Uncertainty and COVID-19: how are we to respond?

As if writing prophetically about the global Covid-19 pandemic, in 1984 Eddy suggested, “Uncertainty creeps into medical practice through every pore. Whether a physician is defining a disease, making a diagnosis, selecting a procedure, observing outcomes, assessing probabilities, assigning preferences, or putting it all together, he (or she) is walking on very slippery terrain” 1. Covid-19 has rapidly become a disease associated with unbridled uncertainty with its aetiology and management, for the healthcare systems and health professionals who provide care, and among its ultimate victims, patients and their families

To What Extent Do the NRS and CRQ Capture Change in Patients' Experience of Breathlessness in Advanced Disease? Findings From a Mixed-Methods Double-Blind Randomized Feasibility Trial.

CONTEXT: Chronic or refractory breathlessness is common and distressing. To evaluate new treatments, outcome measures that capture change in patients' experience are needed. OBJECTIVES: To explore the extent to which the numerical rating scale (NRS) worst and average, and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire capture change in patients' experience during a trial of mirtazapine for refractory breathlessness. METHODS: Convergent mixed-methods design embedded within a randomized trial comprising 1) semi-structured qualitative interviews (considered to be the gold standard) and 2) outcome measure data collected pre- and post-intervention. Data were integrated, exploring examples where findings agreed and disagreed. Adults with advanced cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, interstitial lung disease, or chronic heart failure, with a modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale grade 3 or 4 were recruited from three U.K. sites. RESULTS: Data were collected for 22 participants. Eleven had a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eight interstitial lung disease, two chronic heart failure, and one cancer. Median age was 71 (56-84) years. Sixteen participants were men. Changes in the qualitative data were commonly captured in the NRS (worst and average) and the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire. The NRS worst captured change most frequently. Improvement in the emotional domain was associated with physical changes, improved confidence, and control. CONCLUSION: This study found that the NRS using the question "How bad has your breathlessness felt at its worst over the past 24 hours?" captured change across multiple domains, and therefore may be an appropriate primary outcome measure in trials in this population. Future work should confirm the construct validity of this question

How does uncertainty shape patient experience in advanced illness? A secondary analysis of qualitative data.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty is common in advanced illness but is infrequently studied in this context. If poorly addressed, uncertainty can lead to adverse patient outcomes. AIM: We aimed to understand patient experiences of uncertainty in advanced illness and develop a typology of patients' responses and preferences to inform practice. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of qualitative interview transcripts. Studies were assessed for inclusion and interviews were sampled using maximum-variation sampling. Analysis used a thematic approach with 10% of coding cross-checked to enhance reliability. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative interviews from six studies including patients with heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal disease, cancer and liver failure. RESULTS: A total of 30 transcripts were analysed. Median age was 75 (range, 43-95), 12 patients were women. The impact of uncertainty was frequently discussed: the main related themes were engagement with illness, information needs, patient priorities and the period of time that patients mainly focused their attention on (temporal focus). A typology of patient responses to uncertainty was developed from these themes. CONCLUSION: Uncertainty influences patient experience in advanced illness through affecting patients' information needs, preferences and future priorities for care. Our typology aids understanding of how patients with advanced illness respond to uncertainty. Assessment of these three factors may be a useful starting point to guide clinical assessment and shared decision making.Simon Noah Etkind is funded as an Academic Clinical Fellow by the National Institute for Health Research. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under the Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-1210-12015 – C-CHANGE: Delivering high quality and cost-effective care across the range of complexity for those with advanced conditions in the last year of life). Further information is available at http://www.csi.kcl.ac.uk/c-change1.html. The views and opinions expressed by authors in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NHS, the NIHR, MRC, CCF, NETSCC, the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research or the Department of Health

Finding a 'new normal' following acute illness: A qualitative study of influences on frail older people's care preferences.

BACKGROUND:: The frail older population is growing, and many frail older people have episodes of acute illness. Patient preferences are increasingly considered important in the delivery of person-centred care and may change following acute illness. AIM:: To explore influences on the care preferences of frail older people with recent acute illness. DESIGN:: Qualitative in-depth individual interviews, with thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:: Maximum variation sample of 18 patients and 7 nominated family carers from a prospective cohort study of people aged over 65, scoring ⩾5 on the Clinical Frailty Scale, and with recent acute illness, who were not receiving specialist palliative care. Median patient age was 84 (inter-quartile range 81–87), 53% female. Median frailty score 6 (inter-quartile range 5–7). RESULTS:: Key influences on preferences were illness and care context, particularly hospital care; adaptation to changing health; achieving normality and social context. Participants focused on the outcomes of their care; hence, whether care was likely to help them ‘get back to normal’, or alternatively ‘find a new normal’ influenced preferences. For some, acute illness inhibited preference formation. Participants’ social context and the people available to provide support influenced place of care preferences. We combined these findings to model influences on preferences. CONCLUSION:: ‘Getting back to normal’ or ‘finding a new normal’ are key focuses for frail older people when considering their preferences. Following acute illness, clinicians should discuss preferences and care planning in terms of an achievable normal, and carefully consider the social context. Longitudinal research is needed to explore the influences on preferences over time.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was independent research funded by Cicely Saunders International and the Atlantic Philanthropies (grant 24610). The sponsor had no role in the design, methods, subject recruitment, data collection, analysis or preparation of this article. This research was supported by the collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, South London, which is part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and is a partnership between King’s Health Partners, St. George’s University London, and St George’s Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Trust. I.J.H. is an Emeritus NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care

Taking patient and public involvement online: qualitative evaluation of an online forum for palliative care and rehabilitation research.

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly recognised as important in research. Most PPI takes place face-to-face, but this can be difficult for people who are unwell or have caring responsibilities. As these challenges are particularly common in palliative care and rehabilitation research, we developed an online forum for PPI: www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk. In this study, we explored how well the online forum worked, if it is a suitable method for PPI, and how PPI members and researchers reacted to using it. We used an existing theory about online interventions to help choose the 'right' questions to ask participants. We invited PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum to participate in focus groups, and identified the most important themes discussed. Within this study, PPI members have helped with the interview questions, analysis, and write up. Overall, four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups. Participants felt the online forum worked well and had multiple benefits. From the discussions, we identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: how does the forum work, how does it engage people, how does it empower people, and what is the impact? Participants suggested the forum could be improved by being more PPI and less researcher focused. We conclude that when developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. Future work can use these four domains when developing their own online PPI methods. BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly recognised as important. Most PPI activities take place face-to-face, yet this can be difficult for people with ill health or caring responsibilities, and may exclude people from hard-to-reach populations (e.g. living in vulnerable social circumstances and/or remote geographical locations). These challenges are particularly pertinent in palliative care and rehabilitation research where people often live with, or care for someone with, advanced illness. In response to this, we aimed to test the functionality, feasibility, and acceptability of an online forum for PPI for palliative care and rehabilitation research (www.csipublicinvolvement.co.uk). METHODS: We conducted separate focus groups with PPI members and researchers who had used the online forum. Data collection was underpinned by DeLone and Mclean's model of information systems success. Focus groups were recorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Dual coding by two authors ensured rigour, and attention was paid to divergent cases. RESULTS: Four PPI members and five researchers participated in the focus groups (two PPI focus groups, one researcher focus group). The online forum was perceived as functional, feasible, and acceptable. Our analysis identified four key questions to consider when developing online methods for PPI: (1) how does the forum work, (2) how does it engage people, (3) how does it empower people, and (4) what is the impact? PPI members felt that the online forum was too researcher led, and needed to be more PPI focussed. CONCLUSIONS: When developing online methods of PPI, a functioning forum is not enough: it also needs to be engaging and empowering to have an impact. To optimise online involvement, future work should refer to these four domains and balance the needs of researchers and PPI members

Patient and public involvement in palliative care research: What works, and why? A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Public involvement is increasingly considered a prerequisite for high-quality research. However, involvement in palliative care is impeded by limited evidence on the best approaches for populations affected by life-limiting illness. AIM: To evaluate a strategy for public involvement in palliative care and rehabilitation research, to identify successful approaches and areas for improvement. DESIGN: Co-produced qualitative evaluation using focus groups and interviews. Thematic analysis undertaken by research team comprising public contributors and researchers. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Researchers and public members from a palliative care and rehabilitation research institute, UK. RESULTS: Seven public members and 19 researchers participated. Building and maintaining relationships, taking a flexible approach and finding the 'right' people were important for successful public involvement. Relationship building created a safe environment for discussing sensitive topics, although public members felt greater consideration of emotional support was needed. Flexibility supported involvement alongside unpredictable circumstances of chronic and life-limiting illness, and was facilitated by responsive communication, and opportunities for in-person and virtual involvement at a project- and institution-level. However, more opportunities for two-way feedback throughout projects was suggested. Finding the 'right' people was crucial given the diverse population served by palliative care, and participants suggested more care needed to be taken to identify public members with experience relevant to specific projects. CONCLUSION: Within palliative care research, it is important for involvement to focus on building and maintaining relationships, working flexibly, and identifying those with relevant experience. Taking a strategic approach and developing adequate infrastructure and networks can facilitate public involvement within this field.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership and Applied Health Research and Care South London (NIHR CLAHRC South London) Involvement Activity Funding and Research Capability Funding at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. Support was also provided by the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King’s College Hospital Foundation Trust. LJB is supported through a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Career Development Fellowship (CDF-2017-10-009). CE is funded by HEE/NIHR Senior Clinical Lectureship. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the funders, the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health

Approaches to managing uncertainty in people with life limiting conditions: role of communication and palliative care

Abstract Patients with any major illness can expect to experience uncertainty about the nature of their illness, its treatment and their prognosis. Prognostic uncertainty is a particular source of patient distress among those living with life-limiting disease. Uncertainty also affects professionals and it has been argued that the level of professional tolerance of uncertainty can affect levels of investigation as well as healthcare resource use. We know that the way in which uncertainty is recognised, managed and communicated can have important impacts on patients' treatment and quality of life. Current approaches to uncertainty in life-limiting illness include the use of care bundles and approaches that focus on communication and education. The experience in communicating in difficult situations that specialist palliative care professionals can provide may also be of benefit for patients with life-limiting illness in the context of uncertainty. While there are a number of promising approaches to uncertainty, as yet few interventions targeted at recognising and addressing uncertainty have been fully evaluated and further research is needed in this area.</jats:p

Uncertainty in multimorbidity: a shared experience we should recognise, acknowledge and communicate.

Multimorbidity is increasingly common and inevitably results in uncertainties about health, care and the future. Such uncertainties may be experienced by patients, carers and health professionals. Given the ubiquitous presence of uncertainty, all professionals should be prepared to approach and address it in clinical practice. Uncertainty in multimorbidity can rarely be eliminated, and so, must be carefully addressed and communicated; however, there is little evidence on how to approach it. Key areas are: recognising the existence of uncertainty, acknowledging it, and communicating to achieve a shared understanding. Evaluation of what has been discussed, and preparedness to repeat such conversations are also important. Future research should explore optimal communication of uncertainty in multimorbidity