Integrating palliative care education in pulmonary rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study protocol

Background: Palliative care addresses multiple unmet needs of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or interstitial lung diseases (ILD) and their family and/or friend caregivers, but it remains highly underused. Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) may provide a key opportunity to introduce palliative care. We aim to explore the effects of palliative care education as part of PR on knowledge about this field in people with COPD or ILD and their family and/or friend caregivers. Methods: A randomized controlled study will compare PR with palliative care education (experimental) with traditional PR (control) in people with COPD or ILD and their family and/or friend caregivers. Family and/or friend caregivers will be invited to take part in education and psychosocial support sessions. In addition to the usual educational content, the experimental group will have a session on palliative care, a “Peer-to-peer session”, two “Get-apart sessions” and online sessions. The “Peer-to-peer session” and the “Get-apart sessions” will be discussions about topics suggested by participants. The “Get-apart sessions” will be dedicated to people with COPD or ILD apart from their family and/or friend caregivers and vice versa. The online sessions will be zoom meetings to discuss any health-related issues raised by participants, at a flexible time. A mixed-methods approach will be used to evaluate the outcomes. The primary outcome will be knowledge about palliative care. Secondary outcomes will include attitude towards palliative care referral, symptoms, disease impact, health-related quality of life, needs, knowledge about the disease, burden of providing care, adherence, adverse events and referral to a specialist palliative care team. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected at baseline and end of PR. At 6-months post-PR, only patient-reported outcomes will be collected. For the primary outcome, time*group interaction will be analyzed with mixed analysis of variance. Discussion: This study aims to demonstrate the impact of integrating palliative care into the PR education program. Trial registration: The trial was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov U.S. National Library of Medicine, on 1st September, 2023 (NCT06046547).Nippon Gases Portugal; Gasoxmed.publishe

COVID-19: guidance on palliative care from a European Respiratory Society international task force

Copyright ©ERS 2020. BACKGROUND: Many people are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but consensus guidance on palliative care in COVID-19 is lacking. This new life-threatening disease has put healthcare systems under pressure, with the increased need of palliative care provided to many patients by clinicians who have limited prior experience in this field. Therefore, we aimed to make consensus recommendations for palliative care for patients with COVID-19 using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process. METHODS: We invited 90 international experts to complete an online survey including stating their agreement, or not, with 14 potential recommendations. At least 70% agreement on directionality was needed to provide consensus recommendations. If consensus was not achieved on the first round, a second round was conducted. RESULTS: 68 (75.6%) experts responded in the first round. Most participants were experts in palliative care, respiratory medicine or critical care medicine. In the first round, consensus was achieved on 13 recommendations based upon indirect evidence and clinical experience. In the second round, 58 (85.3%) out of 68 of the first-round experts responded, resulting in consensus for the 14th recommendation. CONCLUSION: This multi-national task force provides consensus recommendations for palliative care for patients with COVID-19 concerning: advance care planning; (pharmacological) palliative treatment of breathlessness; clinician-patient communication; remote clinician-family communication; palliative care involvement in patients with serious COVID-19; spiritual care; psychosocial care; and bereavement care. Future studies are needed to generate empirical evidence for these recommendations

End-of-life care in a COPD patient awaiting lung transplantation: a case report

COPD is nowadays the main indication for lung transplantation. In appropriately selected patients with end stage COPD, lung transplantation may improve quality of life and prognosis of survival. However, patients with end stage COPD may die while waiting for lung transplantation. Palliative care is important to address the needs of patients with end stage COPD. This case report shows that in a patient with end stage COPD listed for lung transplantation offering palliative care and curative-restorative care concurrently may be problematic. If the requirements to remain a transplantation candidate need to be met, the possibilities for palliative care may be limited. Discussing the possibilities of palliative care and the patient's treatment preferences is necessary to prevent that end-of-life care needs of COPD patients dying while listed for lung transplantation are not optimally addressed. The patient's end-of-life care preferences may ask for a clear distinction between the period in which palliative and curative-restorative care are offered concurrently and the end-of-life care period. This may be necessary to allow a patient to spend the last stage of life according to his or her wishes, even when this implicates that lung transplantation is not possible anymore and the patient will die because of end stage COPD

Multi-disciplinary palliative care is effective in people with symptomatic heart failure: A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Background: Despite recommendations, people with heart failure have poor access to palliative care. Aim: To identify the evidence in relation to palliative care for people with symptomatic heart failure. Design: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. (PROSPERO CRD42016029911) Data sources: Databases (Medline, Cochrane database, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, CareSearch Grey Literature), reference lists and citations were searched and experts contacted. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and retrieved papers against inclusion criteria. Data were extracted from included papers and studies were critically assessed using a risk of bias tool according to design. Results: Thirteen interventional and 10 observational studies were included. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design rendering combination inappropriate. The evaluation phase studies, with lower risk of bias, using a multi-disciplinary specialist palliative care intervention showed statistically significant benefit for patient-reported outcomes (symptom burden, depression, functional status, quality of life), resource use and costs of care. Benefit was not seen in studies with a single component/discipline intervention or with higher risk of bias. Possible contamination in some studies may have caused under-estimation of effect and missing data may have introduced bias. There was no apparent effect on survival. Conclusion: Overall, the results support the use of multi-disciplinary palliative care in people with advanced heart failure but trials do not identify who would benefit most from specialist palliative referral. There are no sufficiently robust multi-centre evaluation phase trials to provide generalisable findings. Use of common population, intervention and outcomes in future research would allow meta-analysis

Symptoms and quality of life before, during, and after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive or negative test:data from Lifelines

This study evaluates to what extent symptoms are present before, during, and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and to evaluate how the symptom burden and quality of Life (QoL) compares to those with a negative PCR test. Participants from the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort Study filled-out as of March 2020 weekly, later bi-weekly and monthly, questions about demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis and severity, QoL, and symptoms. The study population included those with one positive or negative PCR test who filled out two questionnaires before and after the test, resulting in 996 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive and 3978 negative participants. Nearly all symptoms were more often reported after a positive test versus the period before the test (p &lt; 0.05), except fever. A higher symptom prevalence after versus before a test was also found for nearly all symptoms in negatives (p &lt; 0.05). Before the test, symptoms were already partly present and reporting of nearly all symptoms before did not differ between positives and negatives (p &gt; 0.05). QoL decreased around the test for positives and negatives, with a larger deterioration for positives. Not all symptoms after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test might be attributable to the infection and symptoms were also common in negatives.</p