its Introduction into End-of-Life Care Settings.

Objectives: It is common for relatives to feel uncertain about what to expect at the bedside of a dying loved one. The Centre for the Art of Dying Well together with clinical, academic and communications experts created a 'Deathbed Etiquette' guide offering information and reassurance to relatives. This study explores the views of practitioners with experience in end-of-life care on the guide and how it might be used. Methods: Three online focus groups and nine individual interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 participants involved in end-of-life care. Participants were recruited through hospices and social media. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Discussions highlighted the importance of effective communication that normalises experiences of being by the bedside of a dying loved one. Tensions around the use of the words 'death' and 'dying' were identified. Most participants also expressed reservations about the title, with the word 'deathbed' found to be old-fashioned and the word 'etiquette' not capturing the varied experiences of being by the bedside. Overall, however, participants agreed that the guide is useful for 'mythbusting' death and dying. Conclusion: There is a need for communication resources that can support practitioners in having honest and compassionate conversations with relatives in end-of-life care. The 'Deathbed Etiquette' guide is a promising resource to support relatives and healthcare practitioners by providing them with suitable information and helpful phrases. More research is needed on how to implement the guide in healthcare settings.

Symptom Control and Survival for People Severely ill With COVID: A Multicentre Cohort Study (CovPall-Symptom).

CONTEXT: Evidence of symptom control outcomes in severe COVID is scant. OBJECTIVES: To determine changes in symptoms among people severely ill or dying with COVID supported by palliative care, and associations with treatments and survival. METHODS: Multicentre cohort study of people with COVID across England and Wales supported by palliative care services, during the pandemic in 2020 and 2021. We analysed clinical, demographic and survival data, symptom severity at baseline (referral to palliative care, first COVID assessment) and at three follow-up assessments using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale - COVID version. RESULTS: We included 572 patients from 25 services, mostly hospital support teams; 496 (87%) were newly referred to palliative care with COVID, 75 (13%) were already supported by palliative care when they contracted COVID. At baseline, patients had a mean of 2.4 co-morbidities, mean age 77 years, a mean of five symptoms, and were often bedfast or semiconscious. The most prevalent symptoms were: breathlessness, weakness/lack of energy, drowsiness, anxiety, agitation, confusion/delirium, and pain. Median time in palliative care was 46 hours; 77% of patients died. During palliative care, breathlessness, agitation, anxiety, delirium, cough, fever, pain, sore/dry mouth and nausea improved; drowsiness became worse. Common treatments were low dose morphine and midazolam. Having moderate to severe breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity were associated with shorter survival. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of COVID quickly improved during palliative care. Breathlessness, agitation and multimorbidity could be used as triggers for timelier referral, and symptom guidance for wider specialities should build on treatments identified in this study.

Experiences of staff providing specialist palliative care during COVID-19: a multiple qualitative case study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. SETTING: Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting. PARTICIPANTS: Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants' ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a 'crescendo effect' in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided 'moral comfort' for some. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.

Symptom management in people dying with COVID-19: multinational observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe multinational prescribing practices by palliative care services for symptom management in patients dying with COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of medicines. METHODS: We surveyed specialist palliative care services, contacted via relevant organisations between April and July 2020. Descriptive statistics for categorical variables were expressed as counts and percentages. Content analysis explored free text responses about symptom management in COVID-19. Medicines were classified using British National Formulary categories. Perceptions on effectiveness of medicines were grouped into five categories; effective, some, limited or unclear effectiveness, no effect. RESULTS: 458 services responded; 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, 95 rest of the world, 1 missing country. 358 services had managed patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. 289 services had protocols for symptom management in COVID-19. Services tended to prescribe medicines for symptom control comparable to medicines used in people without COVID-19; mainly opioids and benzodiazepines for breathlessness, benzodiazepines and antipsychotics for agitation, opioids and cough linctus for cough, paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for fever, and opioids and paracetamol for pain. Medicines were considered to be mostly effective but varied by patient's condition, route of administration and dose. CONCLUSIONS: Services were largely consistent in prescribing for symptom management in people dying with COVID-19. Medicines used prior to COVID-19 were mostly considered effective in controlling common symptoms.