The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People with palliative care needs and their carers often rely on out-of-hours services to remain at home. Policymakers have recommended implementing telephone advice lines to ensure 24/7 access to support. However, the impact of these services on patient and carer outcomes, as well as the health care system, remains poorly understood. AIM: To evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines, and to identify service characteristics associated with effectiveness. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023400370) with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Three databases (Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched in February 2023 for studies of any design reporting on telephone advice lines with at least partial out-of-hours availability. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and quantitative and qualitative data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies, published 2000-2022, were included. Most studies were observational, none were experimental. While some evidence suggested that telephone advice lines offer guidance and reassurance, supporting care at home and potentially reducing avoidable emergency care use in the last months of life, variability in reporting and poor methodological quality across studies limit our understanding of patient/carer and health care system outcomes. CONCLUSION: Despite their increasing use, evidence for the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of palliative care telephone advice lines remains limited, primarily due to the lack of robust comparative studies. There is a need for more rigorous evaluations incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental methods and longer follow-up, and standardised reporting of telephone advice line models and outcomes, to guide policy and 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.

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.

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: In England, Integrated Care Systems have been established to improve integration of care, as part of the NHS Long Term Plan. For people near the end of life, palliative care can improve integration of care. We aimed to understand whether and how palliative and end of life care was included in Integrated Care System strategies, and to consider priorities for strengthening this. Methods: Documentary analysis of Integrated Care System (ICS) strategies, using summative content analysis, was performed. Google searches were used to identify NHS Trust, Clinical Commissioning Group or ICS websites. We searched these websites to identify strategies. Key terms were used to identify relevant content. Themes were mapped onto an adapted logic model for integrated care. Results: 23 Integrated Care System strategy documents were identified. Of these, two did not mention any of the key terms, and six highlighted palliative and end of life care as either a priority, area of focus, or an ambition. While most (19/23) strategies included elements that could be mapped onto the adapted logic model for integrated care, the thread from enablers and components, to structures, processes, outcomes, and impact was incomplete. Conclusions: Greater prioritisation of palliative and end of life care within recently established Integrated Care Systems could improve outcomes for people near the end of life, as well as reduce reliance on acute hospital care. Integrated Care Systems should consider involving patients, the public and palliative care stakeholders in the ongoing development of strategies. For strategies to be effective, our adapted logic model can be used to outline how different components of care fit together to achieve defined outcomes and impact.

A non-randomised controlled study to assess the effectiveness of a new proactive multidisciplinary care intervention for older people living with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care may improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service in improving the wellbeing and quality of life (QoL) of older people living with severe frailty. METHODS: A community-based non-randomised controlled study. Participants (≥65 years, electronic Frailty Index ≥0.36) received either the new integrated care service plus usual care, or usual care alone. Data collection was at three time points: baseline, 2-4 weeks, and 10-14 weeks. The primary outcome was patient wellbeing (symptoms and other concerns) at 2-4 weeks, measured using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS); the secondary outcome was QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L. To test duration of effect and safety, wellbeing and QoL were also measured at 10-14 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise and compare intervention and control groups (eligible but had not accessed the new service), with t-test, Chi-Square, or Mann-Whitney U tests (as appropriate) to test differences at each time point. Generalised linear modelling, with propensity score matching, was used for further group comparisons. Data were analysed using STATA v17. RESULTS: 199 intervention and 54 control participants were recruited. At baseline, intervention and control groups were similar in age, gender, ethnicity, living status, and body mass index, but not functional status or area deprivation score. At 2-4 weeks, wellbeing had improved in the intervention group but worsened in the control (median IPOS -5 versus 2, p<0.001). QoL improved in the intervention group but was unchanged in the control (median EQ-5D-5L 0.12, versus 0.00, p<0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, and living status, the intervention group had an average total IPOS score reduction at 2-4 weeks of 6.34 (95% CI: -9.01: -4.26, p<0.05); this improvement was sustained, with an average total IPOS score reduction at 10-14 weeks of 6.36 (95% CI: -8.91:-3.80, p<0.05). After propensity score matching based on functional status/area deprivation, modelling showed similar results, with a reduction in IPOS score at 2-4 weeks in the intervention group of 7.88 (95% CI: -12.80: -2.96, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service may have improved the overall wellbeing and quality of life of older people living with frailty at 2-4 weeks and the improvement in wellbeing was sustained at three months. ETHICS APPROVAL: NHS Research Ethics Committee 18/YH/0470 and IRAS-250981. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry (registration date: 01/08/2022, registration number: ISRCTN10613839).

Parental death: a systematic review of support experiences and needs of children and parent survivors.

BACKGROUND: Bereaved people need a supportive response from those around them. Knowing children's and surviving parents' needs following parental death is the first step to ensuring a supportive response. However, no systematic review has reported on this phenomenon. AIM: To systematically identify and synthesise qualitative literature exploring support experiences of parentally bereaved children and surviving parents. METHODS: Systematic review with thematic synthesis, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the British Nursing Database were searched for relevant papers to September 2021. Included studies were appraised for quality and thematically synthesised using Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis framework. RESULTS: Fifteen qualitative studies from nine countries were included. There were four analytical themes from the children's perspectives (1) Openness of communication with children about death and dying, (2) Children's challenges of managing change, (3) Navigating emotions, and (4) Children's acceptability, access and engagement with support. There were three analytical themes from the parents' perspectives: (1) Adjusting as a parent, (2) Supporting their children, and (3) Parent's acceptability, access and engagement with support. CONCLUSIONS: Following a parental death, open and honest communication and involvement in what is happening within the family will help children cope. Both children and parents suppress emotions and avoid conversations to protect each other and those around them. A taboo around death exists and constrains the support some families receive. Childhood bereavement is a public health issue, with a need for professionals and communities to better understand and respond to the needs of bereaved families.CRD42020166179.

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.

The Effects of Opioids on Cognition in Older Adults With Cancer and Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Opioids are prescribed to manage moderate-to-severe pain and can be used with older adults; however, they may lead to several adverse effects, including cognitive impairment. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise, and synthesize evidence on the impact of opioids on cognition in older adults with cancer/chronic noncancer pain, and screening tools/neuropsychological assessments used to detect opioid-induced cognitive impairment. METHODS: A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (international prospective register of systematic reviews registration: CRD42018092943). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched up to December 2018. Randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and observational studies of adults aged 65 years and older with cancer/chronic noncancer pain taking opioids were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: From 4036 records, 10 met inclusion criteria. Five studies used one screening tool, and five studies used a range of neuropsychological assessments; assessing 14 cognitive domains. Most studies demonstrated no effect of opioid use on cognitive domains, whereas four studies showed mixed effects. In particular, attention, language, orientation, psychomotor function, and verbal working/delayed episodic memory were worsened. Changes to cognitive function were predominantly observed in studies with higher mean doses of opioids (120-190.7mg oral morphine equivalent daily dose). CONCLUSION: Both improvements and impairments to cognition were observed in studies with higher mean opioid doses. In clinical practice, a brief screening tool assessing attention, language, orientation, psychomotor function, and verbal working/delayed episodic memory may be beneficial to detect worsening cognition in older adults with chronic pain using opioids.

Which outcome domains are important in palliative care and when? An international expert consensus workshop, using the nominal group technique.

BACKGROUND: When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden. AIM: To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured. DESIGN: An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1-5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants' rationales for their choices were analysed thematically. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016. RESULTS: Participants' years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were 'overall wellbeing/quality of life' (2.75), 'pain' (2.06), and 'information needs/preferences' (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure 'Phase of Illness' was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured. CONCLUSION: The domains of 'overall wellbeing/quality of life', 'pain', and 'information needs/preferences' are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using 'Phase of Illness'. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care.

Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as important in research. Most PPI takes place face-to-face, but this can be difficult for people who are unwell or have caring responsibilities. As these challenges are particularly common in palliative care and rehabilitation research, we developed an online forum for PPI: www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk. In this study, we explored how well the online forum worked, if it is a suitable method for PPI, and how PPI members and researchers reacted to using it. We used an existing theory about online interventions to help choose the 'right' questions to ask participants. We invited PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum to participate in focus groups, and identified the most important themes discussed. Within this study, PPI members have helped with the interview questions, analysis, and write up. Overall, four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups. Participants felt the online forum worked well and had multiple benefits. From the discussions, we identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: how does the forum work, how does it engage people, how does it empower people, and what is the impact? Participants suggested the forum could be improved by being more PPI and less researcher focused. We conclude that when developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. Future work can use these four domains when developing their own online PPI methods. BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly recognised as important. Most PPI activities take place face-to-face, yet this can be difficult for people with ill health or caring responsibilities, and may exclude people from hard-to-reach populations (e.g. living in vulnerable social circumstances and/or remote geographical locations). These challenges are particularly pertinent in palliative care and rehabilitation research where people often live with, or care for someone with, advanced illness. In response to this, we aimed to test the functionality, feasibility, and acceptability of an online forum for PPI for palliative care and rehabilitation research (www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk). METHODS: We conducted separate focus groups with PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum. Data collection was underpinned by DeLone and Mclean's model of information systems success. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Dual coding by two authors ensured rigour, and attention was paid to divergent cases. RESULTS: Four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups (two PPI focus groups, one researcher focus group). The online forum was perceived as functional, feasible, and acceptable. Our analysis identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: (1) how does the forum work, (2) how does it engage people, (3) how does it empower people, and (4) what is the impact? PPI members felt that the online forum was too researcher led, and needed to be more PPI focussed. CONCLUSIONS: When developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. To optimise online involvement, future work should refer to these four domains and balance the needs of researchers and PPI members.

Development and validation of a casemix classification to predict costs of specialist palliative care provision across inpatient hospice, hospital and community settings in the UK: a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Provision of palliative care is inequitable with wide variations across conditions and settings in the UK. Lack of a standard way to classify by case complexity is one of the principle obstacles to addressing this. We aim to develop and validate a casemix classification to support the prediction of costs of specialist palliative care provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase I: A cohort study to determine the variables and potential classes to be included in a casemix classification. Data are collected from clinicians in palliative care services across inpatient hospice, hospital and community settings on: patient demographics, potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use. Cost predictors are derived using multivariate regression and then incorporated into a classification using classification and regression trees. Internal validation will be conducted by bootstrapping to quantify any optimism in the predictive performance (calibration and discrimination) of the developed classification. Phase II: A mixed-methods cohort study across settings for external validation of the classification developed in phase I. Patient and family caregiver data will be collected longitudinally on demographics, potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use. This will be triangulated with data collected from clinicians on potential complexity/casemix criteria and patient-level resource use, and with qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers about care provision across difference settings. The classification will be refined on the basis of its performance in the validation data set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee. The results are expected to be disseminated in 2018 through papers for publication in major palliative care journals; policy briefs for clinicians, commissioning leads and policy makers; and lay summaries for patients and public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN90752212.

Attitudes towards antenatal vaccination, Group B streptococcus and participation in clinical trials: Insights from focus groups and interviews of parents and healthcare professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Antenatal vaccination has become a part of routine care during pregnancy in the UK and worldwide, leading to improvements in health for both pregnant women and their infants. However, uptake remains sub-optimal. Other antenatal vaccines targeting major neonatal pathogens, such as Group B streptococcus (GBS), the commonest cause of sepsis and meningitis in the neonatal period, are undergoing clinical trials but more information is needed on how to improve acceptance of such vaccines. METHODS: Qualitative study using focus groups and interviews; involving 14 pregnant women, 8 mothers with experience of GBS, and 28 maternity healthcare professionals. Questions were asked regarding antenatal vaccines, knowledge of GBS, attitudes to a potential future GBS vaccine and participation in antenatal vaccine trials. RESULTS: All participants were very cautious about vaccination during pregnancy, with harm to the baby being a major concern. Despite this, the pregnant women and parents with experience of GBS were open to the idea of an antenatal GBS vaccine and participating in research, while the maternity professionals were less positive. Major barriers identified included lack of knowledge about GBS and the reluctance of maternity professionals to be involved. INTERPRETATION: In order for a future GBS vaccine to be acceptable to both pregnant women and the healthcare professionals advising them, a major awareness campaign would be required with significant focus on convincing and training maternity professionals.