Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care : a qualitative interview study

Background: Standardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT. Results: Seventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring). Conclusions: Although benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs

Lenalidomide in cancer cachexia : a randomized trial of an anticancer drug applied for anti‐cachexia

Background: Cancer cachexia (CC) impacts quality of life, physical function, anticancer treatment response, and survival. Inflammation is a prominent pathomechanism of CC. This small-scale study sets out to investigate the immunomodulatory drug lenalidomide in inflammatory CC in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Methods: Patients with advanced solid malignancies, documented weight loss, no or unchanged anticancer treatment, and C-reactive protein>30 mg/L were included. In a 2:2:1 randomization, patients received either lenalidomide25 mg once daily or C-reactive protein-guided dose, starting with 5 mg lenalidomide once daily or placebo once a day for 8 weeks. Dose adaption and safety were assessed twice a week. Treatment response was defined as an increase of lean body mass of more than 2% in a lower lumbar computed tomography and an increase in dynamometer-assessed handgrip strength of 4 kg. Secondary endpoints included adverse events, C-reactive protein response, nutritional intake, and symptoms. Results: Of 24 eligible patients, 16 were included (25% female). At baseline, the mean age was 67 (range 51–88) years, and mean body weight was 64.7 kg (range 39.8–87.2 kg). Five were diagnosed with mesothelioma, two with non-small-cell lung cancer, two with renal cell carcinoma, two with neuroendocrine tumours, and five with other malignancies. Mean survival was 43 days. Eleven adverse events (four of which were severe) were recorded with a probable link to study participation. Nine patients completed the study. No participant showed a treatment response. C-reactive protein-guided dosing did not result in lower doses of lenalidomide. Lean body mass decreased less in the treatment groups. For the lenalidomide and placebo groups respectively, handgrip strength decreased by 2.3 vs.5.5 kg, nutritional intake decreased by 249 vs. 32 kcal/day, and C-reactive protein increased by 35 mg/dL vs. decreased by 17 mg/dL. The study was closed prematurely due to slow accrual and the need for concurrent anticancer treatments. Conclusions: No treatment response on muscle mass and muscle strength was observed with lenalidomide. Because of several limiting factors, including low recruitment caused in part by an ambitious study design and concomitant anti-cancer treatment, this study did not generate adequate data to draw reliable conclusions

Perspectives of patients, family caregivers and health professionals on the use of outcome measures in palliative care and lessons for implementation: a multi-method qualitative study

Background: Routine use of outcome measures in palliative care is recommended to demonstrate and improve quality of care. The use of outcome measures is relatively recent in UK specialist palliative care services and understanding their use in practice is key to successful implementation. We therefore aimed to explore how patient-centred outcome measures are used in specialist palliative care, and identify key considerations for implementation.Methods: Multi-method qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation). Patients, family caregivers and health professionals were purposively sampled from nine specialist palliative care services (hospice, hospital and community settings) in London, UK. Framework analysis, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was undertaken.Results: Thirty eight interviews and nine observations were conducted. Findings are presented according to the five CFIR domains: 1) Intervention: participants highlighted advantages, disadvantages and appropriateness of outcome measures in palliative care; 2) Outer setting: policy and national drivers are necessary to encourage use of outcome measures; 3) Inner setting: information technology infrastructure, organisational drive, and support from peers and leadership were institutional factors that shaped the use of outcome measures; 4) Individual: clear rationale for using outcome measures and skills to use them in practice were essential; 5) Implementation: stepwise introduction of outcome measures, regular feedback sessions, and champions/facilitators were important to strengthen routine use.Conclusion: All CFIR domains need consideration for effective implementation. Outcome data needs to be fed back to and interpreted for professionals in order to improve and sustain outcome data collection, and drive meaningful improvements in palliative care

Cultural adaptation of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for Dementia (IPOS-Dem) for the Swiss context : a focus-interview study with relatives, district nurses and acute care nurses

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269216321103590

Are nurse's needs assessment methods robust enough to recognise palliative care needs in people with dementia? : a scoping review

People with dementia are most at risk of experiencing serious health related suffering, if they do not have a palliative care approach introduced early enough in the illness. It can be challenging for nurses to assess experienced needs of people, who are thought no longer able to self-report such as people with dementia. Assessment help to understand the care the patient and their family need promptly. It is unknown how nurses recognise holistic palliative care needs in people with dementia during routine care

Meaningful patient and public engagement in dissemination—embedding co-production in dementia research

Background: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) is still underutilised in both dementia research and corresponding dissemination activities.Aim: To describe the methods, format, and lessons learned in co-creating and co-producing a dissemination strategy for a research project focused on establishing patient-centred outcome measures into routine palliative community care for persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their informal carers.Materials and methods: A participatory, hybrid-format workshop was conducted to co-create the dissemination strategy with a PPIE group. A video presentation of findings and a list of prompts shared prior to the workshop were used to elicit views on dissemination strategies and knowledge translation. The workshop was followed up with a survey to consolidate the dissemination strategy. Workshop minutes and survey responses were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis.Results: 22 participants from our diverse PPIE group attended the workshop. Two major themes emerged: (a) Knowledge translation: building bridges between research and practise, and (b) Collaboration and dissemination: everyone's voice is needed. Participants suggested critical changes to dissemination methods and materials. Successful knowledge translation depends on a strong evidence base. For this, materials need to be tailored to specific audiences. Everyone's voice needs to be integrated through co-production in dissemination activities by PPIE members to influence societal change. Tailored dissemination activities within a dissemination strategy were co-created spanning all phases of the research cycle.Discussion: Informing and educating the public and policymakers about the needs of PLWD relies on disseminating and fostering knowledge translation throughout all phases of the research cycle

Benefits of specialist palliative care by identifying active ingredients of service composition, structure, and delivery model: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

Background AU Specialist: Pleaseconfirmthatallheadinglevelsarerepresentedcorrectly palliative care (SPC) services address the needs :of people with advanced illness. Meta-analyses to date have been challenged by heterogeneity in SPC service models and outcome measures and have failed to produce an overall effect. The best service models are unknown. We aimed to estimate the summary effect of SPC across settings on quality of life and emotional wellbeing and identify the optimum service delivery model. Methods and findings We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression. Databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ICTRP, clinicaltrials.gov) were searched (January 1, 2000; December 28, 2023), supplemented with further hand searches (i.e., conference abstracts). Two researchers independently screened identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing SPC intervention versus usual care in adults with life-limiting disease and including patient or proxy reported outcomes as primary or secondary endpoints. The meta-analysis used, to our knowledge, novel methodology to convert outcomes into minimally clinically important difference (MID) units and the number needed to treat (NNT). Bias/quality was assessed via the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to synthesize endpoints between 2 weeks and 12 months for effect on quality of life and emotional wellbeing expressed and combined in units of MID. From 42,787 records, 39 international RCTs (n = 38 from high- and middle-income countries) were included. For quality of life (33 trials) and emotional wellbeing (22 trials), statistically and clinically significant benefit was seen from 3 months’ follow-up for quality of life, standardized mean difference (SMD in MID units) effect size of 0.40 at 13 to 36 weeks, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.21, 0.59], p < 0.001, I2 = 60%). For quality of life at 13 to 36 weeks, 13% of the SPC intervention group experienced an effect of at least 1 MID unit change (relative risk (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI [1.06, 1.20], p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For emotional wellbeing, 16% experienced an effect of at least 1 MID unit change at 13 to 36 weeks (95% CI [1.08, 1.24], p < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For quality of life, the NNT improved from 69 to 15; for emotional wellbeing from 46 to 28, from 2 weeks and 3 months, respectively. Higher effect sizes were associated with multidisciplinary and multicomponent interventions, across settings. Sensitivity analyses using robust MID estimates showed substantial (quality of life) and moderate (emotional wellbeing) benefits, and lower number-needed-to-treat, even with shorter follow-up. As the main limitation, MID effect sizes may be biased by relying on derivation in non-palliative care samples. Conclusions iled=updatedforthoseusedinthetext:Pleaseverifythatallentriesarecorrect: Using, to our knowledge, novel methods to combine different outcomes, we found clear evidence of moderate overall effect size for both quality of life and emotional wellbeing benefits from SPC, regardless of underlying condition, with multidisciplinary, multicomponent, and multi-setting models being most effective. Our data seriously challenge the current practice of referral to SPC close to death. Policy and service commissioning should drive needs-based referral at least 3 to 6 months before death as the optimal standard of 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

Which outcome domains are important in palliative care and when? An international expert consensus workshop, using the nominal group technique

© The Author(s) 2019. Background: When capturing patient-level outcomes in palliative care, it is essential to identify which outcome domains are most important and focus efforts to capture these, in order to improve quality of care and minimise collection burden. Aim: To determine which domains of palliative care are most important for measurement of outcomes, and the optimal time period over which these should be measured. Design: An international expert consensus workshop using nominal group technique. Data were analysed descriptively, and weighted according to ranking (1–5, lowest to highest priority) of domains. Participants’ rationales for their choices were analysed thematically. Setting/participants: In all, 33 clinicians and researchers working globally in palliative care outcome measurement participated. Two groups (n = 16; n = 17) answered one question each (either on domains or optimal timing). This workshop was conducted at the 9th World Research Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care in 2016. Results: Participants’ years of experience in palliative care and in outcome measurement ranged from 10.9 to 14.7 years and 5.8 to 6.4 years, respectively. The mean scores (weighted by rank) for the top-ranked domains were ‘overall wellbeing/quality of life’ (2.75), ‘pain’ (2.06), and ‘information needs/preferences’ (2.06), respectively. The palliative measure ‘Phase of Illness’ was recommended as the preferred measure of time period over which the domains were measured. Conclusion: The domains of ‘overall wellbeing/quality of life’, ‘pain’, and ‘information needs/preferences’ are recommended for regular measurement, assessed using ‘Phase of Illness’. International adoption of these recommendations will help standardise approaches to improving the quality of palliative care