Lauren Oliver, formerly Clinical Nurse Advisor, NHS Nightingale North West, outlines the challenges faced by staff in providing good-quality end-of-life care for patients in a temporary hospital during the initial peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization classified COVID-19, caused by Sars-CoV-2, as a pandemic. Although not much was known about the new virus, the first outbreaks in China and Italy showed that potentially a large number of people worldwide could fall critically ill in a short period of time. A shortage of ventilators and intensive care resources was expected in many countries, leading to concerns about restrictions of medical care and preventable deaths. In order to be prepared for this challenging situation, national triage guidance has been developed or adapted from former influenza pandemic guidelines in an increasing number of countries over the past few months. In this article, we provide a comparative analysis of triage recommendations from selected national and international professional societies, including Australia/New Zealand, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Pakistan, South Africa, Switzerland, the United States, and the International Society of Critical Care Medicine. We describe areas of consensus, including the importance of prognosis, patient will, transparency of the decision-making process, and psychosocial support for staff, as well as the role of justice and benefit maximization as core principles. We then probe areas of disagreement, such as the role of survival versus outcome, long-term versus short-term prognosis, the use of age and comorbidities as triage criteria, priority groups and potential tiebreakers such as 'lottery' or 'first come, first served'. Having explored a number of tensions in current guidance, we conclude with a suggestion for framework conditions that are clear, consistent and implementable. This analysis is intended to advance the ongoing debate regarding the fair allocation of limited resources and may be relevant for future policy-making.
Objectives: National guidance recommends equality in access to bereavement services; despite this, awareness and availability appears inconsistent. The aim of this study was to explore availability and accessibility of bereavement services across the North-East of England and to highlight issues potentially applicable across the UK, at a time of unprecedented need due to the impact of COVID-19.
Methods: Phase 1: an eight item, web-based survey was produced. A survey link was cascaded to all GP practices (General Practitioners) in the region. Phase 2: an email was sent to all services identified in phase 1, requesting details such as referral criteria and waiting times.
Results: All 392 GP practices in the region were invited to participate. The response rate was 22% (85/392). Twenty-one per cent (18/85) of respondents reported that they do not refer patients, comments included ‘not aware of any services locally’. A total of 36 services were contacted with 72% responding with further information. Most bereavement specific support was reliant on charity-funded services including hospices, this sometimes required a pre-existing link with the hospice. Waiting times were up to 4 months.
Conclusions: Although multiple different, usually charity-funded services were identified, awareness and accessibility were variable. This survey was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, where complex situations surrounding death is likely to impact on the usual grieving process and increase the need for bereavement support. Meanwhile, charities providing this support are under severe financial strain. There is an urgent need to bridge the gap between need and access to bereavement services.
In England, a child death review process must be undertaken when a child dies, regardless of the cause of death. Scotland and Wales have their own version of the child death review process, while it is the author's understanding that Northern Ireland are still developing their process. An important aspect of this process is family engagement and bereavement support. This article is an introduction to the bereavement support standards developed by the National Children's Hospitals Bereavement Network, a newly formed group of specialist children's nurses and allied health professionals interested in bereavement care. These standards translate the statutory requirements into practical guidance for healthcare professionals working in children's hospitals in the UK or district general hospitals that offer services for children and families. They also apply to NHS trusts that care for children and need to develop a local policy and workforce with the appropriate skills to provide bereavement care, thereby improving the experiences of families and healthcare professionals. The standards would also be applicable to other NHS trusts and healthcare services in the UK who want to develop an approach to bereavement care and support for families.
Objectives: To describe individual views, wishes, and preferences for end of life care and to report UK anaesthetists' personal perspectives.
Methods: The ‘bigconversations’ questionnaire was developed by modifying an existing framework for end of life discussions. An online cross-sectional survey of UK anaesthetists was then conducted using the questionnaire in January 2019.
Results: The bigconversations questionnaire was validated as measuring the important aspects of end of life care by an expert panel and was found to have moderate test–retest reliability. Responses were received from 760/1913 (40%) of those invited to take part. Overall, 698/760 (92%) of respondents wished to be well informed about their condition and prognosis and 518/760 (68%) wanted to be heavily involved in decision-making about their health. Meanwhile, 639/760 (84%) of respondents would choose to forego treatment aimed at prolonging life should that life be of poor quality. The desire to spend time with family was a theme which arose from the qualitative analysis.
Conclusion: This study provides the first systematic description of UK doctors', specifically anaesthetists', personal preferences for end of life care. Broad trends were identified: to be well informed; to avoid high-intensity medical treatments if terminally unwell; to spend remaining time with family and friends; and to be symptom-free and well cared for. However, a substantial minority expressed different, indeed opposite, opinions. This variation highlights that good quality end of life care must be driven by discussion of an individual's values, wishes, and preferences.
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.
OBJECTIVE: Practitioners are often reluctant to engage in conversations that acknowledge patient's health concerns. This can affect patient and family carer psychological well-being. The Attitude to Health Change scales, adapted from the validated Adult Attitude to Grief scale, may have potential to address the psychological impact of illness and facilitate conversations in palliative care. To explore how health and social care professionals experience using the Attitude to Health Change Scales within hospice settings.
METHODS: Qualitative focus groups with practitioners currently using the Attitude to Health Change scales in three UK hospices. Two researchers conducted the interviews, developed the thematic framework and independently coded the transcripts using a framework analysis approach.
RESULTS: Three focus groups (n = 21 practitioners). The scale was used to assess and reassess levels of vulnerability and resilience to identify the need for support and to facilitate structured in-depth conversations. Factors that influenced scale implementation included the following: practitioner personal comfort and training; patient and family carer willingness to engage with the scales and having a practitioner "champion" within the organisation.
CONCLUSION: This exploratory work has identified the potential value of the scales for assessment and to facilitate conversations. Further research needs to incorporate the views of patients and family carers.
Importance: Palliative care has shown benefits in reducing symptom intensity and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. However, high-quality evidence to support palliative care policy and service developments for patients with long-term neurological conditions (LTNCs) is lacking.
Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a short-term integrated palliative care (SIPC) intervention for people with LTNCs.
Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, phase 3, randomized clinical trial conducted from April 1, 2015, to November 30, 2017, with a last follow-up date of May 31, 2018, in 7 UK hospitals with both neurology and palliative care services. A total of 535 patients with LTNC were assessed for eligibility and 350 were randomized. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 years or older with any advanced stage of multiple sclerosis, motor neuron disease, idiopathic Parkinson disease multiple system atrophy, or progressive supranuclear palsy. Data were analyzed from November 2018 to March 2019.
Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 using minimization method to receive SIPC (intervention, n = 176) or standard care (control, n = 174).
Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in 8 key palliative care symptoms from baseline to 12-weeks, measured by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for neurological conditions. Secondary outcomes included change in the burden of other symptoms, health-related quality of life, caregiver burden, and costs. Data were collected and analyzed blindly by intention to treat.
Results: A total of 350 patients (mean [SD] age 67  years; years since diagnosis, 12 [range, 0-56]; 51% men; 49% requiring considerable assistance) with an advanced stage of LTNC were recruited, along with informal caregivers (n = 229). There were no between-group differences in primary outcome (effect size, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.05), any other patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, or survival. Although there was more symptom reduction in the SIPC group in relation to mean change in primary outcome, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (-0.78; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.26 vs -0.28; 95% CI, -0.82 to 0.26; P = .14). There was a decrease in mean health and social care costs from baseline to 12 weeks -$1367 (95% CI, -$2450 to -$282) in the SIPC group and -653 (95% CI, -$1839 to -$532) in the control group, but this difference was not statistically significant (P = .12). SIPC was perceived by patients and caregivers as building resilience, attending to function and deficits, and enabling caregivers.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, SIPC was not statistically significantly different from standard care for the patient-reported outcomes. However, SIPC was associated with lower cost, and in qualitative analysis was well-received by patients and caregivers, and there were no safety concerns. Further research is warranted.
The benefits of a palliative care approach to patients with chronic and progressive neurologic conditions has garnered increasing interest over recent years. In the article by Gao et al, the authors describe their work investigating the effectiveness of a short term integrated palliative care (SIPC) intervention for patients with advanced neurologic disease. Patients with Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, multiple system atrophy, progressive supranuclear palsy, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were recruited along with their caregivers to participate in a study across 7 hospitals in the United Kingdom. Patients were randomized to receive SIPC vs standard care for 12 weeks followed by the standard care model. A diverse set of outcome measures was studied including changes in physical symptoms as measured by the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale for neurologic conditions (IPOS Neuro-S8), psychological stress, caregiver burden, costs, and quality of life.
[Début de l'article]
Background: This retrospective cohort study aims to define the clinical findings and outcomes of every patient admitted to a district general hospital in Surrey with COVID-19 in March 2020, providing a snapshot of the first wave of infection in the UK. This study is the first detailed insight into the impact of frailty markers on patient outcomes and provides the infection rate among healthcare workers.
Methods: Data were obtained from medical records. Outcome measures were level of oxygen therapy, discharge and death. Patients were followed up until 21 April 2020.
Results: 108 patients were included. 34 (31%) died in hospital or were discharged for palliative care. 43% of patients aged over 65 died. The commonest comorbidities were hypertension (49; 45%) and diabetes (25; 23%). Patients who died were older (mean difference ±SEM, 13.76±3.12 years; p<0.0001) with a higher NEWS2 score (median 6, IQR 2.5–7.5 vs median 2, IQR 2–6) and worse renal function (median differences: urea 2.7 mmol/L, p<0.01; creatinine 4 µmol/L, p<0.05; eGFR 14 mL/min, p<0.05) on admission compared with survivors. Frailty markers were identified as risk factors for death. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was higher in patients over 65 who died than in survivors (median 5, IQR 4–6 vs 3.5, IQR 2–5; p<0.01). Troponin and creatine kinase levels were higher in patients who died than in those who recovered (p<0.0001). Lymphopenia was common (median 0.8, IQR 0.6–1.2; p<0.005). Every patient with heart failure died (8). 26 (24%) were treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP; median 3 days, IQR 2–7.3) and 9 (8%) were intubated (median 14 days, IQR 7–21). All patients who died after discharge (4; 6%) were care home residents. 276 of 699 hospital staff tested were positive for COVID-19.
Conclusions: This study identifies older patients with frailty as being particularly vulnerable and reinforces government policy to protect this group at all costs.
BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with an uncertain trajectory, which challenges prognostication and means that most patients are not involved in advance care planning and do not receive palliative and end-of-life care.
AIM: To understand the preferences of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease for discussions about palliative and advance care planning with clinicians.
DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Data analysis was guided by principles of interpretative phenomenological analysis, of which symbolic interactionism and interpretation principles were employed throughout.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 33 British patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease at different stages of their disease trajectory were recruited.
RESULTS: Patients preferred to discuss palliative care with clinicians they perceived had greater levels of competency and authority in care and with whom they had an established relationship, usually a specialist. Patients favoured large amounts of information about treatments and care, but reported a lack of illness-related information and problems accessing appointments with clinicians. Consequently, patients deferred discussions to the future, usually once their condition had deteriorated significantly or planned to wait for clinicians to initiate conversations. This was not rooted in patient preferences, but related to clinicians' lack of time, absence of an established relationship and belief that appointments were for managing current symptoms, exacerbations and disease factors rather than future care and preferences.
CONCLUSION: Different perceptions, competing priorities and service rationing inhibit patients from initiating early discussions with clinicians, so palliative care conversations should be initiated by respiratory-expert clinicians who know the patient well. After a sudden deterioration in the patient's condition may be a suitable time.
BACKGROUND: End-of-life discussions are associated with improved quality of care for patients. In the UK, the General Medical Council outlines a requirement for medical graduates to involve patients and their families in discussions on their care at the end-of-life. However medical students feel ill-equipped to conduct these discussions.
METHODS: In 2018, Sheffield Medical School introduced a small group role-play session on end-of-life discussions for all final year medical students. Scenarios were devised to improve confidence in the following learning domains: communicating prognosis with patients and family; ascertaining patient's goals, values and preferred place of death; discussing escalation of treatment, discussing do not attempt resuscitation orders, care in the dying phase of illness and pre-emptive prescribing. Evaluation was conducted over 16 weeks with a before and after questionnaire. Students rated their confidence in the above learning domains on a Likert-style scale and explained their ratings in free-text boxes.
RESULTS: There was a 76% response rate to the questionnaire and analysis showed statistically significant improvements in confidence across all learning domains following the session. Qualitative analysis of free-text responses showed that prior to the sessions, students expressed low confidence due to lack of experience and fear of upsetting patients. After the session students felt they had gained skills but expressed persistent anxiety and a desire for further practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Our innovation suggests that the opportunity to experience end-of-life discussions through role-play can significantly improve students' confidence in conducting these conversations. However, repeated sessions are likely necessary for students to feel prepared upon graduation.
Background: the literature contains limited information on the problems faced by dying patients with COVID-19 and the effectiveness of interventions to manage these.
Aim: The aim of this audit was to assess the utility of our end-of-life care plan, and specifically the effectiveness of our standardised end-of-life care treatment algorithms, in dying patients with COVID-19.
Design: The audit primarily involved data extraction from the end-of-life care plan, which includes four hourly nursing (ward nurses) assessments of specific problems: patients with problems were managed according to standardised treatment algorithms, and the intervention was deemed to be effective if the problem was not present at subsequent assessments.
Setting/participants: This audit was undertaken at a general hospital in England, covered the 8 weeks from 16 March to 11 May 2020 and included all inpatients with COVID-19 who had an end-of-life care plan (and died).
Results: Sixty-one patients met the audit criteria: the commonest problem was shortness of breath (57.5%), which was generally controlled with conservative doses of morphine (10–20 mg/24 h via a syringe pump). Cough and audible respiratory secretions were relatively uncommon. The second most common problem was agitation/delirium (55.5%), which was generally controlled with standard pharmacological interventions. The cumulative number of patients with shortness of breath, agitation and audible respiratory secretions increased over the last 72 h of life, but most patients were symptom controlled at the point of death.
Conclusion: Patients dying of COVID-19 experience similar end-of-life problems to other groups of patients. Moreover, they generally respond to standard interventions for these end-of-life problems.
BACKGROUND: Palliative care services face challenges in adapting and responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding how palliative care needs and outcomes have changed during the pandemic compared to before the pandemic is crucial to inform service planning and research initiatives.
AIM: To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on symptoms, clinical characteristics, and outcomes for patients referred to a hospital-based palliative care service in a district general hospital in London, UK.
DESIGN: A retrospective service evaluation. Data were extracted from the electronic patient records.
SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The first 60 inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 infection, referred to the hospital palliative care service between 1 March 2020 and 23 April 2020, and another 60 inpatients, referred to the hospital palliative care service between 11 March 2019 and 23 April 2019, were included from a district general hospital in East London, UK.
RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 have lower comorbidity scores, poorer performance status, and a shorter time from referral to death compared to patients without COVID-19. Breathlessness, drowsiness, agitation, and fever are the most prevalent symptoms during COVID-19 compared to pain and drowsiness pre-COVID-19. Time from admission to referral to palliative care is longer for Black, Asian and minority ethnic patients, especially during COVID-19.
CONCLUSION: Early referral to palliative care is essential in COVID-19, especially for Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups. There is urgent need to research why Black, Asian and minority ethnic patients are referred late; how palliative care services have changed; and possible solutions to setting up responsive, flexible, and integrated services.
Current debates about assisted dying and assisted suicide cover a series of medical, legal, moral, ethical and religious aspects. Yet, public views on the subject remain underexplored and, therefore, not always accounted for in the formation of public policy. This paper reports on empirical data from a cross-sectional study in the UK in 2019, which examines public views about the legalisation of assisted dying and assisted suicide, by means of a self-administered Qualtrics-based survey (self-devised vignettes). A combination of simple random and convenience sampling was used. Participants (n = 297) state their preference that both assisted dying and assisted suicide should be legalised in the UK (n = 70%), while doctors should be legally allowed to support such wishes of patients with an incurable and painful illness from which they will die (n = 62.22%). The paper concludes that public opinion needs to be further accounted for in policymaking and discourses regarding patient autonomy and dignity of care.
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.
COVID-19 mortality disproportionally affects nursing homes, creating enormous pressures to deliver high-quality end-of-life care. Comprehensive palliative care should be an explicit part of both national and global COVID-19 response plans. Therefore, we aimed to identify, review, and compare national and international COVID-19 guidance for nursing homes concerning palliative care, issued by government bodies and professional associations. We performed a directed documentary and content analysis of newly developed or adapted COVID-19 guidance documents from across the world. Documents were collected via expert consultation and independently screened against prespecified eligibility criteria. We applied thematic analysis and narrative synthesis techniques. We identified 21 eligible documents covering both nursing homes and palliative care, from the World Health Organization (n = 3), and eight individual countries: U.S. (n = 7), The Netherlands (n = 2), Ireland (n = 1), U.K. (n = 3), Switzerland (n = 3), New Zealand (n = 1), and Belgium (n = 1). International documents focused primarily on infection prevention and control, including only a few sentences on palliative care-related topics. Palliative care themes most frequently mentioned across documents were end-of-life visits, advance care planning documentation, and clinical decision making toward the end of life (focusing on hospital transfers). There is a dearth of comprehensive international COVID-19 guidance on palliative care for nursing homes. Most have a limited focus both regarding breadth of topics and recommendations made. Key aspects of palliative care, that is, symptom management, staff education and support, referral to specialist services or hospice, and family support, need greater attention in future guidelines.
Background: Since a national lockdown was introduced across the UK in March, 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer screening has been suspended, routine diagnostic work deferred, and only urgent symptomatic cases prioritised for diagnostic intervention. In this study, we estimated the impact of delays in diagnosis on cancer survival outcomes in four major tumour types.
Methods: In this national population-based modelling study, we used linked English National Health Service (NHS) cancer registration and hospital administrative datasets for patients aged 15–84 years, diagnosed with breast, colorectal, and oesophageal cancer between Jan 1, 2010, and Dec 31, 2010, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2014, and diagnosed with lung cancer between Jan 1, 2012, and Dec 31, 2012, with follow-up data until Dec 31, 2015. We use a routes-to-diagnosis framework to estimate the impact of diagnostic delays over a 12-month period from the commencement of physical distancing measures, on March 16, 2020, up to 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis. To model the subsequent impact of diagnostic delays on survival, we reallocated patients who were on screening and routine referral pathways to urgent and emergency pathways that are associated with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis. We considered three reallocation scenarios representing the best to worst case scenarios and reflect actual changes in the diagnostic pathway being seen in the NHS, as of March 16, 2020, and estimated the impact on net survival at 1, 3, and 5 years after diagnosis to calculate the additional deaths that can be attributed to cancer, and the total years of life lost (YLLs) compared with pre-pandemic data.
Findings: We collected data for 32 583 patients with breast cancer, 24 975 with colorectal cancer, 6744 with oesophageal cancer, and 29 305 with lung cancer. Across the three different scenarios, compared with pre-pandemic figures, we estimate a 7·9–9·6% increase in the number of deaths due to breast cancer up to year 5 after diagnosis, corresponding to between 281 (95% CI 266–295) and 344 (329–358) additional deaths. For colorectal cancer, we estimate 1445 (1392–1591) to 1563 (1534–1592) additional deaths, a 15·3–16·6% increase; for lung cancer, 1235 (1220–1254) to 1372 (1343–1401) additional deaths, a 4·8–5·3% increase; and for oesophageal cancer, 330 (324–335) to 342 (336–348) additional deaths, 5·8–6·0% increase up to 5 years after diagnosis. For these four tumour types, these data correspond with 3291–3621 additional deaths across the scenarios within 5 years. The total additional YLLs across these cancers is estimated to be 59 204–63 229 years.
Interpretation: Substantial increases in the number of avoidable cancer deaths in England are to be expected as a result of diagnostic delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Urgent policy interventions are necessary, particularly the need to manage the backlog within routine diagnostic services to mitigate the expected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with cancer.
BACKGROUND: People living with long-term neurological conditions (LTNC) often require palliative care. Rehabilitation medicine specialists often coordinate the long-term care of these patients.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present review was to undertake systematic literature searches to identify the evidence on palliative care for people with LTNC to guide rehabilitation medicine specialists caring for these patients in the UK.
METHODS: We searched for evidence for (1) discussion of end of life, (2) planning for end-of-life care, (3) brief specialist palliative care interventions, (4) support for family and carers, (5) training of rehabilitation medicine specialists in palliative care, and (6) commissioning of services. The databases searched were MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and Health Technology Assessment Database. Evidence was assimilated using a simplified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method.
RESULTS: We identified 2961 records through database searching for neurological conditions and 1261 additional records through database searches for specific symptoms. We removed duplicate records and conference presentations. We screened 3234 titles and identified 330 potentially relevant abstracts. After reading the abstracts we selected 34 studies for inclusion in the evidence synthesis.
CONCLUSIONS: From the evidence reviewed we would like to recommend that we move forward by establishing a closer working relationship with specialists in palliative care and rehabilitation medicine and explore the implications for cross-specialty training.