Co-design of the EMBED-Care Framework as an intervention to enhance shared decision-making for people affected by dementia and practitioners, comprising holistic assessment, linked with clinical decision support tools: A qualitative study

Introduction: Shared decision-making intends to align care provision with individuals’ preferences. However, the involvement of people living with dementia in decision-making about their care varies. We aimed to co-design the EMBED-Care Framework, to enhance shared decision-making between people affected by dementia and practitioners.// Methods: A theory and evidence driven co-design study was conducted, using iterative workshops, informed by a theoretical model of shared decision-making and the EMBED-Care Framework (the intervention) for person-centred holistic palliative dementia care. The intervention incorporates a holistic outcome measure for assessment and review, linked with clinical decision-support tools to support shared decision-making. We drew on the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Participants included people with dementia of any type, current or bereaved family carers and practitioners. We recruited via established dementia groups and research and clinical networks. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis to explore how and when the intervention could enhance communication and shared decision-making, and the requirements for use, presented as a logic model.// Results: Five co-design workshops were undertaken with participants comprising people affected by dementia (n = 18) and practitioners (n = 36). Three themes were generated, comprising: (1) ‘knowing the person and personalisation of care’, involving the person with dementia and/or family carer identifying the needs of the person using a holistic assessment. (2) ‘engaging and considering the perspectives of all involved in decision-making’ required listening to the person and the family to understand their priorities, and to manage multiple preferences. (3) ‘Training and support activities’ to use the Framework through use of animated videos to convey information, such as to understand the outcome measure used to assess symptoms.// Conclusions: The intervention developed sought to enhance shared decision-making with individuals affected by dementia and practitioners, through increased shared knowledge of individual priorities and choices for care and treatment. The workshops generated understanding to manage disagreements in determining priorities. Practitioners require face-to-face training on the intervention, and on communication to manage sensitive conversations about symptoms, care and treatment with individuals and their family. The findings informed the construction of a logic model to illustrate how the intervention is intended to work

Co-design of a theory-based implementation plan for a holistic eHealth assessment and decision support framework for people with dementia in care homes

Background: Despite positive findings around the use of eHealth in dementia care, it is rarely translated into routine practice. This can be facilitated by early involvement of end-users in the development of an implementation plan. This study aimed to co-design strategies to implement an eHealth intervention, the EMBED-Care Framework, to support assessment and decision-making for people with dementia in care homes.// Methods: A qualitative co-design method was applied through a series of workshops. Participants included family carers and health and social care practitioners. People with dementia were included through a series of stakeholder engagement meetings. The workshops focused on co-developing strategies in response to identified determinants of implementation. A codebook thematic analytic approach was taken, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT).// Results: Three workshops were conducted from July 2021 to November 2021, attended by 39 participants. Three overarching phases of implementation were identified which aligned with the constructs of the NPT: (a) incentivising adoption of the Framework, which requires promotion of its benefits and alignment with recommendations for good quality dementia care to engage stakeholders, relating to ‘coherence’ and ‘cognitive participation’ constructs; (b) enabling its operation, which requires ensuring compatibility with care home processes, provision of training and support from ‘champions’, relating to ‘collective action’; (c) sustaining use of the Framework, which requires monitoring of implementation and appraisal of its effects, relating to ‘reflexive monitoring’.// Conclusions: We have developed a multi-strategy, theoretically driven plan to implement eHealth to support assessment and decision-making for people with dementia in care homes. Successful implementation requires incentivisation to adopt, ability to operate and motivation to sustain use of eHealth. The plan is strengthened through collaborating with end-users to increase its value, credibility and real-world relevance. The theoretically informed strategies target mechanisms of the NPT, demonstrated to shape the implementation process and outcomes, ready for testing

Developing a model of short-term integrated palliative and supportive care for frail older people in community settings: perspectives of older people, carers and other key stakeholders

Background: Understanding how best to provide palliative care for frail older people with non-malignant conditions is an international priority. We aimed to develop a community-based episodic model of short-term integrated palliative and supportive care (SIPS) based on the views of service users and other key stakeholders in the United Kingdom. Method: Transparent expert consultations with health professionals, voluntary sector and carer representatives including a consensus survey; and focus groups with older people and carers were used to generate recommendations for the SIPS model. Discussions focused on three key components of the model: potential benefit of SIPS; timing of delivery; and processes of integrated working between specialist palliative care and generalist practitioners. Content and descriptive analysis was employed and findings integrated across the data sources. Findings: We conducted two expert consultations (n=63), a consensus survey (n=42) and three focus groups (n=17). Potential benefits of SIPS included holistic assessment, opportunity for end of life discussion, symptom management, and carer reassurance. Older people and carers advocated early access to SIPS, while other stakeholders proposed delivery based on complex symptom burden. A priority for integrated working was the assignment of a key worker to coordinate care, but the assignment criteria remain uncertain. Interpretation: Key stakeholders agree that a model of SIPS for frail older people with non-malignant conditions has potential benefits within community settings, but differ in opinion on the optimal timing and indications for this service. Our findings highlight the importance of consulting all key stakeholders in model development prior to feasibility evaluation

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

Achieving consensus on priority items for paediatric palliative care outcome measurement: Results from a modified Delphi survey, engagement with a children’s research involvement group and expert item generation

Background: There is no validated outcome measure for use in children’s palliative care outside sub-Saharan Africa. Stakeholders must be involved in the development of such measures to ensure face and content validity. Aim: To gain expert stakeholder consensus on items for inclusion in a paediatric palliative care outcome measure to establish face and content validity. Design: This study was conducted in two phases following Rothrock and COSMIN guidance on patient-reported outcome measure development. Phase 1: Three-round modified Delphi survey to establish consensus on priority items. Phase 2: Item generation meeting with key stakeholders to develop initial measure versions. A young person’s advisory group was also consulted on priority outcomes. Setting and participants: Delphi survey: Parents and professionals with experience of caring for a child with a life-limiting condition. Young person’s advisory group: young people age 10–20 years. Item generation meeting: bereaved parents, academics and clinicians. Results: Phase 1: Delphi survey (n = 82). Agreement increased from Kendall’s W = 0.17 to W = 0.61, indicating movement towards consensus. Agreement between professional and parent ranking was poor (Cohen’s kappa 0.13). Professionals prioritised physical symptoms, whereas parents prioritised psychosocial and practical concerns. Advisory group: Children (n = 22) prioritised items related to living a ‘normal life’ in addition to items prioritised by adult participants. Phase 2: Five age/developmental stage appropriate child and proxy-reported versions of C-POS, containing 13 items, were drafted. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance and feasibility of involving key stakeholders in PROM item generation, as important differences were found in the priority outcomes identified by children, parents and professionals

‘My life is a mess but I cope’: An analysis of the language children and young people use to describe their own life-limiting or life-threatening condition

Background: Children and young people with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions have multidimensional needs and heterogenous cognitive and communicative abilities. There is limited evidence to support clinicians to tailor their communication to each individual child. Aim: To explore the language children and young people use to describe their own condition, to inform strategies for discussing needs and priorities. Design: Positioned within a social constructivist paradigm, a secondary discourse analysis of semi-structured interview data was conducted incorporating the discourse dynamics approach for figurative language. Setting/participants: A total of 26 children and young people aged 5–17 years with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions (6 cancer; 20 non-cancer) were recruited from nine clinical services (six hospitals and three hospices) across two UK nations. Results: The language children and young people use positions them as ‘experts in their condition’. They combine medical terminology with their preferred terms for their body to describe symptoms and treatments, and use comparatives and superlatives to communicate their health status. Their language depicts their condition as a ‘series of (functional and social) losses’, which single them out from their peers as ‘the sick one’. Older children and young people also incorporate figurative language to expand their descriptions. Conclusion/discussion: Children and young people can provide rich descriptions of their condition. Paying attention to their lexical choices, and converging one’s language towards theirs, may enable more child-centred discussions. Expanding discussions about ‘what matters most’ with consideration of the losses and differences they have experienced may facilitate a fuller assessment of their concerns, preferences and priorities

Design and Administration of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures: The Perspectives of Children and Young People with Life-Limiting or Life-Threatening Conditions and Their Family Members

Background: Self-reported health data from children with life-limiting conditions is rarely collected. To improve acceptability and feasibility of child and family-centred outcome measures for children, they need to be designed in a way that reflects preferences, priorities and abilities. Objectives: The aim was to identify preferences for patient-reported outcome measure design (recall period, response format, length, administration mode) to improve the feasibility, acceptability, comprehensibility and relevance of a child and family-centred outcome measure, among children with life-limiting conditions and their family members. Method: A semi-structured qualitative interview study seeking the perspectives of children with life-limiting conditions, their siblings and parents on measure design was conducted. Participants were purposively sampled and recruited from nine UK sites. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using framework analysis. Results: A total of 79 participants were recruited: 39 children aged 5–17 years (26 living with a life-limiting condition; 13 healthy siblings) and 40 parents (of children aged 0–17 years). Children found a short recall period and a visually appealing measure with ten questions or fewer most acceptable. Children with life-limiting conditions were more familiar with using rating scales such as numeric and Likert than their healthy siblings. Children emphasised the importance of completing the measure alongside interactions with a healthcare professional to enable them to talk about their responses. While parents assumed that electronic completion methods would be most feasible and acceptable, a small number of children preferred paper. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that children with life-limiting conditions can engage in communicating preferences regarding the design of a patient-centred outcome measure. Where possible, children should be given the opportunity to participate in the measure development process to enhance acceptability and uptake in clinical practice. Results of this study should be considered in future research on outcome measure development in children

Provision of palliative and end-of-life care in UK care homes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods observational study with implications for policy

© 2023 Bradshaw, Ostler, Goodman, Batkovskyte, Ellis-Smith, Tunnard, Bone, Barclay, Vernon, Higginson, Evans and Sleeman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Introduction: Little consideration has been given to how the provision of palliative and end-of-life care in care homes was affected by COVID-19. The aims of this study were to: (i) investigate the response of UK care homes in meeting the rapidly increasing need for palliative and end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic and (ii) propose policy recommendations for strengthening the provision of palliative and end-of-life care within care homes. Materials and methods: A mixed methods observational study was conducted, which incorporated (i) an online cross-sectional survey of UK care homes and (ii) qualitative interviews with care home practitioners. Participants for the survey were recruited between April and September 2021. Survey participants indicating availability to participate in an interview were recruited using a purposive sampling approach between June and October 2021. Data were integrated through analytic triangulation in which we sought areas of convergence, divergence, and complementarity. Results: There were 107 responses to the survey and 27 interviews. We found that (i) relationship-centered care is crucial to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care within care homes, but this was disrupted during the pandemic. (ii) Care homes' ability to maintain high-quality relationship-centered care required key “pillars” being in place: integration with external healthcare systems, digital inclusion, and a supported workforce. Inequities within the care home sector meant that in some services these pillars were compromised, and relationship-centered care suffered. (iii) The provision of relationship-centered care was undermined by care home staff feeling that their efforts and expertise in delivering palliative and end-of-life care often went unrecognized/undervalued. Conclusion: Relationship-centered care is a key component of high-quality palliative and end-of-life care in care homes, but this was disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. We identify key policy priorities to equip care homes with the resources, capacity, and expertise needed to deliver palliative and end-of-life care: (i) integration within health and social care systems, (ii) digital inclusivity, (iii) workforce development, (iv) support for care home managers, and (v) addressing (dis)parities of esteem. These policy recommendations inform, extend, and align with policies and initiatives within the UK and internationally.Peer reviewe