What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Introduction The communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care helps to ensure that patients with life-limiting illness receive appropriate, coordinated care in line with their preferences. However, little is known about this information-sharing process. Aim To determine how poor prognosis is communicated from secondary care to primary care. Design and setting Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. Method Four electronic databases were searched from 1st January 2000 to 17th May 2021, supplemented by hand-searching key journals. One quarter of titles and abstracts were independently screened by a second reviewer. Two reviewers undertook data extraction and quality appraisal, independently using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using narrative synthesis. Reporting follows PRISMA guidance. Results Searches identified 23,853 unique studies of which 30 met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a focus on the interprofessional communication of poor prognosis. Information about prognosis was not commonly communicated from secondary to primary care and was more likely to occur if death was imminent. Lack of identification of poor prognosis by secondary care teams was a barrier. Facilitators included shared electronic records and direct clinician-clinician contact. GPs welcomed this information from secondary care and felt it was vital for continuity of care. Conclusion Although the communication of poor prognosis from secondary to primary care is highly valued, it is rare and associated with cultural and systemic challenges. Further research is necessary to understand the information needs of GPs and to explore the challenges facing secondary care clinicians initiating this communication.

An online clinical decision tool to screen for vertebral fragility fractures (Vfrac) in older women presenting with back pain in general practice: protocol for a feasibility study in preparation for a future cluster randomised controlled trial.

This feasibility study for a future definitive randomized trial assesses the use and acceptability of a new clinical decision tool to identify risk of a vertebral fracture and those who should be referred for spinal radiography in women aged 65 or over presenting to primary care with back pain. PURPOSE: Approximately 12% of older adults have vertebral fragility fractures, but currently fewer than one-third are diagnosed, potentially limiting access to bone protection treatment. Vfrac is a vertebral fracture screening tool which classifies individuals into high or low risk of having a vertebral fracture, allowing targeting of spinal radiographs to high-risk individuals. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomized controlled trial to evaluate the use of an online version of Vfrac in primary care. METHODS: The study will run in six general practices, with three given the Vfrac tool for use on older women (> 65 years) consulting with back pain and three using standard clinical processes for managing such back pain. Anonymised data covering a 12-month period will be collected from all sites on consultations by older women with back pain. Focus groups will be undertaken with healthcare professionals and patients on whom the tool was used to understand the acceptability of Vfrac and identify factors that impact its use. These patients will be sent a paper version of the Vfrac questionnaire to self-complete at home. Outputs of the self-completion Vfrac (high versus low risk) will be compared with the face-to-face Vfrac (high versus low risk), and agreement assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: This study will evaluate the use and acceptability of Vfrac within primary care and determine if data on resource use can be collected accurately and comprehensively. CONCLUSIONS: This article describes the protocol of the Vfrac feasibility study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18000119 (registered 01/03/2022) and ISRCTN12150779 (registered 10/01/2022).

Frailty is associated with long-term outcomes in older trauma patients: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most major trauma admissions are older adults, many of whom are living with frailty - a recognised risk factor for post-injury mortality. OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of frailty, and geriatrician review on mortality up to 4-years after hospitalisation following trauma. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included patients 65 years or older admitted to North Bristol NHS Trusts' Major Trauma Centre from November 2018 to September 2019. The primary outcome was time-to-mortality, assessed with an adjusted multivariable Cox regression model. Analyses were adjusted for factors known to be associated with mortality including age, sex, comorbidities, injury factors, surgical procedure, and complications. RESULTS: 573 patients were included: median age was 81 years; 67.5 % were living with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale, CFS 4-8). Mortality was 45.2 % at the end of the study. Compared to fit patients (CFS 1-2), risk of death increased in those living with very mild frailty (CFS 4; aHR 3.22 [95 % CI 1.53-6.77]), mild frailty (CFS 5; aHR 4.97 [95 % CI 2.40-10.28]), moderate frailty (CFS 6; aHR 5.94 [95 % CI 2.83-12.44]), and moderate to severe frailty (CFS 7-8; aHR 9.63 [95 % CI 4.35-21.32]). Geriatrician review was associated with less mortality (aHR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.38-0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty predicts long-term mortality in older trauma. Our findings have implications for clinician-patient discussions of prognosis and therapy goals. Furthermore, our results lend support to the routine provision of geriatrician input in trauma pathways.

Using the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) in care homes: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: The Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is an advance care planning process designed to facilitate discussion and documentation of preferences for care in a medical emergency. Advance care planning is important in residential and nursing homes. AIM: To explore the views and experiences of GPs and care home staff of the role of ReSPECT in: (i) supporting, and documenting, conversations about care home residents' preferences for emergency care situations, and (ii) supporting decision-making in clinical emergencies. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen GPs providing clinical care for care home residents and 11 care home staff in the West of England. METHODS: A qualitative research design using semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: Participants' accounts described the ReSPECT process as facilitating person-centred conversations about residents' preferences for care in emergency situations. The creation of personalised scenarios supported residents to consider their preferences. However, using ReSPECT was complex, requiring interactional work to identify and incorporate resident or relative preferences. Subsequent translation of preferences into action during emergency situations also proved difficult in some cases. Care staff played an important role in facilitating and supporting ReSPECT conversations and in translating it into action. CONCLUSIONS: The ReSPECT process in care homes was positive for GPs and care home staff. We highlight challenges with the process, communication of preferences in emergency situations and the importance of balancing detail with clarity. This study highlights the potential for a multi-disciplinary approach engaging care staff more in the process.

Transforming undergraduate education in geriatric medicine: an innovative curriculum at Bristol Medical School.

The World Health Organization (WHO) advocates investment in high-quality undergraduate education in geriatric medicine as a means of meeting the future needs of the aging population. However, there is a lack of evidence for the optimal delivery of training in this area. Rigorous pedagogical research is required to determine the most effective way to equip tomorrow's doctors with the skills and knowledge to care for older adults with complex health and social care needs. The transition between two undergraduate medical curricula meant that Bristol Medical School (BMS) was uniquely positioned to innovate and evaluate undergraduate education in geriatric medicine. This transition marked BMS' departure from a 'traditional' curriculum to case-based learning. The outgoing curriculum included a 4-week unit in geriatrics, whilst the new programme includes an 18-week clerkship titled 'Complex Medicine in Older People' (CMOP). CMOP is a clinical clerkship with 18 cases at its core, covering the fundamental aspects of geriatric medicine. The core cases and clinical learning are enhanced with five expert lectures, six tutorials and three journal clubs. Reflective practice is modelled and promoted with Balint groups and a book club. Consolidative workplace-based assessments and clinical portfolio mirror those used in postgraduate training, preparing students for professional practice. CMOP is iteratively improved in real-time using staff and student feedback. This marked shift in mode and duration of teaching affords the opportunity to evaluate the impact of differing education in geriatrics, providing an evidence-based model for teaching on aging.

Which patients received a ReSPECT form, what was documented and what were the patient outcomes? A protocol for a retrospective observational study investigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the ReSPECT process.

INTRODUCTION: Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) is a UK advance care planning (ACP) initiative aiming to standardise the process of creating personalised recommendations for a person's clinical care in a future emergency and therefore improve person-focused care. Implementation of the ReSPECT process across a large geographical area, involving both community and secondary care, has not previously been studied. In particular, it not known whether such implementation is associated with any change in outcomes for those patients with a ReSPECT form.Implementation of ReSPECT in the Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) area overlapped with the first UK COVID-19 wave. It is unclear what impact the pandemic had on the implementation of ReSPECT and if this affected the type of patients who underwent the ReSPECT process, such as those with specific diagnoses or living in care homes. Patterns of clinical recommendations documented on ReSPECT forms during the first year of its implementation may also have changed, particularly with reference to the pandemic.To determine the equity and potential benefits of implementation of the ReSPECT form process in BNSSG and contribute to the ACP evidence base, this study will describe the characteristics of patients in the BNSSG area who had a completed ReSPECT form recorded in their primary care medical records before, during and after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic; describe the content of ReSPECT forms; and analyse outcomes for those patients who died with a ReSPECT form. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform an observational retrospective study on data, collected from October 2019 for 12 months. Data will be exported from the CCG Public Health Management data resource, a pseudonymised database linking data from organisations providing health and social care to people across BNSSG. Descriptive statistics of sociodemographic and health-related variables for those who completed the ReSPECT process with a clinician and had a documented ReSPECT form in their notes, in addition to their ReSPECT form responses, will be compared between before, during and after first COVID-19 wave groups. Additionally, routinely collected outcomes for patients who died in our study period will be compared between those who completed the ReSPECT process with a community clinician, hospital clinician or not at all. These include emergency department attendances, emergency hospital admissions, community nurse home visits, hospice referrals, anticipatory medication prescribing, place of death and if the patient died in preferred place of death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval has been obtained from a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0185). Findings will be disseminated to policy decision-makers, care providers and the public through scientific meetings and peer-reviewed publication.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for the detection of prostate cancer in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a commonly used test to detect prostate cancer. Attention has mostly focused on the use of PSA in screening asymptomatic patients, but the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms is less well understood. METHODS: A systematic database search was conducted of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library. Studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of PSA for prostate cancer in patients with symptoms were included. Two investigators independently assessed the titles and abstracts of all database search hits and full texts of potentially relevant studies against the inclusion criteria, and data extracted into a proforma. Study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool by two investigators independently. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated with meta-analysis using bivariate mixed effects regression. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-three search hits were assessed by title and abstract after de-duplication, with 75 full text papers reviewed. Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria, 18 of which were conducted in secondary care settings with one from a screening study cohort. All studies used histology obtained by transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS) as a reference test; usually only for patients with elevated PSA or abnormal prostate examination. Pooled data from 14,489 patients found estimated sensitivity of PSA for prostate cancer was 0.93 (95% CI 0.88, 0.96) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.12, 0.33). The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68, 0.76). All studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain. CONCLUSIONS: Currently available evidence suggests PSA is highly sensitive but poorly specific for prostate cancer detection in symptomatic patients. However, significant limitations in study design and reference test reduces the certainty of this estimate. There is very limited evidence for the performance of PSA in primary care, the healthcare setting where most PSA testing is performed.

Building on sand: digital technologies for care coordination and advance care planning.

Approaches using digital technologies to support advance care planning (ACP) and care coordination are being used in palliative and end of life care. While providing opportunities to facilitate increases in the completeness, sharing and availability of care plans, the evidence base underpinning their use remains limited. We outline an approach that continues to be developed in England; Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS). Stages governing their optimal use are outlined alongside unanswered questions with relevance across technology-mediated approaches to ACP. Research has a critical role in determining if technology-mediated approaches to ACP, such as EPaCCS, could be useful tools to support the delivery of care for patients with chronic and progressive illnesses.

Communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care: protocol for a systematic review with narrative synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: People dying in Britain spend, on average, 3 weeks of their last year of life in hospital. Hospital discharge presents an opportunity for secondary care clinicians to communicate to general practitioners (GPs) which patients may have a poor prognosis. This would allow GPs to prioritise these patients for Advance Care Planning.The objective of this study is to produce a critical overview of research on the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care through a systematic review and narrative synthesis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Social Sciences Citation Index for all study types, published since 1 January 2000, and conduct reference-mining of systematic reviews and publications. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool; a narrative synthesis will be undertaken to integrate and summarise findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval by research ethics committee is not required since the review only includes published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a qualitative study of the sharing of poor prognosis at hospital discharge. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal as per Preferred Reporting for Systematic review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020 guidance. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021236087.

Underutilisation of EPaCCS (Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems) in end-of life-care: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To support greater personalisation of end-of-life care, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) have been implemented across England. Here, we describe patient factors associated with dying with an EPaCCS record and explore the association between having an EPaCCS record with cause and place of death. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional study using routinely collected data. Data were extracted from primary care records in 20 of 86 general practices within one Clinical Commissioning Group in England. All deaths (n=1723) recorded between 22 February 2018 and 21 February 2019 were included to determine whether the deceased patient had an EPaCCS record at the time of death, a range of demographic factors, place of death and cause of death. RESULTS: Only 18% of the sample died with an EPaCCS record, and people who died of a non-cancer cause were less likely to have an EPaCCS record than those who died of cancer (OR=0.41; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.55). Adjusting for patient demographic factors and cause of death, having an EPaCCS record was strongly associated with dying in the community (OR=5.10; 95% CI 3.70 to 7.03). CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of this sample died with an EPaCCS record, despite evidence of an association with dying in the community.

Impact of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) on care at the end of life across multiple care sectors, in one clinical commissioning group area, in England: a realist evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) aim to support people approaching the end of life (EOL) to receive consistent care, according to their wishes, that is coordinated effectively across multiple care sectors. They are in use across the UK although empirical evidence into their effectiveness is poor. This paper presents a protocol of a mixed-methods study, to understand how, and by whom, EPaCCS are being used and whether EPaCCS are enabling Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) to coordinate patients' EOL care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods study, carried out within a realist paradigm, to evaluate the impact of an EPaCCS on EOL care as provided by a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in England. This study has two aims: (1) Describe the socio-demographic characteristics of patients who die with an EPaCCS record, their underlying cause of death and place of death and compare these with patients who die without an EPaCCS record. (2) Explore the impact of an EPaCCS on the experience of receiving EOL care for patients and their carers, and understand HCPs' views and experiences of utilising an EPaCCS to coordinate care for their patients. The study will be conducted in five phases: (1) development of the initial programme theory; (2) focus group with CCG stakeholder board; (3) individual interviews with HCPs, patients, current and bereaved carers; (4) retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data on EPaCCS usage and (5) data analysis and synthesis of study findings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by National Health Service South West-Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number: 18/SW/0198). Findings will be published in a wide range of outputs targeted at key audiences.

Barriers to GPs identifying patients at the end-of-life and discussions about their care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients at the end-of-life is the first step in care planning and many general practices have Palliative Care Registers. There is evidence that these largely comprise patients with cancer diagnoses, but little is known about the identification process. OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers that hinder GPs from identifying and registering patients on Palliative Care Registers. METHODS: An exploratory qualitative approach was undertaken using semi-structured interviews with GPs in South West England. GPs were asked about their experiences of identifying, registering and discussing end-of-life care with patients. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Most practices had a Palliative Care Register, which were mainly composed of patients with cancer. They reported identifying non-malignant patients at the end-of-life as challenging and were reluctant to include frail or elderly patients due to resource implications. GPs described rarely using prognostication tools to identify patients and conveyed that poor communication between secondary and primary care made prognostication difficult. GPs also detailed challenges around talking to patients about end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative Care Registers are widely used by GPs for patients with malignant diagnoses, but seldom for other patients. The findings from our study suggest that this arises because GPs find prognosticating for patients with non-malignant disease more challenging. GPs would value better communication from secondary care, tools for prognostication and training in speaking with patients at the end-of-life enabling them to better identify non-malignant patients at the end-of-life.

Factors associated with hospital deaths in the oldest old: a cross-sectional study.

AIMS/OBJECTIVES: to study associations between the likelihood of hospital death with patient demographics, cause of death and co-morbidities for people aged ≥85 at death who have been previously admitted (within 12 months of death) to hospital. METHODS: a cross-sectional study, using death registration data and hospital episode statistics, for 671,178 England residents who had been admitted to hospital during the 12 months before death and were aged 85 or over at death during 2008-12. The outcome variable was the likelihood of dying in hospital. Covariates included gender, age, social deprivation, care home residence, cause of death and co-morbidity. Potential associations were explored by multivariable regression analysis. RESULTS: sixty-two per cent of the sample died in hospital. The likelihood of dying in hospital varies significantly with age, cause of death, deprivation, number of emergency hospital and co-morbidities. People aged over 90 at the time of death are less likely to die in hospital than those aged 85-89 [odds ratio (OR) for aged 90-94, 0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.00, OR for aged 95 and over, 0.91; 95% CI: 0.89-0.92]. People who are care home residents at the time of death are significantly less likely to die in hospital (OR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.34-0.35). Having a mention of dementia on the death certificate was significantly associated with a reduction in the likelihood of dying in hospital (OR 0.32; 95% CI: 0.31-0.32). CONCLUSIONS: the likelihood of an older person dying in hospital is significantly associated with a number of socio-demographic factors, such as age and level of deprivation. Care home residence is significantly associated with a reduction in likelihood of hospital death.