Creating more comparable cohorts in observational palliative care studies: A proposed framework to improve applicability and replicability of research.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is characterised by heterogeneous patient and caregiver populations who are provided care in different health systems and a research base including a large proportion of observational, mostly retrospective studies. The inherent diversity of palliative care populations and the often inadequate study descriptions challenge the application of new knowledge into practice and reproducibility for confirmatory studies. Being able to define systematically study populations would significantly increase their generalisability and effective translation into practice. PROPOSAL: Based on an informal consensus process by active palliative care researchers challenged by this problem and a review of the current evidence, we propose an approach to creating more comparable cohorts in observational (non-randomised) palliative care studies that relies on defining the study population in relation to a fixed, well-defined event from which analyses are built ('anchoring'). In addition to providing a detailed and complete description of the study population, anchoring is the critical step in creating more comparable cohorts in observational palliative care studies. Anchoring can be done with respect to a single or multiple data points, and can support both prospective and retrospective data collection and analysis. DISCUSSION: Anchoring the cohort to reproducible data points will help create more comparable cohorts in palliative care whilst mitigating its inherent heterogeneity. This, in turn, will help optimise the generalisability, applicability and reproducibility of observational palliative care studies to strengthen the evidence base and improve practice.

Telephone advice lines for adults with advanced illness and their family carers: a qualitative analysis and novel practical framework.

BACKGROUND: Telephone advice lines have been recommended internationally to support around-the-clock care for people living at home with advanced illness. While they undoubtedly support care, there is little evidence about what elements are needed for success. A national picture is needed to understand, improve and standardise service delivery/care. AIM: To explore telephone advice lines for people living at home with advanced illness across the four UK nations, and to construct a practical framework to improve services. DESIGN: A cross-national evaluation of telephone advice lines using structured qualitative interviews. A patient and public involvement workshop was conducted to refine the framework. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Professionals with responsibilities for how palliative care services are delivered and/or funded at a local or regional level, were purposively sampled. RESULTS: Seventy-one interviews were conducted, covering 60 geographical areas. Five themes were identified. Availability: Ten advice line models were described. Variation led to confusion about who to call and when. Accessibility, awareness and promotion: It was assumed that patients/carers know who to call out-of-hours, but often they did not. Practicalities: Call handlers skills/expertise varied, which influenced how calls were managed. Possible responses ranged from signposting to organising home visits. Integration/continuity of care: Integration between care providers was limited by electronic medical records access/information sharing. Service structure/commissioning: Sustained funding was often an issue for charitably funded organisations. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel evidence-based practical framework could be transformative for service design/delivery, as it presents key considerations relating to the various elements of advice lines that may impact on the patient/carer experience.

Cognitive testing of the Children's Palliative Outcome Scale (C-POS) with children, young people and their parents/carers.

BACKGROUND: The Children's Palliative Outcome Scale (C-POS) is being developed using best methodological guidance on outcome measure development, This recommends cognitive testing, an established method of item improvement, prior to psychometric testing. AIM: To cognitively test C-POS within the target population to establish comprehensibility, comprehensiveness, relevance and acceptability. DESIGN: Cross-sectional cognitive interview study following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology and Rothrock guidance on outcome measure development. Cognitive interviews were conducted using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Children 5-⩽17 years old with life-limiting conditions and parents/carers of children with life-limiting conditions were recruited from 14 UK sites. RESULTS: Forty-eight individuals participated (36 parents; 12 children) in cognitively testing the five versions of C-POS over two to seven rounds. Content and length were acceptable, and all questions were considered important. Refinements were made to parent/carer versions to be inclusive of non-verbal children such as changing 'share' to 'express' feelings; and 'being able to ask questions' to 'having the appropriate information'. Changes to improve comprehensibility of items such as 'living life to the fullest' were also made. Parents reported that completing an outcome measure can be distressing but this is anticipated and that being asked is important. CONCLUSION: Cognitive interviewing has facilitated refinement of the C-POS, especially for non-verbal children who represent a large proportion of those with a life-limiting condition. This study has enhanced the face and content validity of the measure and provided preliminary evidence for acceptability for use in routine practice.

What are the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures into routine care for children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions? A qualitative interview study with key stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing evidence-base underpinning implementation of person-centred outcome measures into adult palliative care. However evidence on how best to achieve this with children facing life-threatening and life-limiting conditions is limited. AIM: To identify the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional qualitative semi-structured interview study with key stakeholders analysed using Framework analysis informed by the adapted-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of n = 26 children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, n = 40 parents/carers, n = 13 siblings and n = 15 health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children's hospices and n = 12 Commissioners of health services. RESULTS: All participants were supportive of future implementation of person-centred outcome measures into care. Anticipated benefits included: better understanding of patient and family priorities, improved communication and collaborative working between professionals and families and standardisation in data collection and reporting. Anticipated risks included increased workload for staff and measures not being used as intended. Implementation barriers included: acceptability and usability of outcome measures by children; burden and capacity of parents/carers regarding completion; privacy concerns; and language barriers. Implementation facilitators included designing measures using language that is meaningful to children and families, ensuring potential benefits of person-centred outcome measures are communicated to encourage 'buy-in' and administering measures with known and trusted professional. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of person-centred outcome measures offer potential benefits for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. Eight recommendations are made to maximise benefits and minimise risks in implementation.

The association between socioeconomic position and the symptoms and concerns of hospital inpatients seen by specialist palliative care: Analysis of routinely collected patient data.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how socioeconomic position influences the symptoms and concerns of patients approaching the end of life is important for planning more equitable care. Data on this relationship is lacking, particularly for patients with non-cancer conditions. AIM: To analyse the association between socioeconomic position and the symptoms and concerns of older adult patients seen by specialist palliative care. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional, routinely collected electronic patient data. We used multivariable linear regression with robust standard errors, to predict scores on the three subscales of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS; physical symptoms, emotional symptoms and communication and practical concerns) based on patient level of deprivation, measured using Index of Multiple Deprivation. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive inpatients aged 60 years and over, seen by specialist palliative care at two large teaching hospitals in London between 1st January 2016 and 31st December 2019. RESULTS: Seven thousand eight hundred and sixty patients were included, 38.3% had cancer. After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, patients living in the most deprived areas had higher (worse) predicted mean scores on the communication and practical subscale than patients living in the least deprived areas, 5.38 (95% CI: 5.10, 5.65) compared to 4.82 (4.62, 5.02) respectively. This effect of deprivation diminished with increasing age. Deprivation was not associated with scores on the physical or emotional symptoms subscales. CONCLUSIONS: Targetting resources to address practical and communication concerns could be a strategy to reduce inequalities. Further research in different hospitals and across different settings using patient centred outcome measures is needed to examine inequalities.

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.

Spiritual, religious, and existential concerns of children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core domain of palliative care, primary data on spiritual and existential concerns has rarely been collected among children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions and their families. Existing evidence has tended to focus on the religious aspects among children with cancer. AIM: To identify the spiritual needs of children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional semi-structured, qualitative interview study with children, families and health and social care professionals. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using Framework analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposively sampled children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions, their parents and siblings, health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children's hospices in the UK, and commissioners of paediatric palliative care services recruited through networks and a national charity. RESULTS: One hundred six participants were interviewed: 26 children (5-17 years), 53 family members (parents/carers of children 0-17 years and siblings (5-17 years)), 27 professionals (health and social care professionals and commissioners of paediatric palliative care). Themes included: living life to the fullest, meaning of life and leaving a legacy, uncertainty about the future, determination to survive, accepting or fighting the future and role of religion. Children as young as 5 years old identified needs or concerns in the spiritual domain of care. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing spiritual concerns is essential to providing child- and family-centred palliative care. Eliciting spiritual concerns may enable health and social care professionals to identify the things that can support and enhance a meaningful life and legacy for children and their families.

Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children's research involvement group and expert item generation.

BACKGROUND: There is no validated outcome measure for use in children's palliative care outside sub-Saharan Africa. Stakeholders must be involved in the development of such measures to ensure face and content validity. AIM: To gain expert stakeholder consensus on items for inclusion in a paediatric palliative care outcome measure to establish face and content validity. DESIGN: This study was conducted in two phases following Rothrock and COSMIN guidance on patient-reported outcome measure development. Phase 1: Three-round modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on priority items. Phase 2: Item generation meeting with key stakeholders to develop initial measure versions. A young person's advisory group was also consulted on priority outcomes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Delphi survey: Parents and professionals with experience of caring for a child with a life-limiting condition. Young person's advisory group: young people age 10-20 years. Item generation meeting: bereaved parents, academics and clinicians. RESULTS: Phase 1: Delphi survey (n = 82). Agreement increased from Kendall's W = 0.17 to W = 0.61, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.13). Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns. Advisory group: Children (n = 22) prioritised items related to living a 'normal life' in addition to items prioritised by adult participants. Phase 2: Five age/developmental stage appropriate child and proxy-reported versions of C-POS, containing 13 items, were drafted. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance and feasibility of involving key stakeholders in PROM item generation, as important differences were found in the priority outcomes identified by children, parents and professionals.

The most important components of out-of-hours community care for patients at the end of life: A Delphi study of healthcare professionals' and patient and family carers' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Community services for palliative patients outside normal working hours are variable and the best evidence-based models of care have not been determined. AIM: To establish expert consensus on the most important components of out-of-hours community palliative care services. DESIGN: Delphi study. The first round listed 68 components generated from systematic literature reviewing, focus groups with healthcare professionals and input from the project's patient and public involvement advisory group. The components deemed 'essential' by over 70% of participants in the first round were refined and carried forward to a second round, asking participants to rank each on a five-point Likert scale (5 highest to 1 lowest). The consensus threshold was median of 4 to 5 and interquartile range of ⩽1. PARTICIPANTS: Community specialist palliative care health professionals, generalist community health professionals and patients and family carers with experience of receiving care out-of-hours at home. RESULTS: Fifty-four participants completed round 1, and 44 round 2. Forty-five components met the threshold as most important for providing out-of-hours care, with highest consensus for: prescription, delivery and administration of medicines; district and community nurse visits; and shared electronic patient records and advance care plans. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi method identified the most important components to provide community palliative care for patients out-of-hours, which are often provided by non-specialist palliative care professionals. The importance placed on the integration and co-ordination with specialist palliative care through shared electronic records and advance care plans demonstrates the reassurance for patients and families of being known to out-of-hours services.

Experiences of transitioning between settings of care from the perspectives of patients with advanced illness receiving specialist palliative care and their family caregivers: A qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Transitions between care settings (hospice, hospital and community) can be challenging for patients and family caregivers and are often an under-researched area of health care, including palliative care. AIM: To explore the experience of transitions between care settings for those receiving specialist palliative care. DESIGN: Qualitative study using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with adult patients (n = 15) and family caregivers (n = 11) receiving specialist palliative care, who had undergone at least two transitions. RESULTS: Four themes were identified. (1) Uncertainty about the new care setting. Most participants reported that lack of information about the new setting of care, and difficulties with access and availability of care in the new setting, added to feelings of uncertainty. (2) Biographical disruption. The transition to the new setting often resulted in changes to sense of independence and identity, and maintaining normality was a way to cope with this. (3) Importance of continuity of care. Continuity of care had an impact on feelings of safety in the new setting and influenced decisions about the transition. (4) Need for emotional and practical support. Most participants expressed a greater need for emotional and practical support, when transitioning to a new setting. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide insights into how clinicians might better negotiate transitions for these patients and family caregivers, as well as improve patient outcomes. The complexity and diversity of transition experiences, particularly among patients and families from different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, need to be further explored in future research.

Face and content validity, acceptability, feasibility, and implementability of a novel outcome measure for children with life-limiting or life-threatening illness in three sub-Saharan African countries.

BACKGROUND: The Children's Palliative Care Outcome Scale (C-POS) is the first measure developed for children with life-limiting and -threatening illness. It is essential to determine whether the measure addresses what matters to children, and if they can comprehend and respond to its items. AIM: To determine the face and content validity, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, acceptability and feasibility, and implementability of the C-POS. DESIGN: Mixed methods (1) Content validation: mapping C-POS items onto an evidence-based framework from prior evidence; (2) Comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, acceptability feasibility, and implementability: qualitative in-depth and cognitive interviews with a purposive sample of children and young people (n = 6), family caregivers (n = 16), and health workers (n = 12) recruited from tertiary facilities in Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda. RESULTS: (1) C-POS content mapped on to palliative care domains for (a) children (i.e. physical (e.g. symptoms), social (e.g. play/socialize), psychological (e.g. happy)) and (b) families (i.e. psychological (e.g. worry), social (e.g. information), and help and advice). (2) C-POS items were well understood by children and their caregivers, acceptable, and relevant. Completion time was a median of 10 min, patients/caregivers and health workers reported that using the C-POS improved their communication with children and young people. Methodological and content issues included: (i) conceptual gap in the spiritual/existential domain; (ii) further consideration of developmental, age-appropriate items in the social and psychological domains, and (iii) linguistic complexity and difficulty in proxy rating. CONCLUSION: C-POS items capture the core symptoms and concerns that matter to children and their families. C-POS is feasible, comprehensible, and acceptable for use in clinical settings; areas for further development and improvement are identified.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent. AIM: To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set. DESIGN: The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021. RESULTS: A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.

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.

Changes in mortality patterns and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic: A descriptive analysis of mortality data across four nations.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patterns of mortality and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to help provide appropriate services and resources. AIMS: To analyse patterns of mortality including place of death in the United Kingdom (UK) (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) during the COVID-19 pandemic to date. DESIGN: Descriptive analysis of UK mortality data between March 2020 and March 2021. Weekly number of deaths was described by place of death, using the following definitions: (1) expected deaths: average expected deaths estimated using historical data (2015-19); (2) COVID-19 deaths: where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate; (3) additional non-COVID-19 deaths: above expected but not attributed to COVID-19; (4) baseline deaths: up to and including expected deaths but excluding COVID-19 deaths. RESULTS: During the analysis period, 798,643 deaths were registered in the UK, of which 147,282 were COVID-19 deaths and 17,672 were additional non-COVID-19 deaths. While numbers of people who died in care homes and hospitals increased above expected only during the pandemic waves, the numbers of people who died at home remained above expected both during and between the pandemic waves, with an overall increase of 41%. CONCLUSIONS: Where people died changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in deaths at home during and between pandemic waves. This has implications for planning and organisation of palliative care and community services. The extent to which these changes will persist longer term remains unclear. Further research could investigate whether this is reflected in other countries with high COVID-19 mortality.

Virtual models of care for people with palliative care needs living in their own home: A systematic meta-review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Access to palliative care in the community enables people to live in their preferred place of care, which is often home. Community palliative care services struggle to provide timely 24-h services to patients and family. This has resulted in calls for 'accessible and flexible' models of care that are 'responsive' to peoples' changing palliative care needs. Digital health technologies provide opportunities to meet these requirements 24-h a day. AIM: To identify digital health technologies that have been evaluated for supporting timely assessment and management of people living at home with palliative care needs and/or their carer(s), and the evidence-base for each. DESIGN: A systematic review of systematic reviews ('meta-review'). Systematic reviews evaluating evidence for virtual models of palliative or end-of-life care using one or more digital health technologies were included. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool for Systematic Reviews. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were searched for English-language reviews published between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: The search yielded 2266 articles, of which 12 systematic reviews met criteria. Sixteen reviews were included in total, after four reviews were found via handsearching. Other than scheduled telehealth, video-conferencing, or after-hours telephone support, little evidence was found for digital health technologies used to deliver virtual models of palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: There are opportunities to test new models of virtual care, beyond telehealth and/or video conferencing, such as 24-h command centres, and rapid response teams. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero CRD42020200266.

Understanding usual care in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions: A multi-method approach.

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of complex interventions compared to usual care provided in palliative care are increasing. Not describing usual care may affect the interpretation of an intervention's effectiveness, yet how it can be described remains unclear. AIM: To demonstrate the feasibility of using multi-methods to describe usual care provided in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex interventions, shown within a feasibility cluster RCT. DESIGN: Multi-method approach comprising usual care questionnaires, baseline case note review and focus groups with ward staff completed at study end. Thematic analysis of qualitative data, descriptive statistics of quantitative data, followed by methodological triangulation to appraise approach in relation to study aim. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Four general medical wards chosen from UK hospitals. Purposive sampling of healthcare professionals for usual care questionnaires, and focus groups. Review of 20 patients' notes from each ward who died during admission or within 100 days of discharge. RESULTS: Twenty-three usual care questionnaires at baseline, two focus groups comprising 20 healthcare professionals and 80 case note reviews. Triangulation of findings resulted in understanding the usual care provided to the targeted population in terms of context, structures, processes and outcomes for patients, families and healthcare professionals. Usual care was described, highlighting (1) similarities and embedded practices, (2) heterogeneity and (3) subtle changes in care during the trial within and across sites. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a feasible approach to defining usual care that can be practically adopted in different settings. Understanding usual care enhances the reliability of tested complex interventions, and informs research and policy priorities.

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

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

Towards person-centred quality care for children with life-limiting and life-threatening illness: Self-reported symptoms, concerns and priority outcomes from a multi-country qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric life-limiting and life-threatening conditions (life-limiting conditions) place significant strain on children, families and health systems. Given high service use among this population, it is essential that care addresses their main symptoms and concerns. AIM: This study aimed to identify the symptoms, concerns and other outcomes that matter to children with life-limiting conditions and their families in sub-Saharan Africa. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional qualitative study in Kenya, Namibia, South Africa and Uganda. Children/caregivers of children aged 0-17 years with life-limiting conditions were purposively sampled by age, sex and diagnosis. Children aged 7 and above self-reported; caregiver proxies reported for children below 7 and those aged 7 and above unable to self-report. RESULTS: A total of 120 interviews were conducted with children with life-limiting conditions (n = 61; age range: 7-17 years), and where self-report was not possible, caregivers (n = 59) of children (age range: 0-17) were included. Conditions included advanced HIV (22%), cancer (19%), heart disease (16%) endocrine, blood and immune disorders (13%), neurological conditions (12%), sickle cell anaemia (10%) and renal disease (8%). Outcomes identified included physical concerns - pain and symptom distress; psycho-social concerns - family and social relationships, ability to engage with age-appropriate activities (e.g. play, school attendance); existential concerns - worry about death, and loss of ambitions; health care quality - child- and adolescent-friendly services. Priority psycho-social concerns and health service factors varied by age. CONCLUSION: This study bridges an important knowledge gap regarding symptoms, concerns and outcomes that matter to children living with life-limiting conditions and their families and informs service development and evaluation.