Developing a Core Outcome Set for Prognostic Research in Palliative Cancer Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Studies exploring the impact of receiving end-of-life prognoses in patients with advanced cancer use a variety of different measures to evaluate the outcomes, and thus report often conflicting findings. The standardization of outcomes reported in studies of prognostication in palliative cancer care could enable uniform assessment and reporting, as well as intertrial comparisons. A core outcome set promotes consistency in outcome selection and reporting among studies within a particular population. We aim to develop a set of core outcomes to be used to measure the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. OBJECTIVE: This protocol outlines the proposed methodology to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. METHODS: We will adopt a mixed methods approach consisting of 3 phases using methodology recommended by the Core Outcome Measure in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. In phase I, we will conduct a systematic review to identify existing outcomes that prognostic studies have previously used, so as to inform the development of items and domains for the proposed core outcome set. Phase II will consist of semistructured interviews with patients with advanced cancer who are receiving palliative care, informal caregivers, and clinicians, to explore their perceptions and experiences of end-of-life prognostication. Outcomes identified in the interviews will be combined with those found in existing literature and taken forward to phase III, a Delphi survey, in which we will ask patients, informal caregivers, clinicians, and relevant researchers to rate these outcomes until consensus is achieved as to which are considered to be the most important for inclusion in the core outcome set. The resulting, prioritized outcomes will be discussed in a consensus meeting to agree and endorse the final core outcome set. RESULTS: Ethical approval was received for this study in September 2022. As of July 2023, we have completed and published the systematic review (phase I) and have started recruitment for phase II. Data analysis for phase II has not yet started. We expect to complete the study by October 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol presents the stepwise approach that will be taken to develop a core outcome set for measuring the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative cancer care. The final core outcome set has the potential for translation into clinical practice, allowing for consistent evaluation of emerging prognostic algorithms and improving communication of end-of-life prognostication. This study will also potentially facilitate the design of future clinical trials of the impact of end-of-life prognostication in palliative care that are acceptable to key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials 2136; https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2136. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49774.

What outcomes do studies use to measure the impact of prognostication on people with advanced cancer? Findings from a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating the impact of prognostication in advanced cancer patients vary in the outcomes they measure, and there is a lack of consensus about which outcomes are most important. AIM: To identify outcomes previously reported in prognostic research with people with advanced cancer, as a first step towards constructing a core outcome set for prognostic impact studies. DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted and analysed in two subsets: one qualitative and one quantitative. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022320117; 29/03/2022). DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched from inception to September 2022. We extracted data describing (1) outcomes used to measure the impact of prognostication and (2) patients' and informal caregivers' experiences and perceptions of prognostication in advanced cancer. We classified findings using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative taxonomy, along with a narrative description. We appraised retrieved studies for quality, but quality was not a basis for exclusion. RESULTS: We identified 42 eligible studies: 32 quantitative, 6 qualitative, 4 mixed methods. We extracted 70 outcomes of prognostication in advanced cancer and organised them into 12 domains: (1) survival; (2) psychiatric outcomes; (3) general outcomes; (4) spiritual/religious/existential functioning/wellbeing, (5) emotional functioning/wellbeing; (6) cognitive functioning; (7) social functioning; (8) global quality of life; (9) delivery of care; (10) perceived health status; (11) personal circumstances; and (12) hospital/hospice use. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting and measurement varied markedly across the studies. A standardised approach to outcome reporting in studies of prognosis is necessary to enhance data synthesis, improve clinical practice and better align with stakeholders' priorities.

Margin-Negative en Bloc Resection of a Large Retroperitoneal Melanoma Including Reconstruction of the Infra-renal Inferior Vena Cava.

The management and outcomes for patients with metastatic melanoma have been revolutionized by immunotherapy. This case report highlights the role of surgery as an adjuvant to systemic therapies when there is oligoprogressive disease. We describe a 74-year-old man with metastatic melanoma who initially had a complete radiographic response after dual agent immunotherapy but subsequently developed a large metastasis in the retroperitoneum. After multidisciplinary discussion, he underwent margin negative resection that required en bloc segmental resection of the infra-renal inferior vena cava. To our knowledge, this is the first reported resection of a melanoma metastasis in this location.

Management of Fatigue in Patients with Advanced Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Fatigue is a common and distressing symptom experienced by patients with cancer. It is most common in patients with locally advanced or metastatic incurable disease. It can have profound effects on quality-of-life and physical functioning. In addition to general supportive measures (directed at tackling contributory conditions and comorbidities), a variety of specific interventions have been developed which can be broadly categorised as physical therapies, psychological therapies or medication. There is some evidence that each of these approaches can have benefits in patients with earlier stage disease, those undergoing active treatment and in cancer survivors. The best evidence is for aerobic exercise, yoga, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and psycho-educational interventions. Less strong evidence supports the use of medications such as methylphenidate or ginseng. In patients with advanced disease, it is likely that the mechanisms of fatigue or the factors contributing to fatigue maintenance may be different. Relatively fewer studies have been undertaken in this group and the evidence is correspondingly weaker. The authors recommend the cautious use of aerobic exercise (e.g. walking) in those who are still mobile. The authors advise considering the use of psycho-educational approaches or CBT in those patients who are able to engage in such forms of therapy. In patients near the end-of-life, the authors advise use of dexamethasone (short-term use) and other pharmacological treatments only on the basis of a clinical trial.

When months matter; modelling the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the diagnostic pathway of Motor Neurone Disease (MND).

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of MND takes an average 10-16 months from symptom onset. Early diagnosis is important to access supportive measures to maximise quality of life. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused significant delays in NHS pathways; the majority of GP appointments now occur online with subsequent delays in secondary care assessment. Given the rapid progression of MND, patients may be disproportionately affected resulting in late stage new presentations. We used Monte Carlo simulation to model the pre-COVID-19 diagnostic pathway and then introduced plausible COVID-19 delays. METHODS: The diagnostic pathway was modelled using gamma distributions of time taken: 1) from symptom onset to GP presentation, 2) for specialist referral, and 3) for diagnosis reached after neurology appointment. We incorporated branches to simulate delays: when patients did not attend their GP and when the GP consultation did not result in referral. An emergency presentation was triggered when diagnostic pathway time was within 30 days of projected median survival. Total time-to-diagnosis was calculated over 100,000 iterations. The pre-COVID-19 model was estimated using published data and the Improving MND Care Survey 2019. We estimated COVID-19 delays using published statistics. RESULTS: The pre-COVID model reproduced known features of the MND diagnostic pathway, with a median time to diagnosis of 399 days and predicting 5.2% of MND patients present as undiagnosed emergencies. COVID-19 resulted in diagnostic delays from 558 days when only primary care was 25% delayed, to 915 days when both primary and secondary care were 75%. The model predicted an increase in emergency presentations ranging from 15.4%-44.5%. INTERPRETATIONS: The model suggests the COVID-19 pandemic will result in later-stage diagnoses and more emergency presentations of undiagnosed MND. Late-stage presentations may require rapid escalation to multidisciplinary care. Proactive recognition of acute and late-stage disease with altered service provision will optimise care for people with MND.

An online randomised controlled trial of prognosticating imminent death in advanced cancer patients: Clinicians give greater weight to advice from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician with a different profession.

BACKGROUND: A second opinion or a prognostic algorithm may increase prognostic accuracy. This study assessed the level to which clinicians integrate advice perceived to be coming from another clinician or a prognostic algorithm into their prognostic estimates, and how participant characteristics and nature of advice received affect this. METHODS: An online double-blind randomised controlled trial was conducted. Palliative doctors, nurses and other types of healthcare professionals were randomised into study arms differing by perceived source of advice (algorithm or another clinician). In fact, the advice was the same in both arms (emanating from the PiPS-B14 prognostic model). Each participant reviewed five patient summaries. For each summary, participants: (1) provided an initial probability estimate of two-week survival (0% 'certain death'-100% 'certain survival'); (2) received advice (another estimate); (3) provided a final estimate. Weight of Advice (WOA) was calculated for each summary (0 '100% advice discounting' - 1 '0% discounting') and multilevel linear regression analyses were conducted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04568629. RESULTS: A total of 283 clinicians were included in the analysis. Clinicians integrated advice from the algorithm more than advice from another clinician (WOA difference = -0.12 [95% CI -0.18, -0.07], p < 0.001). There was no interaction between study arm and participant profession, years of palliative care or overall experience. Advice of intermediate strength (75%) was given a lower WOA (0.31) than advice received at either the 50% (WOA 0.40) or 90% level (WOA 0.43). The overall interaction between strength of advice and study arm on WOA was significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinicians adjusted their prognostic estimates more when advice was perceived to come from a prognostic algorithm than from another clinician. Research is needed to understand how clinicians make prognostic decisions and how algorithms are used in clinical practice.

How best to capture the impact of complementary therapies in palliative care: A systematic review to identify and assess the appropriateness and validity of multi-domain tools.

BACKGROUND: Complementary therapies are widely used in palliative care settings. Qualitative research found that people with advanced disease report a range of physical and psychological benefits from complementary therapies, however evidence of their effectiveness from clinical trials is inconclusive. This may be because trials are limited by use of inappropriate outcome measures. AIMS: To identify tools which capture the impact of massage, reflexology and aromatherapy in people with advanced disease. We (1) identified multi-domain tools used to evaluate these therapies in populations with any chronic health condition and (2) assessed whether tools were valid and psychometrically robust in populations with advanced disease. DESIGN: A two-stage systematic review was conducted using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD42020161199). DATA SOURCES: Six databases were searched (August 2021). Study methodological quality, tool psychometric properties and evidence quality were assessed. A global comparison score was generated. RESULTS: Stage 1: 66 trials using 40 different multi-domain tools were identified. Stage 2: Of these tools, we identified papers for seven tools regarding development or validation in advanced disease populations. The majority of psychometric data were inconsistent or inconclusive. Data were mostly of low quality due to methodological issues. CONCLUSION: Of the tools identified, 'Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General' appears to be the most suitable alternative tool against COMSIN criteria, for trials of massage, reflexology and aromatherapy in palliative care. Further tool validation is required before firm recommendations can be made. Co-development of a core outcome set could ensure relevant domains are assessed.

Mu-opioid antagonists for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OIBD) is characterised by constipation, incomplete evacuation, bloating, and gastric reflux. It is one of the major adverse events (AEs) of treatment for pain in cancer and palliative care, resulting in increased morbidity and reduced quality of life. This review is a partial update of a 2008 review, and critiques as previous update (2018) trials only for people with cancer and people receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To assess for OIBD in people with cancer and people receiving palliative care the effectiveness and safety of mu-opioid antagonists (MOAs) versus different doses of MOAs, alternative pharmacological/non-pharmacological interventions, placebo, or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (December 2021), clinical trial registries and regulatory websites. We sought contact with MOA manufacturers for further data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness and safety of MOAs for OIBD in people with cancer and people at a palliative stage irrespective of the type of terminal disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the trials depended upon sufficient homogeneity across trials. Our primary outcomes were laxation response, effect on analgesia, and AEs. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE and created summary of findings tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies (two new trials) randomising in-total 1343 adults with cancer irrespective of stage, or at palliative care stage of any disease. The MOAs were oral naldemedine and naloxone (alone or in combination with oxycodone), and subcutaneous methylnaltrexone. The trials compared MOAs with placebo, MOAs at different doses, or in combination with other drugs. Two trials of naldemedine and three of naloxone with oxycodone were in people with cancer irrespective of disease stage. The trial on naloxone alone was in people with advanced cancer. Four trials on methylnaltrexone were in palliative care where most participants had advanced cancer. All trials were vulnerable to biases; most commonly, blinding of the outcome assessor was not reported.  Oral naldemedine versus placebo Risk (i.e. chance) of spontaneous laxations in the medium term (over two weeks) for naldemedine was over threefold greater risk ratio (RR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59 to 2.52, 2 trials, 418 participants, I² = 0%. Number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 3, 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate-certainty evidence). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change was not reported. Very low-certainty evidence showed naldemedine had little to no effect on opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 3.34, 95% CI 0.85 to 13.15: low-certainty evidence). Over double the risk of AEs (non-serious) reported with naldemedine (moderate-certainty evidence). Low-dose oral naldemedine versus higher dose Risk of spontaneous laxations was lower for the lower dose (medium term, 0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg: RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.89, 1 trial, 111 participants (low-certainty evidence)). Earlier risk of spontaneous laxations and patient assessment of bowel change not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on opioid withdrawal symptoms (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.25), and occurrences of serious AEs (0.1 mg versus 0.4 mg RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.17). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no difference on non-serious AEs. Oral naloxone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations and AEs not reported. Little to no difference in pain intensity (very low-certainty evidence). Full data not given. The trial reported that no serious AEs occurred. Oral naloxone + oxycodone versus oxycodone Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours and in the medium term not reported. Low-certainty evidence showed naloxone with oxycodone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms. There was little to no difference in the risk of serious (non-fatal) AEs (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.06), 3 trials, 362 participants, I² = 55%: very low-certainty evidence). There was little to no difference in risk of AEs (low-certainty evidence).  Subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus placebo Risk of spontaneous laxations within 24 hours with methylnaltrexone was fourfold greater than placebo (RR 2.97, 95% CI 2.13 to 4.13. 2 trials, 287 participants, I² = 31%. NNTB 3, 95% CI 2 to 3; low-certainty evidence). Risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium term was over tenfold greater with methylnaltrexone (RR 8.15, 95% CI 4.76 to 13.95, 2 trials, 305 participants, I² = 47%. NNTB 2, 95% CI 2 to 2; moderate-certainty evidence). Low-certainty evidence showed methylnaltrexone reduced the risk of opioid withdrawal symptoms, and did not increase risk of a serious AE (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.93. I² = 0%; 2 trials, 364 participants). The risk of AEs was higher for methylnaltrexone (low-certainty evidence). Lower-dose subcutaneous methylnaltrexone versus higher dose There was little to no difference in risk of spontaneous laxations in the medium-term (1 mg versus 5 mg or greater: RR 2.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 10.39; 1 trial, 26 participants very low-certainty evidence), or in patient assessment of improvement in bowel status (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.35, 1 trial, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medium-term assessment of spontaneous laxations and serious AEs not reported. There was little to no difference in symptoms of opioid withdrawal (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.34, 1 trial, 102 participants) or occurrence of AEs (low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update's findings for naldemedine and naloxone with oxycodone have been strengthened with two new trials, but conclusions have not changed. Moderate-certainty evidence for oral naldemedine on risk of spontaneous laxations and non-serious AEs suggests in people with cancer that naldemedine may improve bowel function over two weeks and increase the risk of AEs. There was low-certainty evidence on serious AEs. Moderate-certainty evidence for methylnaltrexone on spontaneous laxations over two weeks suggests subcutaneous methylnaltrexone may improve bowel function in people receiving palliative care, but certainty of evidence for AEs was low. More trials are needed, more evaluation of AEs, outcomes patients rate as important, and in children.

Quality of life (QoL) for people with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC): a pragmatic strategy for identifying relevant QoL issues for rare disease.

BACKGROUND: Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is a rare incurable disease of the bile ducts and liver which can significantly impair quality of life (QoL). No existing QoL tools are entirely suitable for people living with PSC (PwPSC). We aimed to develop a measure of QoL for PwPSC in the UK, beginning by identifying relevant QoL issues. This paper describes our approach to this first stage, and discusses related benefits and limitations. METHODS: Scientific consensus on how to reliably stage PSC is lacking, due to its rarity and heterogeneity. We initially hypothesised four categories for PSC severity. After beginning the study, these were revised to six. For such a rare disease, the study could not recruit sufficient participants in each of these categories, particularly the more severe, in the time available. We therefore modified the design, adapting standard methodology for identifying potentially relevant issues. We started by conducting a thematic analysis of data from a previous survey of PwPSC, and extracting QoL issues from a literature review of QoL questionnaires of relevance to PwPSC. We then conducted group and individual interviews with PwPSC and clinicians, investigating the relevance, importance, phrasing, and breadth of coverage of issues identified. We also explored the validity of our hypothesised categories for disease severity. RESULTS: We identified 1,052 potentially relevant QoL issues from the survey and literature review and took 396 of these forwards for discussion with 28 PwPSC. We found 168/396 issues were considered relevant by ≥ 60% of these participants. We then discussed this subset of 168 issues with 11 clinicians. PSC and clinician participants identified some problematic phrasing with 19 issues, due to potential upset (n = 12) or problems with understanding (n = 7). We included one new issue from those suggested. CONCLUSION: We identified a range of QoL issues relevant to PwPSC, with a good breadth of coverage, although lacking an in-depth understanding of the PSC experience. Our strategy effectively identified relevant QoL issues for people living with this rare condition, for which there is no consensus on stratifying for its severity. This strategy should however be considered specific to such circumstances, not a general recommendation for an alternative approach.

How effective is virtual reality technology in palliative care? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of virtual reality for people living with a terminal illness is unclear. AIM: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of virtual reality use within a palliative care setting. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO (CRD42021240395). DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2021. Search terms included 'virtual reality' and 'palliative care'. Eligibility: (1) adult (>18 years old) with a terminal illness (2) at least one virtual reality session and (3) feasibility data and/or at least one patient outcome reported. The ROB-2 and ROBINS tools assessed risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool assessed the quality of the evidence. Standardised mean differences (Hedges's g) were calculated from the pre- and post-data. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Eight studies were included, of which five were in the meta-analysis. All studies had at least some concern for risk of bias. Virtual reality statistically significantly improved pain (p = 0.0363), tiredness (p = 0.0030), drowsiness (p = 0.0051), shortness of breath (p = 0.0284), depression (p = 0.0091) and psychological well-being (p = 0.0201). The quality of the evidence was graded as very low due to small sample sizes, non-randomisation methods and a lack of a comparator arm. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual reality in palliative care is feasible and acceptable. However, limited sample sizes and very low-quality studies mean that the efficacy of virtual reality needs further research.

Do palliative care patients and relatives think it would be acceptable to use Bispectral index (BIS) technology to monitor palliative care patients' levels of consciousness? A qualitative exploration with interviews and focus groups for the I-CAN-CARE research programme.

BACKGROUND: Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring uses electroencephalographic data as an indicator of patients' consciousness level. This technology might be a useful adjunct to clinical observation when titrating sedative medications for palliative care patients. However, the use of BIS in palliative care generally, and in the UK in particular, is under-researched. A key area is this technology's acceptability for palliative care service users. Ahead of trialling BIS in practice, and in order to ascertain whether such a trial would be reasonable, we conducted a study to explore UK palliative care patients' and relatives' perceptions of the technology, including whether they thought its use in palliative care practice would be acceptable. METHODS: A qualitative exploration was undertaken. Participants were recruited through a UK hospice. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with separate groups of palliative care patients, relatives of current patients, and bereaved relatives. We explored their views on acceptability of using BIS with palliative care patients, and analysed their responses following the five key stages of the Framework method. RESULTS: We recruited 25 participants. There were ten current hospice patients in three focus groups, four relatives of current patients in one focus group and one individual interview, and eleven bereaved relatives in three focus groups and two individual interviews. Our study participants considered BIS acceptable for monitoring palliative care patients' consciousness levels, and that it might be of use in end-of-life care, provided that it was additional to (rather than a replacement of) usual care, and patients and/or family members were involved in decisions about its use. Participants also noted that BIS, while possibly obtrusive, is not invasive, with some seeing it as equivalent to wearable technological devices such as activity watches. CONCLUSIONS: Participants considered BIS technology might be of benefit to palliative care as a non-intrusive means of assisting clinical assessment and decision-making at the end of life, and concluded that it would therefore be acceptable to trial the technology with patients.

Do screening tools assess palliative care needs and 12-month mortality in patients admitted to hepatology in-patient wards?

Background: Many liver patients have unmet palliative care needs, but liver clinicians are unclear whom to refer to specialist palliative care (SPC). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool (SPICT) and the Bristol Prognostic Screening Tool (BPST) could help identify suitable patients, but neither has been tested for this role. This study evaluated their role as screening tools for palliative care needs and for predicting 12-month mortality. Methods: A case note review of hepatology in-patients, who were not peritransplant and post-transplant status, was conducted in one tertiary unit. Main outcomes were clinical judgement of need for SPC referral, BPST scores, SPICT attribution of caseness and 12-month survival status. Discriminatory ability of tools was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: 117 medical notes were reviewed for survival analysis, 47 of which were additionally assessed for suitability for SPC referral, using clinical judgement. SPICT (sensitivity=93%; PPV=93%; AUROC=0.933) and BPST (sensitivity=59%, PPV=79%, AUROC=0.693) demonstrated excellent and good performance, respectively, in predicting patients' need for SPC referral. SPICT and BPST only had moderate ability at predicting death at 12 months (PPV: 54% and 56%, respectively). Conclusion: SPICT and BPST show potential as screening tools for identifying patients for referral to SPC. Further work is needed to determine how to implement these tools in a clinical setting.

Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS. SETTINGS: Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study. PARTICIPANTS: Palliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS. RESULTS: There were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS. CONCLUSION: Variations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.

The accuracy of clinician predictions of survival in the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is important for patients with cancer, their families, and clinicians. In practice, survival predictions are made by clinicians based on their experience, judgement, and intuition. Previous studies have reported that clinicians' survival predictions are often inaccurate. This study reports a secondary analysis of data from the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2) to assess the accuracy of survival estimates made by doctors and nurses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Adult patients (n = 1833) with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic cancer, recently referred to palliative care services (community teams, hospital teams, and inpatient palliative care units) were recruited. Doctors (n = 431) and nurses (n = 777) provided independent prognostic predictions and an agreed multi-professional prediction for each patient. Clinicians provided prognostic estimates in several formats including predictions about length of survival and probability of surviving to certain time points. There was a minimum follow up of three months or until death (whichever was sooner; maximum follow-up 783 days). Agreed multi-professional predictions about whether patients would survive for days, weeks or months+ were accurate on 61.9% of occasions. The positive predictive value of clinicians' predictions about imminent death (within one week) was 77% for doctors and 79% for nurses. The sensitivity of these predictions was low (37% and 35% respectively). Specific predictions about how many weeks patients would survive were not very accurate but showed good discrimination (patients estimated to survive for shorted periods had worse outcomes). The accuracy of clinicians' probabilistic predictions (assessed using Brier's scores) was consistently better than chance, improved with proximity to death and showed good discrimination between groups of patients with different survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Using a variety of different approaches, this study found that clinicians predictions of survival show good discrimination and accuracy, regardless of whether the predictions are about how long or how likely patients are to survive. Accuracy improves with proximity to death. Although the positive predictive value of estimates of imminent death are relatively high, the sensitivity of such predictions is relatively low. Despite limitations, the clinical prediction of survival should remain the benchmark against which any innovations in prognostication are judged. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13688211. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13688211.

Prognostic decision-making about imminent death within multidisciplinary teams: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise evidence on how multidisciplinary team (MDTs) make decisions about identification of imminently dying patients. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING: Any clinical setting providing care for imminently dying patients, excluding studies conducted solely in acute care settings. DATA SOURCES: The databases AMED, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 2021.Included studies presented original study data written in English and reported on the process or content of MDT discussions about identifying imminently dying adult patients. RESULTS: 40 studies were included in the review. Studies were primarily conducted using interviews and qualitative analysis of themes.MDT members involved in decision-making were usually doctors and nurses. Some decisions focused on professionals recognising that patients were dying, other decisions focused on initiating specific end-of-life care pathways or clarifying care goals. Most decisions provided evidence for a partial collaborative approach, with information-sharing being more common than joint decision-making. Issues with decision-making included disagreement between staff members and the fact that doctors were often regarded as final or sole decision-makers. CONCLUSIONS: Prognostic decision-making was often not the main focus of included studies. Based on review findings, research explicitly focusing on MDT prognostication by analysing team discussions is needed. The role of allied and other types of healthcare professionals in prognostication needs further investigation as well. A focus on specialist palliative care settings is also necessary.

Research barriers in children and young people with life-limiting conditions: a survey.

Studies indicate research ethics committee (REC) approval and clinician gatekeeping are two key barriers in recruiting children and young people (CYP) with life-limiting conditions (LLCs) and life-threatening illnesses (LTIs) and their families to research. OBJECTIVES: To explore the reported experiences, difficulties and proposed solutions of chief investigators (CIs) recruiting CYP with LLCs/LTIs and families in the UK. METHODS: 61 CIs conducting studies with CYP with LLCs/LTIs and their families, identified from the UK National Institute of Health Research portfolio, completed an anonymous, web-based questionnaire, including both closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics and inductive and deductive coding were used to analyse responses. RESULTS: UK CIs cited limitations on funding, governance procedures including Research and Development, Site-Specific and REC approval processes, and clinician gatekeeping as challenges to research. CIs offered some solutions to overcome identified barriers such as working with CYP and their families to ensure their needs are adequately considered in study design and communicated to ethics committees; and designing studies with broad inclusion criteria and developing effective relationships with clinicians in order to overcome clinician gatekeeping. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the challenges and solutions reported by UK CIs have applicability beyond the UK setting. The involvement of clinicians, patients and their families at the inception of and throughout paediatric palliative care research studies is essential. Other important strategies include having clinician research champions and increasing the visibility of research. Further research on the perspectives of all stakeholders, leading to mutually agreed guidance, is required if care and treatment are to improve.

Imminent death: clinician certainty and accuracy of prognostic predictions.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy of predictions of dying at different cut-off thresholds and to acknowledge the extent of clinical uncertainty. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study. SETTING: An online prognostic test, accessible by eligible participants across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were members of the Association of Palliative Medicine. 99/166 completed the test (60%), resulting in 1980 estimates (99 participants × 20 summaries). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The probability of death occurring within 72 hours (0% certain survival-100% certain death) for 20 patient summaries. The estimates were analysed using five different thresholds: 50/50%, 40/60%, 30/70%, 20/80% and 10/90%, with percentage values between these extremes being regarded as 'indeterminate'. The positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and the number of indeterminate cases were calculated for each cut-off. RESULTS: Using a <50% versus >50% threshold produced a PPV of 62%, an NPV of 74% and 5% indeterminate cases. When the threshold was changed to ≤10% vs ≥90%, the PPV and NPV increased to 75% and 88%, respectively, at the expense of an increase of indeterminate cases up to 62%. CONCLUSION: When doctors assign a very high (≥90%) or very low (≤10%) probability of imminent death, their prognostic accuracy is improved; however, this increases the number of 'indeterminate' cases. This suggests that clinical predictions may continue to have a role for routine prognostication but that other approaches (such as the use of prognostic scores) may be required for those cases where doctors' estimates are indeterminate.

Palliative care training in undergraduate medical, nursing and allied health: a survey.

OBJECTIVES: Impending death is poorly recognised. Many undergraduate healthcare professionals will not have experience of meeting or caring for someone who is dying. As death can occur in any setting, at any time, it is vital that all healthcare students, regardless of the setting they go on to work in, have end-of-life care (EOLC) training. The aim was to determine current palliative care training at the undergraduate level, in multiple professions, in recognising and communicating dying. METHODS: Current UK undergraduate courses in medicine, adult nursing, occupational therapy, social work and physiotherapy were included. All courses received an email asking what training is currently offered in the recognition and communication of dying, and what time was dedicated to this. RESULTS: A total of 73/198 (37%) courses responded to the request for information. 18/20 medical courses provided training in recognising when patients were dying (median 2 hours), and 17/20 provided training in the communication of dying (median 3 hours). 80% (43/54) of nursing and allied health professional courses provided some training in EOLC. Many of the course organisers expressed frustration at the lack of resources, funding and time to include more training. Those courses with more palliative care provision often had a 'champion' to advocate for it. CONCLUSIONS: Training in EOLC was inconsistent across courses and professions. Further research is needed to understand how to remove the barriers identified and to improve the consistency of current training.

Physicians' Opinion and Practice With the Continuous Use of Sedatives in the Last Days of Life.

CONTEXT: There are few international studies about the continuous use of sedatives (CUS) in the last days of life. OBJECTIVES: We aim to describe the experiences and opinions regarding CUS of physicians caring for terminally ill patients in seven countries. METHODS: Questionnaire study about practices and experiences with CUS in the last days of life among physicians caring for terminally ill patients in Belgium (n = 175), Germany (n = 546), Italy (n = 214), Japan (n = 513), the Netherlands (n = 829), United Kingdom (n = 114) and Singapore (n = 21). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 22%. Of the respondents, 88-99% reported that they had clinical experience of CUS in the last 12 months. More than 90% of respondents indicated that they mostly used midazolam for sedation. The use of sedatives to relieve suffering in the last days of life was considered acceptable in cases of physical suffering (87%-99%). This percentage was lower but still substantial in cases of psycho-existential suffering in the absence of physical symptoms (45%-88%). These percentages were lower when the prognosis was at least several weeks (22%-66% for physical suffering and 5%-42% for psycho-existential suffering). Of the respondents, 10% or less agreed with the statement that CUS is unnecessary because suffering can be alleviated with other measures. A substantial proportion (41%-95%) agreed with the statement that a competent patient with severe suffering has the right to demand the use of sedatives in the last days of life. CONCLUSION: Many respondents in our study considered CUS acceptable for the relief of physical and psycho-existential suffering in the last days of life. The acceptability was lower regarding CUS for psycho-existential suffering and regarding CUS for patients with a longer life expectancy.

An online international comparison of palliative care identification in primary care using the Surprise Question.

BACKGROUND: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. AIM: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. DESIGN: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]-100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. RESULTS: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted.