Facilitators and barriers of implementing end-of-life care volunteering in a hospital in five European countries: the iLIVE study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. METHODS: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. RESULTS: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). CONCLUSION: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of stakeholders in a way that enables medical EoL care and volunteering to co-exist. Further research is needed to explore how trust and equal partnerships between volunteers and professional staff can be built and sustained. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04678310. Registered 21/12/2020.

Palliative sedation - revised recommendations.

Palliative sedation is defined as the monitored use of medications intended to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering in a manner ethically acceptable to the patient, their family, and healthcare providers. In Switzerland, the prevalence of continuous deep sedation until death increased from 4.7% in 2001 to 17.5% of all deceased in 2013, depending on the research method used and on regional variations. Yet, these numbers may be overestimated due to a lack of understanding of the term "continuous deep sedation" by for example respondents of the questionnaire-based study. Inadequately trained and inexperienced healthcare professionals may incorrectly or inappropriately perform palliative sedation due to uncertainties regarding its definitions and practice. Therefore, the expert members of the Bigorio group and the authors of this manuscript believe that national recommendations should be published and made available to healthcare professionals to provide practical, terminological, and ethical guidance. The Bigorio group is the working group of the Swiss Palliative Care Society whose task is to publish clinical recommendations at a national level in Switzerland. These recommendations aim to provide guidance on the most critical questions and issues related to palliative sedation. The Swiss Society of Palliative Care (palliative.ch) mandated a writing board comprising four clinical experts (three physicians and one ethicist) and two national academic experts to revise the 2005 Bigorio guidelines. A first draft was created based on a narrative literature review, which was internally reviewed by five academic institutions (Lausanne, Geneva, Bern, Zürich, and Basel) and the heads of all working groups of the Swiss Society of Palliative Care before finalising the guidelines. The following themes are discussed regarding palliative sedation: (a) definitions and clinical aspects, (b) the decision-making process, (c) communication with patients and families, (d) patient monitoring, (e) pharmacological approaches, and (f) ethical and controversial issues. Palliative sedation must be practised with clinical and ethical accuracy and competence to avoid harm and ethically questionable use. Specialist palliative care teams should be consulted before initiating palliative sedation to avoid overlooking other potential treatment options for the patient's symptoms and suffering.

Measuring patients' medical treatment preferences in advance care planning: development and validation of the Treat-Me-ACP instrument - a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advance Care Planning interventions should be evaluated as broadly as possible to gain a holistic understanding of the Advance Care Planning process. However, validated early stage outcome instruments are lacking. Therefore, the Treatment-Preference-Measure-Advance Care Planning (Treat-Me-ACP) instrument was developed and validated as part of the cluster-randomized controlled trial STADPLAN (Study on Advance Care Planning in care-dependent community-dwelling older persons) to assess the effects of Advance Care Planning interventions on patients' medical treatment preferences. METHODS: The design of Treat-Me-ACP is based on the Emanuel Medical Directive and the Life Support Preferences Questionnaires. Using a multi-stage team approach a preliminary version of the Treat-Me-ACP was developed and pre-tested. The pre-tested instrument consists of one global medical care goal-item, five hypothetical scenarios with five hypothetical treatments, and one how would you feel-item within each scenario. A total of five scenario preference scores and five treatment preference scores can be formed. This version was subsequently applied to a subsample of the STADPLAN project (n = 80) to assess patient's preferences at baseline (T0) and at 12-month follow-up (T2). The further validation steps were based on this subsample and included: (1) acceptance by using completion rate and frequencies of missing data, (2) internal consistency by using Cronbach's α to test whether it was possible to create preference scores by scenario and treatment, (3) concurrent validation examining the association between the global medical care goal-item and the preference scores and the association between the how would you feel-items and the scenario preference scores, and (4) responsiveness of the instrument to changes in preferences for life-sustaining treatments by comparing preference scores from T0 to T2 between study groups. RESULTS: Acceptance of the instrument was high. Results of concurrent validation indicate that the five scenarios represent the global medical care goal well. The preference scores showed an average tendency for decreasing preferences for life-sustaining treatments across all scales for the intervention group during study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The Treat-Me-ACP can be used to evaluate the dynamics of patients' medical treatment preferences in Advance Care Planning. It has been validated for care-dependent community-dwelling older persons and can be used as an additional outcome measure in evaluating the effectiveness of ACP interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016886 on 04/06/2019.

A Dutch paediatric palliative care guideline: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations for symptom treatment.

BACKGROUND: Children with life-threatening and life-limiting conditions can experience high levels of suffering due to multiple distressing symptoms that result in poor quality of life and increase risk of long-term distress in their family members. High quality symptom treatment is needed for all these children and their families, even more so at the end-of-life. In this paper, we provide evidence-based recommendations for symptom treatment in paediatric palliative patients to optimize care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of 56 experts in paediatric palliative care and nine (bereaved) parents was established to develop recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care including anxiety and depression, delirium, dyspnoea, haematological symptoms, coughing, skin complaints, nausea and vomiting, neurological symptoms, pain, death rattle, fatigue, paediatric palliative sedation and forgoing hydration and nutrition. Recommendations were based on evidence from a systematic literature search, additional literature sources (such as guidelines), clinical expertise, and patient and family values. We used the GRADE methodology for appraisal of evidence. Parents were included in the guideline panel to ensure the representation of patient and family values. RESULTS: We included a total of 18 studies that reported on the effects of specific (non) pharmacological interventions to treat symptoms in paediatric palliative care. A few of these interventions showed significant improvement in symptom relief. This evidence could only (partly) answer eight out of 27 clinical questions. We included 29 guidelines and two textbooks as additional literature to deal with lack of evidence. In total, we formulated 221 recommendations on symptom treatment in paediatric palliative care based on evidence, additional literature, clinical expertise, and patient and family values. CONCLUSION: Even though available evidence on symptom-related paediatric palliative care interventions has increased, there still is a paucity of evidence in paediatric palliative care. We urge for international multidisciplinary multi-institutional collaboration to perform high-quality research and contribute to the optimization of symptom relief in palliative care for all children worldwide.

Expanding the Use of Continuous Sedation Until Death and Physician-Assisted Suicide.

The controversy over the equivalence of continuous sedation until death (CSD) and physician-assisted suicide/euthanasia (PAS/E) provides an opportunity to focus on a significant extended use of CSD. This extension, suggested by the equivalence of PAS/E and CSD, is designed to promote additional patient autonomy at the end-of-life. Samuel LiPuma, in his article, "Continuous Sedation Until Death as Physician-Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia: A Conceptual Analysis" claims equivalence between CSD and death; his paper is seminal in the equivalency debate. Critics contend that sedation follows proportionality protocols for which LiPuma's thesis does not adequately account. Furthermore, sedation may not eliminate consciousness, and as such LiPuma's contention that CSD is equivalent to neocortical death is suspect. We not only defend the equivalence thesis, but also expand it to include additional moral considerations. First, we explain the equivalence thesis. This is followed by a defense of the thesis against five criticisms. The third section critiques the current use of CSD. Finally, we offer two proposals that, if adopted, would broaden the use of PAS/E and CSD and thereby expand options at the end-of-life.

Effects of dignity therapy on psychological distress and wellbeing of palliative care patients and family caregivers - a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This study extended the original Dignity Therapy (DT) intervention by including partners and family caregivers (FCs) of terminally-ill cancer patients with the overall aim of evaluating whether DT can mitigate distress in both patients nearing the end of life and their FCs. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT), a total of 68 patients with life expectancy < 6 months and clinically-relevant stress levels (Hospital Anxiety Depression total score; HADStot ≥ 8) including their FCs were randomly assigned to DT, DT + (including their FCs), or standard palliative care (SPC) in a 1:1:1 ratio. Study participants were asked to complete a set of questionnaires pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: The coalesced group (DT and DT +) revealed a significant increase in patients' perceived quality of life (FACIT-Pal-14) following the intervention (mean difference 6.15, SD = 1.86, p < 0.01). We found a statistically significant group-by-time interaction effect: while the HADStot of patients in the intervention group remained stable over the pre-post period, the control group's HADStot increased (F = 4.33, df = 1, 82.9; p < 0.05), indicating a protective effect of DT. Most patients and their FCs found DT useful and would recommend it to other individuals in their situation. CONCLUSIONS: The DT intervention has been well-received and shows the potential to increase HRQoL and prevent further mental health deterioration, illness burden and suffering in terminally-ill patients. The DT intervention holds the potential to serve as a valuable tool for facilitating end-of-life conversations among terminally-ill patients and their FCs. However, the implementation of DT within the framework of a RCT in a palliative care setting poses significant challenges. We suggest a slightly modified and less resource-intensive version of DT that is to provide the DT inventory to FCs of terminally-ill patients, empowering them to ask the questions that matter most to them over their loved one's final days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with Clinical Trial Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov -Protocol Record NCT02646527; date of registration: 04/01/2016). The CONSORT 2010 guidelines were used for properly reporting how the randomized trial was conducted.

Estimated mortality risk and use of palliative care services among home care clients during the last 6 months of life: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, only 15% of patients requiring palliative care receive such services in the year before death. We describe health care utilization patterns among home care users in their last 6 months of life to inform care planning for older people with varying mortality risks and evolving care needs as they decline. METHODS: Using population health administrative data from Ontario, we performed a retrospective cohort study involving home care clients aged 50 years and older who received at least 1 interRAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) Home Care assessment between April 2018 and September 2019. We report the proportion of clients who used acute care, long-term care, and palliative home care services within 6 months of their assessment, stratified by their predicted 6-month mortality risk using a prognostic tool called the Risk Evaluation for Support: Predictions for Elder-life in their Communities Tool (RESPECT) and vital status. RESULTS: The cohort included 247 377 adults, 11.9% of whom died within 6 months of an assessment. Among decedents, 50.6% of those with a RESPECT-estimated median survival of fewer than 3 months received at least 1 nonphysician palliative home care visit before death. This proportion declined to 38.7% and 29.5% among decedents with an estimated median survival between 3 and 6 months and between 6 and 12 months, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Many older adults in Ontario do not receive any palliative home care before death. Prognostic tools such as RESPECT may improve recognition of reduced life expectancies and palliative care needs of individuals in their final years of life.

How should respiratory depression and loss of airway patency be handled during initiation of palliative sedation?

BACKGROUND: Loss of airway patency has been reported during initiation of palliative sedation. In present guidelines the loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation is not addressed. Airway patency can be restored by jaw thrust/chin lift or placing the patient in the recovery position. AIM: A structured ethical analysis of how respiratory depression and loss of airway patency during initiation of palliative sedation should be handled. The essence of the dilemma is whether it is appropriate to apply simple non-invasive methods to restore airway patency in order to avoid the patient's immediate death. DESIGN: A structured analysis based on the four principles of healthcare ethics and stakeholders' interests. RESULTS: Beneficence and autonomy support a decision not to regain airway patency whereas non-maleficence lends weight to a decision to restore airway patency. Whether the proportionality criterion of the principle of double effect is met depends on the features of the individual case. The ethical problem appears to be a genuine dilemma where important values and arguments point to different conclusions. CONCLUSION: Whether to restore airway patency when the airway is obstructed during initiation of palliative sedation will ultimately be based on clinical judgment taking into account both any known patient preferences and relevant clinical information. There are strong arguments favoring both options in this clinical and ethical dilemma. The fact that a clear and universal recommendation cannot be made does not imply indifference regarding what is the clinically and ethically best option for each individual patient.

Revised European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) recommended framework on palliative sedation: An international Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) acknowledges palliative sedation as an important, broadly accepted intervention for patients with life-limiting disease experiencing refractory symptoms. The EAPC therefore developed 2009 a framework on palliative sedation. A revision was needed due to new evidence from literature, ongoing debate and criticism of methodology, terminology and applicability. AIM: To provide evidence- and consensus-based guidance on palliative sedation for healthcare professionals involved in end-of-life care, for medical associations and health policy decision-makers. DESIGN: Revision between June 2020 and September 2022 of the 2009 framework using a literature update and a Delphi procedure. SETTING: European. PARTICIPANTS: International experts on palliative sedation (identified through literature search and nomination by national palliative care associations) and a European patient organisation. RESULTS: A framework with 42 statements for which high or very high level of consensus was reached. Terminology is defined more precisely with the terms suffering used to encompass distressing physical and psychological symptoms as well as existential suffering and refractory to describe the untreatable (healthcare professionals) and intolerable (patient) nature of the suffering. The principle of proportionality is introduced in the definition of palliative sedation. No specific period of remaining life expectancy is defined, based on the principles of refractoriness of suffering, proportionality and independent decision-making for hydration. Patient autonomy is emphasised. A stepwise pharmacological approach and a guidance on hydration decision-making are provided. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first framework on palliative sedation using a strict consensus methodology. It should serve as comprehensive and soundly developed information for healthcare professionals.

Impact of palliative care at end-of-life Covid-19 patients - a small-scale pioneering experience.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus was declared a pandemic, resulting in numerous fatalities worldwide. To effectively combat the virus, it would be beneficial to involve professionals who specialize in symptom control for advanced illnesses, working closely with other specialties throughout the illness process. This approach can help manage a range of symptoms, from mild to severe and potentially life-threatening. No studies have been conducted in Portugal to analyse the intervention of Palliative Medicine at the end of life of Covid-19 patients and how it differs from other specialties. This knowledge could help determine the importance of including it in the care of people with advanced Covid-19. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine potential differences in the care provided to patients with Covid-19 during their Last Hours and Days of Life (LHDOL) between those who received care from Palliative Medicine doctors and those who did not. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study spanning three months (Dec 2020 to Feb 2021), the duration of the Support Unit especially created to deal with Covid-19 patients. The database included clinical files from 181 patients admitted to the Support Unit, 27 of which died from Covid-19. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were identified in the care provided. Specifically, fewer drugs were administered at the time of death, including drugs for dyspnoea, pain and agitation, suspension of futile devices and use of palliative sedation to control refractory symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: End-of-life care and symptomatic control differ when there's regular follow-up by Palliative Medicine, which may translate less symptomatic suffering and promote a dignified and humane end of life.

Transitioning to Palliative Care in an Italian Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Network.

BACKGROUND: Recent data indicate that end-of-life management for patients affected by acute decompensated heart failure in cardiac intensive care units is aggressive, with late or no engagement of palliative care teams. OBJECTIVE: To assess current palliative care and end-of-life practices in a contemporary Italian multicenter registry of patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: A survey-based approach was used to collect data on palliative care and end-of-life management practices. The AltShock-2 registry enrolled patients with cardiogenic shock from 12 participating centers. A subset of 153 patients with cardiogenic shock due to acute decompensated heart failure enrolled between March 2020 and March 2023 was analyzed, with a focus on early engagement of palliative care teams and deactivation of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). RESULTS: "Do not resuscitate" orders were documented in patient records in only 5 of 12 centers (42%). Palliative care teams were engaged for 21 of 153 enrolled patients (13.7%). Among the 51 patients with ICDs, 6 of 17 patients who died (35%) had defibrillator deactivation. Of the 17 patients who died, 13 died in the hospital and 4 died within 6 months after discharge; 1 patient had ICD deactivation supported by palliative care services at home. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy-limiting practices, including ICD deactivation, are not routine in the Italian centers participating in this study. The results emphasize the importance of integrating palliative care as a simultaneous process with intensive care to address the unmet needs of these patients and their families.

Nurse and Social Worker Palliative Telecare Team and Quality of Life in Patients With COPD, Heart Failure, or Interstitial Lung Disease: The ADAPT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), and interstitial lung disease (ILD) endure poor quality of life despite conventional therapy. Palliative care approaches may benefit this population prior to end of life. Objective: Determine the effect of a nurse and social worker palliative telecare team on quality of life in outpatients with COPD, HF, or ILD compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants: Single-blind, 2-group, multisite randomized clinical trial with accrual between October 27, 2016, and April 2, 2020, in 2 Veterans Administration health care systems (Colorado and Washington), and including community-based outpatient clinics. Outpatients with COPD, HF, or ILD at high risk of hospitalization or death who reported poor quality of life participated. Intervention: The intervention involved 6 phone calls with a nurse to help with symptom management and 6 phone calls with a social worker to provide psychosocial care. The nurse and social worker met weekly with a study primary care and palliative care physician and as needed, a pulmonologist, and cardiologist. Usual care included an educational handout developed for the study that outlined self-care for COPD, ILD, or HF. Patients in both groups received care at the discretion of their clinicians, which could include care from nurses and social workers, and specialists in cardiology, pulmonology, palliative care, and mental health. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was difference in change in quality of life from baseline to 6 months between the intervention and usual care groups (FACT-G score range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better quality of life, clinically meaningful change ≥4 points). Secondary quality-of-life outcomes at 6 months included disease-specific health status (Clinical COPD Questionnaire; Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-8) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) symptoms. Results: Among 306 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 68.9 [7.7] years; 276 male [90.2%], 30 female [9.8%]; 245 White [80.1%]), 177 (57.8%) had COPD, 67 (21.9%) HF, 49 (16%) both COPD and HF, and 13 (4.2%) ILD. Baseline FACT-G scores were similar (intervention, 52.9; usual care, 52.7). FACT-G completion was 76% (intervention, 117 of 154; usual care, 116 of 152) at 6 months for both groups. Mean (SD) length of intervention was 115.1 (33.4) days and included a mean of 10.4 (3.3) intervention calls per patient. In the intervention group, 112 of 154 (73%) patients received the intervention as randomized. At 6 months, mean FACT-G score improved 6.0 points in the intervention group and 1.4 points in the usual care group (difference, 4.6 points [95% CI, 1.8-7.4]; P = .001; standardized mean difference, 0.41). The intervention also improved COPD health status (standardized mean difference, 0.44; P = .04), HF health status (standardized mean difference, 0.41; P = .01), depression (standardized mean difference, -0.50; P < .001), and anxiety (standardized mean difference, -0.51; P < .001) at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance: For adults with COPD, HF, or ILD who were at high risk of death and had poor quality of life, a nurse and social worker palliative telecare team produced clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life at 6 months compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02713347.

Patient and Family Preferences About Place of End-of-Life Care and Death: An Umbrella Review.

CONTEXT: The place where people are cared towards the end of their life and die is a complex phenomenon, requiring a deeper understanding. Honoring preferences is critical for the delivery of high-quality care. OBJECTIVES: In this umbrella review we examine and synthesize the evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. METHODS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, we conducted a comprehensive search for systematic reviews in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO without language restrictions. RESULTS: The search identified 15 reviews (10 high-quality, three with meta-analysis), covering 229 nonoverlapping primary studies. Home is the most preferred place of end-of-life care for both patients (11%-89%) and family members (23%-84%). It is also the most preferred place of death (patient estimates from two meta-analyses: 51%-55%). Hospitals and hospice/palliative care facilities are preferred by substantial minorities. Reasons and factors affecting preferences include illness-related, individual, and environmental. Differences between preferred places of care and death are underexplored and the evidence remains inconclusive about changes over time. Congruence between preferred and actual place of death ranges 21%-100%, is higher in studies since 2004 and a meta-analysis shows noncancer patients are at higher risk of incongruence than cancer patients (OR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.01-1.49, I2 = 62%). CONCLUSION: These findings are a crucial starting point to address gaps and enhance strategies to align care with patient and family preferences. To accurately identify patient and family preferences is an important opportunity to change their lives positively.

Patient-Caregiver Dyads & End-of-Life Care: Caregiver Personality Disrupts Gender-Based Norms.

CONTEXT: Gender and personality may individually impact end-of-life care. Men often receive more aggressive treatments than women near death, and personality - particularly openness - may be associated with increased care utilization when it diverges from traditional treatment norms. However, research has not examined the interaction of these variables in a dyadic context. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the dyadic effects of patient gender and caregiver personality on end-of-life care. METHODS: Using data from the VOICE randomized clinical trial, the present sample consisted of patient-caregiver dyads receiving outpatient care for advanced cancer in Sacramento and Western New York. Analyses assessed whether caregiver personality was associated with gender-based differences in patient chemotherapy or emergency department/inpatient visits in the 30 days before death. Logistic regression examined the interaction between caregivers' Big Five personality dimensions and patient gender while accounting for patient and caregiver demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Of a total of 134 patient-caregiver dyads, 19.4% (n = 26) of patients received chemotherapy and 47.8% (n = 64) had an emergency department/inpatient visit in the 30 days before death. Results demonstrated a significant interaction between caregiver openness and patient gender on receipt of chemotherapy (odds ratio = 0.07, p = 0.006). When caregivers were less open, men were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death, whereas when caregivers were more open, women were more likely to receive chemotherapy near death. CONCLUSION: Results suggest caregiver personality characteristics, particularly openness, might disrupt gender-based treatment norms at end-of-life. Findings demonstrate that patient and caregiver factors can interact to explain patient healthcare utilization.

COVID-19, deaths at home and end-of-life cancer care.

During the COVID-19 pandemic there was a period of high excess deaths from cancer at home as opposed to in hospitals or in care homes. In this paper we aim to explore whether healthcare utilisation trajectories of cancer patients in the final months of life during the COVID-19 pandemic reveal any potential unmet healthcare need. We use English hospital records linked to data on all deaths in and out of hospital which identifies the cause and location of death. Our analysis shows that during the periods of peak COVID-19 caseload, patients dying of cancer experienced up to 42% less hospital treatment in their final month of life compared to historical controls. We find reductions in end-of-life hospital care for cancer patients dying in hospitals, care homes/hospices and at home, however the effect is amplified by the shift to more patients dying at home. Through the first year of the pandemic in England, we estimate the number of inpatient bed-days for end-of-life cancer patients in their final month reduced by approximately 282,282, or 25%. For outpatient appointments in the final month of life we find a reduction in face-to-face appointments and an increase in remote appointments which persists through the pandemic year and is not confined only to the periods of peak COVID-19 caseload. Our results suggest reductions in care provision during the COVID-19 pandemic may have led to unmet need, and future emergency reorganisations of health care systems must ensure consistent care provision for vulnerable groups such as cancer patients.

Exploring the effects of acceptable palliative care models on survival time and healthcare expenditure among patients with cancer: a national longitudinal population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Hospice care ensures better end-of-life quality by relieving terminal symptoms. Prior research has indicated that hospice care could prolong survival and reduce end-of-life medical expenditures among patients with cancer. However, the dearth of studies on the effects of hospice care type and use sequence on survival time and end-of-life medical expenditures substantiates the need for investigation. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING: Two million random records were obtained from the National Health Insurance Research Database. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the effects of the type and sequence of hospice care use on survival time and medical expenditures among advanced cancer patients. This was a cross-sectional study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Patient data were collected from 2 million random records provided by the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. We included people with cancer and excluded patients under 20 years of age; 2860 patients remained after matching. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The results indicated that the average survival time of patients who received inpatient palliative care (1022 days) was significantly shorter than that of patients who did not receive palliative care (P < 0.001), but the health care expenditure during the entire course of cancer therapy was not the lowest. Interestingly, patients who received inpatient palliative care had the lowest health care expenditure at 1 year or month before the end of life (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The type and sequence of palliative care affected the survival time and health care expenditures of cancer patients. Receiving palliative care did not prolong survival but rather reduced health care expenditures. The sequence of receiving palliative care significantly affected health care expenditures.

ENABLE-SG (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends for Singapore) as a proactive palliative care model: protocol for a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomized wait-list controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Specialist palliative care is often provided late in the patient's disease trajectory in response to uncontrolled symptoms. Shifting from this reactionary illness-stress paradigm to a proactive health-wellness approach, the ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) telehealth model aims to enhance the coping, stress and symptom management, self-care, and advance care planning skills of patients with advanced cancers and their caregivers. The ENABLE model has been culturally adapted to Singapore (ENABLE-SG) and pilot-tested. A hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of ENABLE-SG while collecting real-world implementation data. METHODS: This single-centre, assessor-blind, wait-list (immediately vs. 6 months) randomized controlled trial will recruit 300 adult patients within 60 days of an advanced cancer diagnosis and their family caregivers from the National Cancer Centre of Singapore. ENABLE-SG comprises structured psychoeducational sessions with a telehealth coach, covering essential topics of early palliative care. Participants will be assessed at baseline and every 3 months until patient's death, 12 months (caregivers), or end of study (patients). The primary outcome is patient quality of life 6 months after baseline. Secondary patient-reported outcomes include mood, coping, palliative care concerns, and health status. Secondary caregiver-reported outcomes include caregiver quality of life, mood, coping, and care satisfaction. Mixed-effects regression modelling for repeated measurements will be used. To assess the effectiveness of ENABLE-SG versus usual care, patient and caregiver outcomes at 6 months will be compared. To compare earlier versus delayed ENABLE-SG, patient and caregiver outcomes at 12 months will be compared. Within the hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation design, implementation outcomes will be evaluated in both the early and delayed groups. Acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and feasibility will be assessed using a feedback survey and semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers. Transcribed interviews will be analysed thematically. Other implementation outcomes of penetration, fidelity, and cost will be assessed using records of study-related processes and summarized using descriptive statistics. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be conducted. DISCUSSION: This study will assess both effectiveness and implementation of ENABLE-SG. Insights into implementation processes can facilitate model expansion and upscaling. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered prospectively on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06044441. Registered on 21/09/2023.

Palliative Care Communication Among Home Health Interprofessional Staff: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Effectiveness.

Skilled home health care (HH) is the largest and fastest growing long-term care setting in the United States. Patients in HH are served by an interprofessional team, and may have little direct contact with physicians, when discussing their progress, prognosis, and goals of care. Such conversations are part of primary palliative care communication. Evidence on primary palliative care communication training in the non-physician HH interprofessional team is lacking. The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of using a palliative care communication model known as COMFORT© to provide palliative care communication training to HH staff. A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a regional health system in the southeastern U.S. to test online training modules (n = 10) (Group 1) and online training modules plus face-to-face training (n = 8) (Group 2). Measures included training completion rates, staff acceptability ratings, comfort with palliative and end-of-life communication (C-COPE) and moral distress (MMD-HP). Results showed that COMFORT© training was feasible (92%), highly acceptable (>4 on a 6-point scale), and positively correlated with improved C-COPE scores (P = .037). There was no significant difference in moral distress scores pre- and post-intervention or in effectiveness between the groups. However, acceptability of COMFORT© was positively correlated with history of leaving or considering leaving a job due to moral distress (χ2 = 7.6, P = .02). Preliminary findings from this pilot study suggest that administration of COMFORT© training was feasible, and it was correlated with increased HH staff comfort with palliative care communication.

Can an Integrated Palliative and Oncology Co-rounding Model Reduce Aggressive Care at the End of Life? Secondary Analysis of an Open-label Stepped-wedge Cluster-randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial evidence on the effect of palliative care models in reducing aggressive end-of-life care is inconclusive. We previously reported on an integrated inpatient palliative care and medical oncology co-rounding model that significantly reduced hospital bed-days and postulate additional effect on reducing care aggressiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of a co-rounding model vs usual care in reducing receipt of aggressive treatment at end-of-life. METHODS: Secondary analysis of an open-label stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial comparing two integrated palliative care models within the inpatient oncology setting. The co-rounding model involved pooling specialist palliative care and oncology into one team with daily review of admission issues, while usual care constituted discretionary specialist palliative care referrals by the oncology team. We compared odds of receiving aggressive care at end-of-life: acute healthcare utilization in last 30 days of life, death in hospital, and cancer treatment in last 14 days of life between patients in two trial arms. RESULTS: 2145 patients were included in the analysis, and 1803 patients died by 4th April 2021. Median overall survival was 4.90 (4.07 - 5.72) months in co-rounding and 3.75 (3.22 - 4.21) months in usual care, with no difference in survival (P = .12). We found no significant differences between both models with respect to receipt of aggressive care at end-of-life. (Odds Ratio .67 - 1.27; all P > .05). CONCLUSION: The co-rounding model within an inpatient setting did not reduce aggressiveness of care at end-of-life. This could be due in part to the overall focus on resolving episodic admission issues.

The Impact of Continuous Use of Home Health Care Resources on End-of-Life Care at Home in Older Patients with Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Fukuoka, Japan.

This study aimed at examining the effect of continued use of home health care resources on end-of-life care at home in older patients with cancer. This retrospective cohort study was conducted using medical and long-term care claims data of 6435 older patients with cancer who died between April 2016 and March 2019 in Fukuoka Prefecture. The main explanatory variables were enhanced home care support clinics and hospitals (HCSCs), enhanced HCSCs with beds, conventional HCSCs, other HCSCs, and home visit nursing care. The covariates were sex, age, required level of care, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. A logistic regression model was used. The results of the multilevel logistic regression analysis showed that the following were significantly associated with end-of-life care at home: use of enhanced HCSCs with beds (odds ratio, OR: 8.66; 95% confidence interval, CI: [4.31-17.40]), conventional HCSCs (OR: 5.78; 95% CI: [1.86-17.94]), enhanced HCSCs (OR: 4.44; 95% CI: [1.47-13.42]), home-visit nursing care (OR: 1.86; 95% CI: [1.42-2.44]), and a severe need for care (OR: 3.89; 95% CI: [2.92-5.18]). The results suggest that the continued use of home health care resources in older patients with cancer who require out-of-hospital care may lead to increased end-of-life care at home. Particularly, use of enhanced HCSCs with beds is most strongly associated with end-of-life care at home.