Search

Introduction: Deaths in care homes and "at home" are anticipated to account for a third of UK deaths by 2040. Currently, palliative and end of life care are not part of statutory training in care homes. Reflective practice is a tool that can facilitate practice‐based learning and support. Following a feasibly study to test "online" supportive conversations and reflection sessions (OSCaRS) to support care home staff in relation to death/dying during the first months of the COVID pandemic, a one‐year practice development follow‐up project was undertaken with the aim to create a team of NHS/specialist palliative care (SPC)‐based facilitators to lead and support OSCaRS provision in up to 50 care homes in one region in Scotland—the focus of this paper. Methods: Forty care home managers attended an on‐line session explaining the project, with a similar session held for 19 NHS/SPC‐based nurses external to care homes. Those interested in facilitating OSCaRS then attended three education sessions. Data collected: records of all activities; reflective notes on OSCaRS organised/delivered; a summary of each OSCaRS reflection/learning points; final interviews with NHS/SPC trainee facilitators. Results: A total of 19 NHS/SPC facilitators delivered one or more OSCaRS in 22 participating care homes. However, as of January 2022 only six trained facilitators remained active. Out of the 158 OSCaRS arranged, 96 took place with a total of 262 staff attending. There were three important aspects that emerged: the role, remit, and resources of NHS/SPC supporting OSCaRS; requirements within care homes for establishing OSCaRS; and, the practice‐based learning topics discussed at each OSCaRS. Conclusion: Attempts to establish a team of NHS/SPC facilitators to lead OSCaRS highlights that end of life care education in care homes does not clearly fall within the contractual remit of either group or risks being missed due to more pressing priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The wellbeing of care home staff and the need to support them at work was highlighted with devastating clarity by the COVID pandemic. This small study explores what online and at work wellbeing resources were available to frontline care home workers during the first wave of the pandemic. A mixed methods study was undertaken May and July 2020. A multi-disciplinary team undertook a rapid review of online wellbeing information and resources relevant specifically to the care home sector and its non-nurse staff. Qualitative data comprised of digital recordings of semi-structured interviews with six care home managers of five care homes, and an online survey sent to 55 Scottish care homes with a response rate of 18%. Five overarching lessons were identified from the data. The first two ('managing information overload' and 'medium not appropriate for the message') relate to the awareness and use of the online wellbeing resources by frontline care workers. Three others ('visible and supportive leadership', 'building team camaraderie' and 'maintaining a focus on wellbeing beyond a crisis response') highlight the in-house, practice-based issues of supporting the wellbeing of staff. Although small, the findings from this study are of relevance and use by those in the UK and beyond working develop and sustain more effective ways to support and retain of this vital workforce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK has many excellent care homes that provide high-quality care for their residents; however, across the care home sector, there is a significant need for improvement. Even though the majority of care homes receive a rating of 'good' from regulators, still significant numbers are identified as requiring 'improvement' or are 'inadequate'. Such findings resonate with the public perceptions of long-term care as a negative choice, to be avoided wherever possible--as well as impacting on the career choices of health and social care students. Projections of current demographics highlight that, within 10 years, the part of our population that will be growing the fastest will be those people older than 80 years old with the suggestion that spending on long-term care provision needs to rise from 0.6% of our Gross Domestic Product in 2002 to 0.96% by 2031. Teaching/research-based care homes have been developed in the USA, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and Australia in response to scandals about care, and the shortage of trained geriatric healthcare staff. There is increasing evidence that such facilities help to reduce inappropriate hospital admissions, increase staff competency and bring increased enthusiasm about working in care homes and improve the quality of care. Is this something that the UK should think of developing? This commentary details the core goals of a Care Home Innovation Centre for training and research as a radical vision to change the culture and image of care homes, and help address this huge public health issue we face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The global population is changing with an increasing percentage of the oldest old, many of whom in the UK are looked after in care homes. Care homes now provide care for a fifth of the UK population who die each year. However, most nursing care homes are privately owned and not part of the NHS, which exposes staff to a lack of skills/knowledge in relation to end-of-life care. Methods: To implement the Gold Standards Framework in Care Homes Programme and audit outcomes within nursing care homes across five Clinical Commissioning Groups over a 7-year period using a research-based model of facilitation. Results: The percentage of residents dying in nursing care homes increased from 57% to 79%, with improvement in other outcomes. Conclusions: A 'high' facilitation model, including a sustainability initiative and ongoing audit, contributed to significant improvements when implementing the Programme. Reciprocity and trustworthiness underpin the success of this initiative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the effect of using high facilitation while implementing the Gold Standards Framework in Care Homes programme in Great Britain. It was hypothesised that implementing the programme will help in reducing hospital deaths for residents. It is concluded that without national guidelines, facilitation of the programme will vary and its implementation.

Background: a large and increasing number of older people in the UK are living in care homes. Dementia is a frequent reason underlying admission and determining care needs, but prevalence data are becoming increasingly outdated and reliant on brief screening instruments.Objective: to describe the prevalence and severity of dementia, depression, behavioural problems and relevant medication use in a representative sample of residential and nursing care home residents.Design/setting: a survey conducted in 15 randomly selected South East London care homes. Consensus clinical dementia diagnoses were made from multi-source information, and the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) Scale applied. Depression was ascertained using the Cornell Depression in Dementia Scale and psychological/behavioural problems using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI).Participants: three hundred and one residents with a mean (SD) age of 83.5 (9.8) and 65.8% female were included.Results: dementia (CDR 1–3) prevalence was 75.1% overall, 55.8% in residential homes, 91.0% in residential elderly mentally infirm care and 77.0% in nursing homes. Depression prevalences were 26.5, 22.0 and 29.6%, respectively, and mean (95% CI) NPI severity scores 3.99 (3.47–4.50), 6.34 (5.29–7.39) and 6.10 (5.50–6.70) with 87.3% of the sample exhibiting at least one NPI symptom. Antidepressants were prescribed in 25.6, 25.0 and 41.3%, respectively, and antipsychotics in 7.0, 34.1 and 19.1%.Conclusion: dementia is substantially more common in care homes than recorded diagnoses would suggest, but studies using brief screening instruments may overestimate prevalence. High prevalences of depressive and/or behavioural symptoms and psychotropic use suggest significant unmet need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: to identify the care currently provided to residents dying in UK nursing care homes.Method: study participants were residents who had died within 38 nursing care homes in southeast England over a 3-year period. The nursing care homes had been recruited to take part in a cluster randomised controlled trial looking at different models of facilitation while implementing the Gold Standards Framework in Care Homes (GSFCH) programme. Two researchers examined the notes and daily records of all residents who died in each of these homes between the 1 June 2008 and the 31 May 2011.Results: a total of 2,444 residents died during the 3-year period. Fifty-six percent of these residents died within a year of admission. The support from specialist healthcare services to residents during their last 6 months of life was variable.Conclusions: nursing care homes have established links with some external healthcare providers. These links included the GP, palliative care nurses and physiotherapy. As dependency of resident increase with 56% residents dying within a year of admission these links need to be expanded. The provision of health care that meets the needs of future nursing care home residents needs to be ‘proactively’ obtained rather than left to chance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In nursing care homes (NCHs), the use of end-of-life care (EoLC) medication has traditionally been requested and prescribed on an individual basis during each resident's last days of life. However, some GPs are reluctant to prescribe EoLC medication in anticipation of symptoms occurring if, at the time of their visit, the resident is symptom-free. Even when prescribed, care home staff can experience difficulties obtaining the medication out of hours. This can result in residents not having access to appropriate medications when they are experiencing symptoms. Aim: This audit aimed to assess the feasibility of NCHs with Gold Standards Framework in Care Homes (GSFCH) accreditation keeping EoLC medications 'as stock', rather than having the medication prescribed and dispensed for individual residents when residents became symptomatic. Methods: Meetings were held with nurse managers of four NCHs with GSFCH accreditation, local pharmacists and the hospice pharmacist. A strategy to implement the stock medication was prepared. A baseline review of the notes of deceased residents 6 months pre-implementation was undertaken and information regarding symptoms and EoLC medication extracted. The review continued for 6 months after the stock EoLC medication was obtained. Results: Three NCHs participated. The notes of 92 deceased residents were examined. Fifty-three per cent of decedents were found to have experienced common EoLC symptoms. The numbers with access to EoLC medication increased once the stock medication was in place. However, some residents still had their own drugs dispensed, despite stock drugs being available. Conclusions: There is a need for all dying residents to have access to EoLC medication. The proper facilitation and implementation of EoLC medication 'as stock' into NCHs with expertise in caring for dying people could save monies at a time of NHS austerity measures. If the NCHs had relied solely on the stock medication, the reduction in medication waste would have been significant. The introduction of stock medication would also solve problems associated with obtaining medication out of hours. Conflicts of interest: none [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this section is to provide a forum for healthcare professionals to describe their experiences (good or substandard) of the death of a friend or family member. The objective is to highlight for readers examples of nursing/multidisciplinary management during the dying process in order to encourage reflective practice. The authors will remain anonymous in order to protect confidentiality. In this issue, Jo Hockley, Consultant Nurse, and Penny Hansford, Director of Nursing, St Christopher's Hospice, London, have provided a joint response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to evaluate the key components of services for people with advanced heart failure from multiple perspectives and recommend how care might be delivered in line with UK policies on long-term conditions, palliative and end-of-life care. Serial interviews were conducted over 2 years with patients, case-linked family carers and professionals (n = 162); followed by four focus groups involving patients, carers and key professionals (n = 32). There were 36 patients with advanced heart failure, 30 family carers and 62 professionals included in the study from a UK health region with various heart failure care models. Participants confirmed the value of a key health professional coordinating care, holistic assessment and regular monitoring. A lack of time and resources due to competing priorities in primary care, failure to respond to the fluctuations of a heart failure illness trajectory, concerns about the balance between direct care from specialist nurses or a more advisory role and difficulty in judging when to move towards palliative care hindered consistent access to proactive care. A heart failure care framework, with key stages and service responses, was developed. We conclude that patients with long-term conditions needing palliative care should be identified and managed using pragmatic criteria that include a proactive shift in care goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The hospital-based specialist palliative care service is the latest extension of the hospice movement in the UK, bringing the message of specialist palliative care back into the hospital setting. There are now over 200 palliative care services within the acute setting, including 76 specialist palliative care teams. The composition, advantages and disadvantages of such teams are described, and the challenge and importance of evaluating these services are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the issue concerning the criticism of the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) documentation to the different aspects of end-of-life care in Great Britain. He explains that the criticism by the LCP focuses on the fear of hastening death and taking responsibility for decisions in relation to dying. The author emphasizes that the said criticism is a good sign that people are concerned to the quality of care that should be received by patients.

Background: Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this., Objective: To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds., Design: A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework., Setting: Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each., Participants: Phase 1: interviews ( n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops ( n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews ( n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire ( n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire ( n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire ( n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews ( n = 11); fidelity assessment ( n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings)., Interventions: (1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents' physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings., Main Outcome Measures: A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement., Data Sources: Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members., Results: The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents' last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services' complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality., Limitations: COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care., Conclusions: Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff., Future Work: Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care., Study Registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research ; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Introduction: Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes is often inadequate, despite high morbidity and mortality. Residents can experience uncontrolled symptoms, poor quality deaths and avoidable hospitalisations. Care home staff can feel unsupported to look after residents at the end of life. Approaches for improving end-of-life care are often education-focused, do not triage residents and rarely integrate clinical care. This study will adapt an evidence-based approach from Australia for the UK context called 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' (Needs Rounds). Needs Rounds combine triaging, anticipatory person-centred planning, case-based education and case-conferencing; the Australian studies found that Needs Rounds reduce length of stay in hospital, and improve dying in preferred place of care, and symptoms at the end of life., Methods and Analysis: This implementation science study will codesign and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. The Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will be used to identify contextual barriers and use facilitation to enable successful implementation. Six palliative care teams, working with 4-6 care homes each, will engage in two phases. In phase 1 (February 2021), stakeholder interviews (n=40) will be used to develop a programme theory to meet the primary outcome of identifying what works, for whom in what circumstances for UK Needs Rounds. Subsequently a workshop to codesign UK Needs Rounds will be run. Phase 2 (July 2021) will implement the UK model for a year. Prospective data collection will focus on secondary outcomes regarding hospitalisations, residents' quality of death and care home staff capability of adopting a palliative approach., Ethics and Dissemination: Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (287447) approved the study. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, care home/palliative care practitioners, residents/relatives and academic audiences. An implementation package will be developed for practitioners to provide the tools and resources required to adopt UK Needs Rounds., Registration Details: Registration details: ISRCTN15863801., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Not required., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)