Search

Background: Advance care planning in dementia does not always happen. As dementia progresses, decisions are often left for family carers to make with professionals. Aim: To test the feasibility and acceptability of the delivery and use of a decision aid for family carers of people with severe dementia or towards the end-of-life. Design: Feasibility study using a before-after design of a paper-based decision aid with family carers of people with severe dementia or towards the end-of-life. Criteria for whether to progress to full evaluation included achieving: 70% recruitment rate of target of 30 people, and retention of 70% at 6 months. Outcome measures at baseline, 3 and 6 months, included: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), EQ5D-5L and Satisfaction with Care at the End of Life (SWC-EOLD). Participants: Twenty-eight family carers were recruited (93% of target), 26 completed baseline assessment and 20 (71%) of those were followed-up at 6 months. Results: Almost all outcomes changed indicating improvement over 6 months. The DCS and K10 scores decreased indicating less decisional conflict and less psychological distress. The decision aid was acceptable, 25% found it very helpful and 55% a little helpful at 6 months. Conclusion: We met the success criteria demonstrating this study was feasible and acceptable to carers. Future research should test the effectiveness of the decision aid in a full scale evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The efficacy of virtual reality for people living with a terminal illness is unclear. Aim: To determine the feasibility and effectiveness of virtual reality use within a palliative care setting. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO (CRD42021240395). Data sources: Medline, Embase, AMED, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 2021. Search terms included 'virtual reality' and 'palliative care'. Eligibility: (1) adult (>18 years old) with a terminal illness (2) at least one virtual reality session and (3) feasibility data and/or at least one patient outcome reported. The ROB-2 and ROBINS tools assessed risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool assessed the quality of the evidence. Standardised mean differences (Hedges's g) were calculated from the pre- and post-data. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model meta-analysis was conducted. Results: Eight studies were included, of which five were in the meta-analysis. All studies had at least some concern for risk of bias. Virtual reality statistically significantly improved pain (p = 0.0363), tiredness (p = 0.0030), drowsiness (p = 0.0051), shortness of breath (p = 0.0284), depression (p = 0.0091) and psychological well-being (p = 0.0201). The quality of the evidence was graded as very low due to small sample sizes, non-randomisation methods and a lack of a comparator arm. Conclusions: Virtual reality in palliative care is feasible and acceptable. However, limited sample sizes and very low-quality studies mean that the efficacy of virtual reality needs further research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prognostic information is important for patients with cancer, their families, and clinicians. In practice, survival predictions are made by clinicians based on their experience, judgement, and intuition. Previous studies have reported that clinicians' survival predictions are often inaccurate. This study reports a secondary analysis of data from the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2) to assess the accuracy of survival estimates made by doctors and nurses. Methods and findings: Adult patients (n = 1833) with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic cancer, recently referred to palliative care services (community teams, hospital teams, and inpatient palliative care units) were recruited. Doctors (n = 431) and nurses (n = 777) provided independent prognostic predictions and an agreed multi-professional prediction for each patient. Clinicians provided prognostic estimates in several formats including predictions about length of survival and probability of surviving to certain time points. There was a minimum follow up of three months or until death (whichever was sooner; maximum follow-up 783 days). Agreed multi-professional predictions about whether patients would survive for days, weeks or months+ were accurate on 61.9% of occasions. The positive predictive value of clinicians' predictions about imminent death (within one week) was 77% for doctors and 79% for nurses. The sensitivity of these predictions was low (37% and 35% respectively). Specific predictions about how many weeks patients would survive were not very accurate but showed good discrimination (patients estimated to survive for shorted periods had worse outcomes). The accuracy of clinicians' probabilistic predictions (assessed using Brier's scores) was consistently better than chance, improved with proximity to death and showed good discrimination between groups of patients with different survival outcomes. Conclusions: Using a variety of different approaches, this study found that clinicians predictions of survival show good discrimination and accuracy, regardless of whether the predictions are about how long or how likely patients are to survive. Accuracy improves with proximity to death. Although the positive predictive value of estimates of imminent death are relatively high, the sensitivity of such predictions is relatively low. Despite limitations, the clinical prediction of survival should remain the benchmark against which any innovations in prognostication are judged. Study registration: ISRCTN13688211. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13688211. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. Design: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]–100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. Results: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). Conclusions: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative Care Day Services (PCDS) offer supportive care to people with advanced, progressive illness who may be approaching the end of life. Despite the growth of PCDS in recent years, evidence of their costs and effects is scarce. It is important to establish the value of such services so that health and care decision-makers can make evidence-based resource allocation decisions. This study examines and estimates the costs and effects of PCDS with different service configurations in three centres across the UK in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Methods: People who had been referred to PCDS were recruited between June 2017 and September 2018. A pragmatic before-and-after descriptive cohort study design analysed data on costs and outcomes. Data on costs were collected on health and care use in the 4 weeks preceding PCDS attendance using adapted versions of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). Outcomes, cost per attendee/day and volunteer contribution to PCDS were also estimated. Outcomes included quality of life (MQOL-E), health status (EQ-5D-5L) and capability wellbeing (ICECAP-SCM). Results: Thirty-eight attendees were recruited and provided data at baseline and 4 weeks (centre 1: n = 8; centre 2: n = 8, centre 3: n = 22). The cost per attendee/day ranged from £121–£190 (excluding volunteer contribution) to £172–£264 (including volunteer contribution) across the three sites. Volunteering constituted between 28 and 38% of the total cost of PCDS provision. There was no significant mean change at 4 week follow-up from baseline for health and care costs (centre 1: £570, centre 2: -£1127, centre 3: £65), or outcomes: MQOL-E (centre 1: − 0.48, centre 2: 0.01, centre 3: 0.24); EQ-5D-5L (centre 1: 0.05, centre 2: 0.03, centre 3: − 0.03) and ICECAP-SCM (centre 1:0.00, centre 2: − 0.01, centre 3: 0.03). Centre costs variation is almost double per attendee when attendance rates are held constant in scenario analysis. Conclusions: This study highlights the contribution made by volunteers to PCDS provision. There is insufficient evidence on whether outcomes improved, or costs were reduced, in the three different service configurations for PCDS. We suggest how future research may overcome some of the challenges we encountered, to better address questions of cost-effectiveness in PCDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Aromatherapy, massage and reflexology are widely used in palliative care. Despite this, there are questions about their suitability for inclusion in clinical guidelines. The need to understand their benefits is a public priority, especially in light of funding pressures. Aim: To synthesise current evidence on the effectiveness of aromatherapy, massage and reflexology in people with palliative care needs. Design: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (PROSPERO CRD42017081409) was undertaken following international standards including Cochrane guidelines. The quality of trials and their pooled evidence were appraised. Primary outcomes on effect were anxiety, pain and quality-of-life. Data sources: Eight citation databases and three trial registries were searched to June 2018. Results: Twenty-two trials, involving 1956 participants were identified. Compared with a control, four evaluated aromatherapy, eight massage and six reflexology. A further four evaluated massage compared with aromatherapy. Trials were at an unclear risk of bias. Many had small samples. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. In comparison with usual care, another therapy or an active control, evidence on the effectiveness of massage and aromatherapy in reducing anxiety, pain and improving quality-of-life was inconclusive. There was some evidence (low quality) that compared to an active control, reflexology reduced pain. Conclusions: This review identified a relatively large number of trials, but with poor and heterogeneous evidence. New clinical recommendations cannot be made based on current evidence. To help provide more definitive trial findings, it may be useful first to understand more about the best way to measure the effectiveness of these therapies in palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The 'Surprise Question' (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality.Methods: Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results: A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6-80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7-86.3).Conclusions: There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted.Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016046564 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The prevalence of dementia is rising worldwide and many people will die with the disease. Symptoms towards the end of life may be inadequately managed and informal and professional carers poorly supported. There are few evidence-based interventions to improve end-of-life care in advanced dementia. Aim: To develop an integrated, whole systems, evidence-based intervention that is pragmatic and feasible to improve end-of-life care for people with advanced dementia and support those close to them. Design: A realist-based approach in which qualitative and quantitative data assisted the development of statements. These were incorporated into the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method to achieve consensus on intervention components. Components were mapped to underlying theory of whole systems change and the intervention described in a detailed manual. Setting/participants: Data were collected from people with dementia, carers and health and social care professionals in England, from expert opinion and existing literature. Professional stakeholders in all four countries of the United Kingdom contributed to the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method process. Results: A total of 29 statements were agreed and mapped to individual, group, organisational and economic/political levels of healthcare systems. The resulting main intervention components are as follows: (1) influencing local service organisation through facilitation of integrated multi-disciplinary care, (2) providing training and support for formal and informal carers and (3) influencing local healthcare commissioning and priorities of service providers. Conclusion: Use of in-depth data, consensus methods and theoretical understanding of the intervention components produced an evidence-based intervention for further testing in end-of-life care in advanced dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, the number of people who die with dementia is increasing. The importance of a palliative approach in the care of people with dementia is recognised and there are national polices to enhance current care. In the UK implementation of these polices is promoted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Dementia Quality Standards (QS). Since publication of the QS new care interventions have been developed. Aim: To explore critically the current international research evidence on effect available to inform NICE Dementia QS relevant to end of life (EOL) care. Design: We used systematic review methods to seek the research evidence for three statements within the Dementia QS. These are those that recommend: (1) a case management approach, (2) discussing and consideration of making a statement about future care (SFC) and (3) a palliative care assessment (PCA). We included evaluative studies of relevant interventions that used a comparative design, such as trials and cohort studies, and measured EOL care outcomes for persons dying with moderate to severe dementia. Our primary outcome of interest was whether the intervention led to a measurable impact on wellbeing for the person with dementia and their family. We assessed included studies for quality using a scale by Higginson and colleagues (2002) for assessment of quality of studies in palliative care, and two authors undertook key review processes. Data sources included Cinahl, Embase, and PsychINFO from 2001 to August 2014. Our search strategy included free text and medical subject headings relevant to population and recommended care. Results: We found seven studies evaluating a care intervention; four assessed SFC, three PCA. None assessed case management. Studies were of weak design; all used retrospective data and relied on others for precise record keeping and for accurate recall of events. There was limited overlap in outcome measurements. Overall reported benefits were mixed. Conclusions: Quality statements relevant to EOL care are useful to advance practice however they have a limited evidence base. High quality empirical work is needed to establish that the recommendations in these statements are best practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following publication of the original article [1], an error in reference 18 was reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Surprise Question (SQ) "would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?" has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?") alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions. Methods: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance – 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A "surprise threshold" for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance. Discussion: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After publication, the authors noticed some minor errors in "Nested qualitative sub-study" section, first paragraph of the section, page 7 of the published article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: More accurate methods of prognostication are likely to lead to improvements in the quality of care of patients approaching the ends of their lives. The Prognosis in Palliative care Scales (PiPS) are prognostic models of survival. The scores are calculated using simple clinical data and observations. There are two separate PiPS models; PiPS-A for patients without blood test results and PiPS-B for patients with blood test results. Both models predict whether a patient is likely to live for “days”, “weeks” or “months” and have been shown to perform as well as clinicians’ estimates of survival. PiPS-B has also been found to be significantly better than doctors’ estimates of survival. We report here a protocol for the validation of PiPS and for the evaluation of the accuracy of other prognostic tools in a new, larger cohort of patients with advanced cancer. Methods: This is a national, multi-centre, prospective, observational cohort study, aiming to recruit 1778 patients via palliative care services across England and Wales. Eligible patients have advanced, incurable cancer and have recently been referred to palliative care services. Patients with or without capacity are included in the study. The primary outcome is the accuracy of PiPS predictions and the difference in accuracy between these predictions and the clinicians’ estimates of survival; with PiPS-B being the main model of interest. The secondary outcomes include the accuracy of predictions by the Palliative Prognostic Index (PPI), Palliative Performance Scale (PPS), Palliative Prognostic score (PaP) and the Feliu Prognostic Nomogram (FPN) compared with actual patient survival and clinicians’ estimates of survival. A nested qualitative sub-study using face-to-face interviews with patients, carers and clinicians is also being undertaken to assess the acceptability of the prognostic models and to identify barriers and facilitators to clinical use. Discussion: The study closed to recruitment at the end of April 2018 having exceeded the required sample size of 1778 patients. The qualitative sub-study is nearing completion. This demonstrates the feasibility of recruiting large numbers of participants to a prospective palliative care study. Trial registration: ISRCTN13688211 (registration date: 28/06/2016). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In patients with advanced cancer, prognosis is usually determined using clinicians' predictions of survival (CPS). The palliative prognostic (PaP) score is a prognostic algorithm that was developed to predict survival in patients with advanced cancer. The score categorises patients into three risk groups in accordance with their probability of surviving for 30 days. The relative accuracy of PaP and CPS is unclear. This was a systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL Plus and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Trials from inception up to June 2021. The inclusion criteria were studies in adults with advanced cancer reporting data on performance of both PaP and CPS. Data were extracted on accuracy of prognoses and where available on discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve or C-index) and/or diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity). Eleven studies were included. One study reported a direct comparison between PaP risk groups and equivalent risk groups defined by CPS and found that PaP was as accurate as CPS. Five studies reported discrimination of PaP as a continuous total score (rather than using the previously validated risk categories) and reported C-statistics that ranged from 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54, 0.74) up to 0.90 (95% CI 0.87, 0.92). Other studies compared PaP against CPS using non-equivalent metrics (e.g. comparing probability estimates against length of survival estimates). PaP risk categories and CPS are equally able to discriminate between patients with different survival probabilities. Total PaP scores show good discrimination between patients in accordance with their length of survival. The role of PaP in clinical practice still needs to be defined. PROSPERO (CRD42021241074, 5th March 2021). • The palliative prognostic (PaP) score predicts the risk of dying within 30 days. • PaP is as accurate as, but not better than, clinical predictions of 30-day survival. • The relative objectivity of PaP may help supplement clinical predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]