Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundDecision-making in palliative care usually involves both patients and family caregivers. However, how concordance and discordance in decision-making manifest and function between patients and family caregivers in palliative care is not well understood.ObjectivesTo identify key factors and/or processes which underpin concordance and/or discordance between patients and family caregivers with respect to their preferences for and decisions about palliative care; and ascertain how patients and family caregivers manage discordance in decision-making in palliative care.MethodsA systematic review and narrative synthesis of original studies published in full between January 2000 and June 2021 was conducted using the following databases: Embase; Medline; CINAHL; AMED; Web of Science; PsycINFO; PsycARTICLES; and Social Sciences Full Text.ResultsAfter full-text review, 39 studies were included in the synthesis. Studies focused primarily on end-of-life care and on patient and family caregiver preferences for patient care. We found that discordance between patients and family caregivers in palliative care can manifest in relational conflict and can result from a lack of awareness of and communication about each other’s preferences for care. Patients’ advancing illness and impending death together with open dialogue about future care including advance care planning can foster consensus between patients and family caregivers.ConclusionsPatients and family caregivers in palliative care can accommodate each other’s preferences for care. Further research is needed to fully understand how patients and family caregivers move towards consensus in the context of advancing illness.

Background and purposeSince 2001, symptom cluster research has grown considerably. However, because multiple methodological considerations remain, ongoing synthesis of the literature is needed to identify gaps in this area of symptom science. This systematic review evaluated the progress in symptom clusters research in adults receiving primary or adjuvant chemotherapy since 2016.MethodsEligible studies were published in English between 1 January 2017 and 17 May 2021; evaluated for and identified symptom clusters ‘de novo;’ and included only adults being treated with primary or adjuvant chemotherapy. Studies were excluded if patients had advanced cancer or were receiving palliative chemotherapy; symptoms were measured after treatment; symptom clusters were pre-specified or a patient-centred analytic approach was used. For each study, symptom instrument(s); statistical methods and symptom dimension(s) used to create the clusters; whether symptoms were allowed to load on more than one factor; method used to assess for stability of symptom clusters and associations with secondary outcomes and biomarkers were extracted.ResultsTwenty-three studies were included. Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale was the most common instrument and exploratory factor analysis was the most common statistical method used to identify symptom clusters. Psychological, gastrointestinal, and nutritional clusters were the most commonly identified clusters. Only the psychological cluster remained relatively stable over time. Only five studies evaluated for secondary outcomes.DiscussionWhile symptom cluster research has evolved, clear criteria to evaluate the stability of symptom clusters and standardised nomenclature for naming clusters are needed. Additional research is needed to evaluate the biological mechanism(s) for symptom clusters.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021240216.

BackgroundThe use of virtual reality (VR) is increasing in palliative care. However, despite increasing interest in VR, there is little evidence of how this technology can be implemented into practice.AimsThis paper aims to: (1) explore the feasibility of implementing VR therapy, for patients and caregivers, in a hospital specialist inpatient palliative care unit and a hospice, and (2) to identify questions for organisations, to support VR adoption in palliative care.MethodsThe Samsung Gear VR system was used in a hospital specialist palliative inpatient unit and a hospice. Patients and caregivers received VR distraction therapy and provided feedback of their experience. Staff completed a feedback questionnaire to explore their opinion of the usefulness of VR in palliative care. A public engagement event was conducted, to identify questions to support implementation of VR in palliative care settings.ResultsFifteen individuals (12 (80%) patients and 3 (20%) caregivers) participated. All had a positive experience. No adverse effects were reported. Ten items were identified for organisations to consider ahead of adoption of VR in palliative care. These were questions about: the purpose of VR; intended population; supporting evidence; session duration; equipment choice; infection control issues; content choice; setting of VR; person(s) responsible for delivery and the maintenance plan.ConclusionsIt is feasible to use VR therapy in palliative care; however, further evidence about its efficacy and effectiveness is needed. Palliative care practitioners considering VR use should carefully consider several factors, to ensure that this technology can be used safely and effectively in clinical practice.

The spread of pandemic COVID-19 has created unprecedented need for information. The pandemic is the cause of significant mortality and with this the need for rapidly disseminated information for palliative care professionals regarding the prevalence of symptoms, their intensity, their resistance or susceptibility to symptom control and the mode of death for patients.

ObjectivesDevelopment of evidence-based good practice recommendations for clinicians considering the use of antibiotics in patients towards the end of life.DesignA multiprofessional group of experts in end-of-life care and antimicrobial stewardship was convened. Findings from a scoping review of the literature and a consultation of clinicians were triangulated. Expert discussion was used to generate consensus on how to approach decision-making.SettingRepresentatives from hospital and a range of community health and care settings.ParticipantsMedical, pharmacy and nursing professionals.Main outcome measuresGood practice recommendations based on published evidence and the experience of prescribers in Scotland.ResultsThe findings of 88 uncontrolled, observational studies of variable quality were considered alongside a survey of over 200 prescribers. No national or international guidelines were identified. Antibiotic use towards the end of life was common but practice was highly variable. The potential harms associated with giving antibiotics tended to be less well considered than the potential benefits. Antibiotics often extended the length of time to death but this was sometimes at the cost of higher symptom burden. There was strong consensus around the importance of effective communication with patients and their families and making treatment decisions aligned to a patient’s goals and priorities.ConclusionsGood practice recommendations were agreed with focus on three areas: making shared decisions about future care; agreeing clear goals and limits of therapy; reviewing all antibiotic prescribing decisions regularly. These will be disseminated widely to support optimal care for patients towards the end of life. A patient version of the recommendations has also been produced to support implementation.

BackgroundProviding palliative care patients living at home with timely access to medicines is critical to enable effective symptom management, minimise burden and reduce unplanned use of healthcare services. Little is known about how diverse community-based palliative care models influence medicine access.ObjectiveTo produce a critical overview of research on experiences and outcomes of medicine access in community-based palliative care models of service delivery through a systematic review and narrative synthesis.MethodsMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library databases and grey literature were systematically searched for all types of studies. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; a narrative synthesis was used to integrate and summarise findings.Results3331 articles were screened; 10 studies were included in the final sample. Studies included a focus on community pharmacy (n=4), hospice emergency medication kits (HEMKs) in the home (n=3), specialist community nurse prescribers (n=1), general practice (n=1) and one study included multiple service delivery components. Community pharmacy was characterised by access delays due to lack of availability of medicine stock and communication difficulties between the pharmacy and other healthcare professionals. HEMKs were perceived to reduce medicine access time out of hours and speed symptom control. However, the majority of studies comprised small, local samples, largely limited to self-reports of health professionals. There was a lack of data on outcomes, and no comparisons between service delivery models.ConclusionsFurther research is required to understand which models facilitate rapid and efficient access to medicines for community-based palliative care patients.

ObjectivesImproved understanding of the stability and consistency of symptom clusters across time, symptom dimensions and cancer diagnoses will lead to refinements in symptom assessments and management, and provide direction for mechanistic studies. Study purposes were to describe the occurrence, severity and distress of 38 symptoms; evaluate the stability and consistency of symptom clusters across a cycle of chemotherapy, three symptom dimensions and four distinct cancer types; and identify common and distinct symptom clusters.MethodsOncology outpatients (n=1329) completed the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale prior to their next cycle of chemotherapy (T1), 1 week after chemotherapy (T2) and 2 weeks after chemotherapy (T3). Symptom clusters were identified using exploratory factor analysis using unweighted least squares. GEOMIN rotated factor loadings with absolute values ≥0.40 were considered meaningful. Clusters were stable if they were identified across each time point and/or dimension. Clusters were consistent if the same two or three symptoms with the highest factor loadings were identified across each time point and/or dimension.ResultsPatients reported 13.9 (±7.2) symptoms at T1, 14.0 (±7.0) at T2 and 12.2 (±6.8) at T3. Psychological, weight gain, gastrointestinal and respiratory clusters were stable across time and dimensions. Only the psychological, weight gain and respiratory clusters were consistent across time and dimensions.ConclusionGiven the stability of the psychological, weight gain and gastrointestinal clusters across cancer diagnoses, symptoms within these clusters need to be routinely assessed. However, respiratory and hormonal clusters are unique to specific cancer types and the symptoms within these clusters are variable.

BackgroundIdiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive, incurable fibrotic lung disease in which patients and caregivers report a high symptom burden. Symptoms are often poorly managed and patients and caregivers struggle to alleviate their distress in the absence of self-management support.AimTo explore perceptions of symptoms, symptom management strategies and self-efficacy for patients with IPF and caregivers who received self-management education and action plans created and provided in a Multidisciplinary Collaborative Interstitial Lung Disease (MDC-ILD) Clinic.DesignA qualitative study was conducted with participants recruited from the MDC-ILD Clinic. Participants received an early integrated palliative approach; most attended ILD pulmonary rehabilitation and some received home care support. Semistructured interviews were conducted. Patient participants completed Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP) for symptom assessment and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Self-Efficacy Scale to assess self-management efficacy.ResultsThirteen patients and eight self-declared caregiver participants were interviewed. IPF severity ranged from mild to advanced disease. Participants integrated and personalised self-management strategies. They were intentional and confident, focused on living well and engaged in anticipatory planning. Twelve participants completed the MYMOP. Five reported dyspnoea. Four reported fatigue as an additional or only symptom. One reported cough. Five declared no dyspnoea, cough or fatigue. Participants reported 80% self-efficacy in symptom management.ConclusionsThe approach to symptom self-management and education was beneficial to patients with IPF and caregiver participants. Participants personalised the strategies, focusing on living, and planned both in the moment and for the future. They were confident and expressed dignity and meaning in their lives.

BackgroundThere is increasing recognition that patients with non-malignant diseases have comparable physical and psychosocial symptom burden to patients with cancer. There is currently limited data directly comparing symptom burden between these patient groups.ObjectiveTo investigate differences in symptom burden between patients with malignant and non-malignant conditions admitted to a palliative care unit (PCU).MethodA cross-sectional study involving 186 patients admitted to a PCU was undertaken. Patients were dichotomised into malignant or non-malignant disease categories. Symptom burden at admission was assessed using the Symptom Assessment Scale and Palliative Care Problem Severity Score. Group differences in symptoms were analysed using univariate and multivariate approaches.ResultsOne hundred patients (53.8%) had cancer, with upper gastrointestinal the most common type (18.0%). Among the 86 patients with non-malignant disease, neurological conditions were most prevalent (40.7%). Patients admitted with non-malignant diseases were older, more functionally impaired and more likely to be deteriorating or terminal. A malignant diagnosis was associated with a higher likelihood of clinician-assessed pain, patient-assessed pain, fatigue, psychological/spiritual symptoms and other symptoms. However, when adjusted for confounders, disease category ceased to be a significant predictor of symptom burden. Younger patients experienced worse pain and patients in terminal phase experienced less symptom burden.ConclusionSymptom burden was similar between patients with malignant and non-malignant disease after adjustment for confounders. Further research is needed to understand the palliative care needs of patients with non-malignant disease.

A novel coronavirus first discovered in late December 2019 has spread to many countries around the world. An increasing number of asymptomatic patients have been reported and their ability to spread the virus has been proven. This brings major challenges to the control of the transmission. The discovery and control of asymptomatic patients with COVID-19 are the key issues in future epidemic prevention and recovery. In this narrative review, we summarise the existing knowledge about asymptomatic patients and put forward detection methods that are suitable for finding such patients. Besides, we compared the characteristics and transmissibility of asymptomatic patients in different populations in order to find the best screening, diagnosis and control measures for different populations. Comprehensive preventive advice is also provided to prevent the spread of infection from asymptomatic patients.