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.

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.

Establishing key criteria to define and compare models of specialist palliative care: A mixed-methods study using qualitative interviews and Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care services have various configurations of staff, processes and interventions, which determine how care is delivered. Currently, there is no consistent way to define and distinguish these different models of care. AIM: To identify the core components that characterise and differentiate existing models of specialist palliative care in the United Kingdom. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study: (1) semi-structured interviews to identify criteria, (2) two-round Delphi study to rank/refine criteria, and (3) structured interviews to test/refine criteria. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Specialist palliative care stakeholders from hospice inpatient, hospital advisory, and community settings. RESULTS: (1) Semi-structured interviews with 14 clinical leads, from eight UK organisations (five hospice inpatient units, two hospital advisory teams, five community teams), provided 34 preliminary criteria. (2) Delphi study: Round 1 (54 participants): thirty-four criteria presented, seven removed and seven added. Round 2 (30 participants): these 34 criteria were ranked with the 15 highest ranked criteria, including setting, type of care, size of service, diagnoses, disciplines, mode of care, types of interventions, 'out-of-hours' components (referrals, times, disciplines, mode of care, type of care), external education, use of measures, bereavement follow-up and complex grief provision. (3) Structured interviews with 21 UK service leads (six hospice inpatients, four hospital advisory and nine community teams) refined the criteria from (1) and (2), and provided four further contextual criteria (team purpose, funding, self-referral acceptance and discharge). CONCLUSION: In this innovative study, we derive 20 criteria to characterise and differentiate models of specialist palliative care - a major paradigm shift to enable accurate reporting and comparison in practice and research.

In response to Ballantyne and Schaefer's 'Consent and the ethical duty to participate in health data research'.

We welcome Ballantyne & Schaefer's discussion of the issues concerning consent and use of health data for research. In response to their acknowledgement of the need for public debate and discussion, we provide evidence from our own public consultation on this topic.

Patient empowerment, what does it mean for adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: A systematic review using critical interpretive synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment, defined as 'a process through which people gain greater control over decisions and actions affecting their health' (World Health Organization) is a key theme within global health and social care strategies. The benefits of incorporating empowerment strategies in care are well documented, but little is known about their application or impact for patients with advanced, life-limiting illness(s). AIM: To identify and synthesise the international evidence on patient empowerment for adults with advanced, life-limiting illness(s). DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO no. 46113) with critical interpretive synthesis methodology. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL, PsycINFO and Cochrane) were searched from inception to March 2018. Grey literature and reference list/citation searches of included papers were undertaken. INCLUSION CRITERIA: empirical research involving patients with advanced life-limiting illness including descriptions of, or references to, patient empowerment within the study results. RESULTS: In all, 13 papers met inclusion criteria. Two qualitative studies explored patient empowerment as a study objective. Six papers evaluated interventions, referencing patient empowerment as an incidental outcome. The following themes were identified from the interpretive synthesis: self-identity, personalised knowledge in theory and practice, negotiating personal and healthcare relationships, acknowledgement of terminal illness, and navigating continued losses. CONCLUSION: There are features of empowerment, for patients with advanced life-limiting illness distinct to those of other patient groups. Greater efforts should be made to progress the empowerment of patients nearing the end of their lives. We propose that the identified themes may provide a useful starting point to guide the assessment of existing or planned services and inform future research.

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.

Development of a caregiver-reported measure to support systematic assessment of people with dementia in long-term care: The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Symptom burden is common for long-term care residents with dementia which if untreated compromises quality of life. Measurement tools can support assessment of symptoms and problems but are not widely used in long-term care settings. We developed the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia derived from the Palliative care Outcome Scale, Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptom and Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale. AIM: To examine the content validity, acceptability and comprehension of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia for routine use in long-term care settings for people with dementia and to refine Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia. DESIGN: A multi-method qualitative study consisting of focus groups, semi-structured interviews and cognitive interviews. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Three residential long-term care settings in London, UK. Focus group and semi-structured interview participants included caregiver staff, family, general practitioners and district nurses. Caregiver staff were sampled purposively for cognitive interviews. RESULTS: A total of 26 respondents participated in the focus groups ( n = 21) or semi-structured interviews ( n = 5) and 10 caregiver staff completed cognitive interviews. Additional symptoms and problems included agitation, wandering, sleep problems, communication problems and diarrhoea. Refinements or lay terms were required to improve comprehension and consistency of item response for nausea, drowsiness, delusions/hallucinations, agitation, loss of interest, communication problems and interaction. A video presentation was required to support comprehension of instructions and assessment of verbally compromised residents. CONCLUSION: Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Dementia is a comprehensive and acceptable caregiver-reported measure to detect symptoms and problems in dementia. It is suitable for caregiver staff without professional training as it has been refined and tailored to maximise caregiver expertise, ready for further psychometric testing.