Improving caring quality for people with dementia in nursing homes using IPOS-Dem: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial protocol.

We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for people with dementia-based case studies to improve the caring quality for people with dementia in nursing homes by frontline staff and family members. Swiss nursing homes mostly care for people with dementia. This population is at high risk of receiving little to no palliation for their complex needs. The majority of Swiss frontline healthcare staff do not systematically report on the needs of their residents. Additionally, family members do not routinely participate in assessment processes. We will conduct a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial of repeated assessment using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for people with dementia (IPOS-Dem) and subsequent case studies. Clusters will consist of Swiss nursing homes randomly assigned to one of three sequential intervention time points. The study population will consist of people with dementia living in nursing homes with and without specialized dementia care facilities. Over 16 months, staff working at the frontline and family members will assess the needs and concerns of people with dementia using IPOS-Dem. Depending on sequence allocation, facilitated case studies will start after 3, 6 or 9 months. The primary outcome will be caring quality measured by QUALIDEM. The secondary outcome will be symptoms and concerns, as indicated by the IPOS-Dem sum-score. The Zürich Ethics Committee approved the study in 2019 (2019-01847). The results of this study will contribute to improving the effectiveness of person-centred care for people with dementia. Collaboration between healthcare staff and family members will be systematically developed and built upon thorough assessment using the IPOS-Dem and related case studies. The use of IPOS-Dem will offer all frontline staff a systematic approach to have an independent voice within the nursing process, regardless of their qualification or grade

How many people will need palliative care in 2040? Past trends, future projections and implications for services.

BACKGROUND: Current estimates suggest that approximately 75% of people approaching the end-of-life may benefit from palliative care. The growing numbers of older people and increasing prevalence of chronic illness in many countries mean that more people may benefit from palliative care in the future, but this has not been quantified. The present study aims to estimate future population palliative care need in two high-income countries. METHODS: We used mortality statistics for England and Wales from 2006 to 2014. Building on previous diagnosis-based approaches, we calculated age- and sex-specific proportions of deaths from defined chronic progressive illnesses to estimate the prevalence of palliative care need in the population. We calculated annual change over the 9-year period. Using explicit assumptions about change in disease prevalence over time, and official mortality forecasts, we modelled palliative care need up to 2040. We also undertook separate projections for dementia, cancer and organ failure. RESULTS: By 2040, annual deaths in England and Wales are projected to rise by 25.4% (from 501,424 in 2014 to 628,659). If age- and sex-specific proportions with palliative care needs remain the same as in 2014, the number of people requiring palliative care will grow by 25.0% (from 375,398 to 469,305 people/year). However, if the upward trend observed from 2006 to 2014 continues, the increase will be of 42.4% (161,842 more people/year, total 537,240). In addition, disease-specific projections show that dementia (increase from 59,199 to 219,409 deaths/year by 2040) and cancer (increase from 143,638 to 208,636 deaths by 2040) will be the main drivers of increased need. CONCLUSIONS: If recent mortality trends continue, 160,000 more people in England and Wales will need palliative care by 2040. Healthcare systems must now start to adapt to the age-related growth in deaths from chronic illness, by focusing on integration and boosting of palliative care across health and social care disciplines. Countries with similar demographic and disease changes will likely experience comparable rises in need

Managing cancer pain at the end of life with multiple strong opioids: a population-based retrospective cohort study in primary care

Background: End-of-life cancer patients commonly receive more than one type of strong opioid. The three-step analgesic ladder framework of the World Health Organisation (WHO) provides no guidance on multiple opioid prescribing and there is little epidemiological data available to inform practice. This study aims to investigate the time trend of such cases and the associated factors. Methods: Strong opioid prescribing in the last three months of life of cancer patients were extracted from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). The outcome variable was the number of different types of prescribed non-rescue doses of opioids (1 vs 2-4, referred to as a complex case). Associated factors were evaluated using prevalence ratios (PR) derived from multivariate log-binomial model, adjusting for clustering effects and potential confounding variables. Results: Overall, 26.4% (95% CI: 25.6-27.1%) of 13,427 cancer patients (lung 41.7%, colorectal 19.1%, breast 18.6%, prostate 15.5%, head and neck 5.0%) were complex cases. Complex cases increased steadily over the study period (1.02% annually, 95%CI: 0.42-1.61%, p = 0.048) but with a small dip (7.5% reduction, 95%CI: 20.03 to 17.8%) around the period of the Shipman case, a British primary care doctor who murdered his patients with opioids. The dip significantly affected the correlation of the complex cases with persistent increasing background opioid prescribing (weighted correlation coefficients pre-, post-Shipman periods: 0.98(95%CI: 0.67-1.00), p = 0.011; 0.14 (95%CI: 20.85 to 0.91), p = 0.85). Multivariate adjusted analysis showed that the complex cases were predominantly associated with year of death (PRs vs 2000: 1.05-1.65), not other demographic and clinical factors except colorectal cancer (PR vs lung cancer: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.12-1.37). Conclusion: These findings suggest that prescribing behaviour, rather than patient factors, plays an important role in multiple opioid prescribing at the end of life; highlighting the need for training and education that goes beyond the well-recognised WHO approach for clinical practitioners

Non-pharmacological interventions to manage psychological distress in patients living with cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress is common in patients with cancer; interfering with physical and psychological wellbeing, and hindering management of physical symptoms. Our aim was to systematically review published evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for cancer-related psychological distress, at all stages of the disease. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022311729). Searches were made using eight online databases to identify studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Data were collected on outcome measures, modes of delivery, resources and evidence of efficacy. A meta-analysis was planned if data allowed. Quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). RESULTS: Fifty-nine studies with 17,628 participants were included. One third of studies included mindfulness, talking or group therapies. Half of all studies reported statistically significant improvements in distress. Statistically significant intervention effects on distress were most prevalent for mindfulness techniques. Four of these mindfulness studies had moderate effect sizes (d = -0.71[95% CI: -1.04, -0.37] p < 0.001) (d = -0.60 [95% CI: -3.44, -0.89] p < 0.001) (d = -0.77 [CI: -0.146, -1.954] p < 0.01) (d = -0.69 [CI: -0.18, -1.19] p = 0.008) and one had a large effect size (d = -1.03 [95% CI: -1.51, -0.54] p < 0.001). Heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Study quality was variable and some had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies using a mindfulness intervention in this review are efficacious at alleviating distress. Mindfulness-including brief, self-administered interventions-merits further investigation, using adequately powered, high-quality studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022311729

Conceptualising effective symptom management in palliative care: a novel model derived from qualitative data

Background Pain, breathlessness and fatigue are some of the most challenging symptoms to manage in patients with advanced disease. Specialist palliative care leads to better symptom management, but factors contributing to successful symptom management in this context have not been explored. Our aim was to understand what facilitates effective symptom management in specialist palliative care within UK hospices and investigate what barriers are experienced. Methods This was a grounded theory study using qualitative semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Participants were recruited from multidisciplinary specialist palliative care teams (doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, complementary therapists, social workers and chaplains) working in inpatient, outpatient and community services provided by five hospices in the United Kingdom. Results We present a novel qualitative data-derived model of effective symptom management in specialist palliative care. We describe a co-ordinated, multi-faceted, sequential approach involving a process of engagement, partnership, decision-making, and delivery. Interventions to manage symptoms are less effective in psychologically distressed patients. Our data highlights that families of patients have a key role in determining effectiveness of symptom management interventions A holistic approach by a co-ordinated, multi-disciplinary team, including support to recognise and minimise psychological distress might facilitate more effective symptom management. Barriers to symptom management include team discordance and lack of understanding about symptom management by patient and families. Conclusions Shared decision-making between patients and professionals and co-ordination of care by a multi-disciplinary team are key components of effective symptom management. Actions to address psychological distress and evaluate the understanding and expectations of patients and their families would enable more effective symptom management. A more effective multi-disciplinary approach would be facilitated by discussion within teams about role competencies and boundaries

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

Implementing person-centred outcome measures in palliative care: An exploratory qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory to understand processes and context

Background: Despite evidence demonstrating the utility of using Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care settings, implementing them into routine practice is challenging. Most research has described barriers to, without explaining the causal mechanisms underpinning, implementation. Implementation theories explain how, why, and in which contexts specific relationships between barriers/enablers might improve implementation effectiveness but have rarely been used in palliative care outcomes research. Aim: To use Normalisation Process Theory to understand and explain the causal mechanisms that underpin successful implementation of Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care. Design: Exploratory qualitative study. Data collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using a Framework approach. Setting/participants: 63 healthcare professionals, across 11 specialist palliative care services, were purposefully sampled by role, experience, seniority, and settings (inpatient, outpatient/day therapy, home-based/community). Results: Seven main themes were developed, representing the causal mechanisms and relationships underpinning successful implementation of outcome measures into routine practice. Themes were: Subjectivity of measures; Frequency and version of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; Training, education, and peer support; Building and sustaining community engagement; Electronic system readiness; The art of communication; Reinforcing use through demonstrating value. Conclusions: Relationships influencing implementation resided at individual and organisational levels. Addressing these factors is key to driving the implementation of outcome measures into routine practice so that those using palliative care services can benefit from the systematic identification, management, and measurement of their symptoms and concerns. We provide key questions that are essential for those implementing and using outcome measures to consider in order to facilitate the integration of outcome measures into routine palliative care practice

How to routinely collect data on patient-reported outcome and experience measures in renal registries in Europe: an expert consensus meeting

Despite the potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and experience measures (PREMs) to enhance understanding of patient experiences and outcomes they have not, to date, been widely incorporated into renal registry datasets. This report summarizes the main points learned from an ERA-EDTA QUEST-funded consensus meeting on how to routinely collect PROMs and PREMs in renal registries in Europe. In preparation for the meeting, we surveyed all European renal registries to establish current or planned efforts to collect PROMs/PREMs. A systematic review of the literature was performed. Publications reporting barriers and/or facilitators to PROMs/PREMs collection by registries were identified and a narrative synthesis undertaken. A group of renal registry representatives, PROMs/PREMs experts and patient representatives then met to (i) share any experience renal registries in Europe have in this area; (ii) establish how patient-reported data might be collected by understanding how registries currently collect routine data and how patient-reported data is collected in other settings; (iii) harmonize the future collection of patient-reported data by renal registries in Europe by agreeing upon preferred instruments and (iv) to identify the barriers to routine collection of patient-reported data in renal registries in Europe. In total, 23 of the 45 European renal registries responded to the survey. Two reported experience in collecting PROMs and three stated that they were actively exploring ways to do so. The systematic review identified 157 potentially relevant articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria and were analysed for barriers and facilitators to routine PROM/PREM collection. Thirteen themes were identified and mapped to a three-stage framework around establishing the need, setting up and maintaining the routine collection of PROMs/PREMs. At the consensus meeting some PROMs instruments were agreed for routine renal registry collection (the generic SF-12, the disease-specific KDQOL™-36 and EQ-5D-5L to be able to derive quality-adjusted life years), but further work was felt to be needed before recommending PREMs. Routinely collecting PROMs and PREMs in renal registries is important if we are to better understand what matters to patients but it is likely to be challenging; close international collaboration will be beneficial