Equity and the financial costs of informal caregiving in palliative care: a critical debate.

BACKGROUND: Informal caregivers represent the foundation of the palliative care workforce and are the main providers of end of life care. Financial pressures are among the most serious concerns for many carers and the financial burden of end of life caregiving can be substantial. METHODS: The aim of this critical debate paper was to review and critique some of the key evidence on the financial costs of informal caregiving and describe how these costs represent an equity issue in palliative care. RESULTS: The financial costs of informal caregiving at the end of life can be significant and include carer time costs, out of pocket costs and employment related costs. Financial burden is associated with a range of negative outcomes for both patient and carer. Evidence suggests that the financial costs of caring are not distributed equitably. Sources of inequity are reflective of those influencing access to specialist palliative care and include diagnosis (cancer vs non-cancer), socio-economic status, gender, cultural and ethnic identity, and employment status. Effects of intersectionality and the cumulative effect of multiple risk factors are also a consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Various groups of informal end of life carers are systematically disadvantaged financially. Addressing these, and other, determinants of end of life care is central to a public health approach to palliative care that fully recognises the value of carers. Further research exploring these areas of inequity in more depth and gaining a more detailed understanding of what influences financial burden is required to take the next steps towards meeting this aspiration. We will address the conclusions and recommendations we have made in this paper through the work of our recently established European Association of Palliative Care (EAPC) Taskforce on the financial costs of family caregiving.

'Take more laxatives was their answer to everything': A qualitative exploration of the patient, carer and healthcare professional experience of constipation in specialist palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a major problem for many older adults, more so for those who are receiving specialist palliative care. However, limited research reports the subjective experiences of constipation, despite evidenced differences between the healthcare professional and patient/carer perspective. AIM: The main aim of this study is to explore the experience of how constipation is assessed and managed within specialist palliative care from the patient, carer and healthcare professional perspective. DESIGN: Exploratory, qualitative design, utilising focus groups and interviews, and analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Six focus groups with 27 healthcare professionals and semi-structured interviews with 13 patients and 5 family caregivers in specialist palliative care units across three regions of the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Constipation impacted physically, psychologically and socially on patients and families; however, they felt staff relegated it on the list of importance. Lifestyle modifications implemented at home were not incorporated into their specialist palliative care plan within the hospice. Comparatively, healthcare professionals saw constipation solely as a physical symptom. Assessment focused on the physical elements of constipation, and management was pharmacologically driven. Healthcare professionals reported patient embarrassment as a barrier to communicating about bowel care, whereas patients wanted staff to initiate communication and discuss constipation openly. CONCLUSION: Assessment and management of constipation may not yet reflect the holistic palliative care model. A focus on the pharmacological management may result in lifestyle modifications being underutilised. Healthcare professionals also need to be open to initiate communication on bowel care and consider non-pharmacological approaches. It is important that patients and families are supported in self-care management, alongside standardised guidelines for practice and for healthcare professionals to facilitate this.

Examining constipation assessment and management of patients with advanced cancer receiving specialist palliative care: a multi-site retrospective case note review of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a common symptom for patients receiving palliative care. Whilst international clinical guidelines are available on the clinical management of constipation for people with advanced cancer receiving specialist palliative care (SPC), the extent to which the guidelines are implemented in practice is unclear. This study aimed to examine clinical practices for the assessment and management of constipation for patients with advanced cancer within inpatient SPC settings. METHODS: A multi-site retrospective case-note review was conducted, consisting of 150 patient case-notes from three inpatient SPC units across the United Kingdom between August 2016 and May 2017. The variables selected for review were determined by the recommendations within the clinical guidelines. Descriptive statistics, cross tabulation, chi square, and bivariate correlations were used to examine clinical practices compared to policy guidelines for the assessment and management of constipation. Reporting was structured by the STROBE checklist for observational research (Additional File 2). RESULTS: A comprehensive assessment, including a full history and performing a physical exam, was recorded for 109 patients (73%), however, no standardised documentation was utilised. Assessment was nurse led, with variable involvement across sites of other members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT). Education on prevention was documented in 30 (20%) case-notes, and 53% recorded evidence of non-pharmacological intervention. Age, gender, and reason for admission did not impact on the likelihood of receiving a comprehensive assessment, education, or non-pharmacological intervention, however, significant differences were evident between sites. Pharmacological management was well developed and aligned to the guidelines however, 33% of patient case-notes recorded no information on the titration of laxatives. Twelve percent of patients experienced partial or complete bowel obstruction, and management strategies were variable. CONCLUSIONS: Constipation management is driven by a pharmacological approach, with little evidence of the implementation of preventative and non-pharmacological strategies. The nurse plays a key coordinating role in assessment; however, involvement and roles of the wider MDT varies. Accurate recording of care is essential when examining clinical practice and identifying areas for improvement. Further education is needed to equip HCPs with the knowledge and skills to ensure consistency in assessment and implementation of appropriate non-pharmacological/ preventative strategies.

Achieving consensus and controversy around applicability of palliative care to dementia.

BACKGROUND: People with dementia may benefit from palliative care which specifically addresses the needs of patients and families affected by this life-limiting disease. On behalf of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), we recently performed a Delphi study to define domains for palliative care in dementia and to provide recommendations for optimal care. An international panel of experts in palliative care, dementia care or both, achieved consensus on almost all domains and recommendations, but the domain concerning the applicability of palliative care to dementia required revision. METHODS: To examine in detail, the opinions of the international panel of 64 experts around the applicability of palliative care, we explored feedback they provided in the Delphi process. To examine which experts found it less important or less applicable, ordinal regression analyses related characteristics of the panelists to ratings of overall importance of the applicability domain, and to agreement with the domain's four recommendations. RESULTS: Some experts expressed concerns about bringing up end-of-life issues prematurely and about relabeling dementia care as palliative care. Multivariable analyses with the two outcomes of importance and agreement with applicability indicated that younger or less experienced experts and those whose expertise was predominantly in dementia care found palliative care in dementia less important and less applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits of palliative care in dementia are acknowledged by experts worldwide, but there is some controversy around its early introduction. Further studies should weigh concerns expressed around care receiving a "palliative" label versus the benefits of applying palliative care early.

Diagnosing dying: an integrative literature review.

BACKGROUND: To ensure patients and families receive appropriate end-of-life care pathways and guidelines aim to inform clinical decision making. Ensuring appropriate outcomes through the use of these decision aids is dependent on timely use. Diagnosing dying is a complex clinical decision, and most of the available practice checklists relate to cancer. There is a need to review evidence to establish diagnostic indicators that death is imminent on the basis of need rather than a cancer diagnosis. AIM: To examine the evidence as to how patients are judged by clinicians as being in the final hours or days of life. DESIGN: Integrative literature review. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (2001-2011): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The search yielded a total of 576 hits, 331 titles and abstracts were screened, 42 papers were retrieved and reviewed and 23 articles were included. RESULTS: Analysis reveals an overarching theme of uncertainty in diagnosing dying and two subthemes: (1) 'characteristics of dying' involve dying trajectories that incorporate physical, social, spiritual and psychological decline towards death; (2) 'treatment orientation' where decision making related to diagnosing dying may remain focused towards biomedical interventions rather than systematic planning for end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review support the explicit recognition of 'uncertainty in diagnosing dying' and the need to work with and within this concept. Clinical decision making needs to allow for recovery where that potential exists, but equally there is the need to avoid futile interventions.