Of apples and oranges: Lessons learned from the preparation of research protocols for systematic reviews exploring the effectiveness of Specialist Palliative Care

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care

Background/aims

Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials.

Methods

The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures.

Results

The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers.

Conclusions

There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety.

Trial registration

ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014).

Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00714-5.

Early Integration of Palliative and Oncological Care: Con

For almost a decade, 'early integration' has become a buzzword in the palliative care community. Can this still be an issue of controversy? The goals of care in palliative medicine are beyond any criticism and in fact should be, at least in theory, goals of good oncological care. However, the reality presents a different picture. The care of cancer patients requires improvement, and the studies on the early integration of palliative care (EIPC) reveal deficits in the oncological practice. However, the limitations and methodological weaknesses of these EIPC studies are insufficiently analyzed and discussed. The main criticisms relate to the incomplete definition of primary endpoints, published analyses deviating from the study protocols and insufficient consideration for multiple testing. If this criticism is justified, a possible consequence would be to overrate the achievable effects of EIPC and to limit the use of these studies in guiding policies. Improving the care of cancer patients by fostering their primary care by oncologists could provide one of the alternative approaches, but needs to be evaluated in future studies. Unmet needs in physical, psychic, spiritual or social care need to be addressed. Whether this requires a multiprofessional team in all cases is another issue of discussion.

Effectiveness of palliative care interventions offering social support to people with life-limiting illness-A systematic review

Individuals managing the challenges of life-limiting illness require adequate social support to maintain quality of life. Qualitative research reports that patients value highly the social support obtained in palliative care interventions such as day care and group therapies. This systematic review aims to summarise existing quantitative evidence on palliative care interventions that facilitate social support. Research literature was systematically searched using electronic databases and key journals. Searches returned a total of 6,247 unique titles of which sixteen were eligible for inclusion. Interventions include group therapies, group practical interventions and palliative day care. Outcome measures and study designs were heterogeneous. Only one study used a validated outcome measure of social support. Benefits were influenced by participant characteristics such as baseline distress. Partial economic evaluation was attempted by two studies. Methodological challenges include attrition and use of outcome measures that were insensitive to change. Statistically significant results were reported in psychological and physical domains. Evidence is limited due to methodological issues and a scarcity of quantitative research, particularly regarding long-term benefits and cost-effectiveness. Interventions may be more beneficial to some groups than others.

Compassionate collaborative care: an integrative review of quality indicators in end-of-life care

Background

Compassion and collaborative practice are individually associated with high quality healthcare. When combined in a compassionate collaborative care (CCC) practice framework, they are reported to improve health, strengthen care provision, and control health costs. Little is known about how to integrate and measure CCC, yet it is fundamentally applied in palliative and end-of-life care settings. This study aimed to identify quality indicators of CCC by systematically reviewing and synthesizing the current state of the palliative and end-of-life care literature.

Methods

An integrative review of the palliative and end-of-life care literature was conducted using Whittemore and Knafl’s method. Donabedian’s healthcare quality framework was applied in the data analysis phase to organize and display the data. The analysis involved an iterative process that applied a constant comparative method.

Results

The final literature sample included 25 articles. Patient and family-centered care emerged as a primary structure for CCC, with overarching values including empathy, sharing, respect, and partnership. The analysis revealed communication, shared decision-making, and goal setting as overarching processes for achieving CCC at end-of-life. Patient and family satisfaction, enhanced teamwork, decreased staff burnout, and organizational satisfaction are exemplars of outcomes that suggest high quality CCC. Specific quality indicators at the individual, team and organizational levels are reported with supporting exemplar data.

Conclusions

CCC is inextricably linked to the inherent values, needs and expectations of patients, families and healthcare providers. Compassion and collaboration must be enacted and harmonized to fully operationalize and sustain patient and family-centered care in palliative and end-of-life practice settings. Towards that direction, the quality indicators that emerged from this integrative review provide a two-fold application in palliative and end-of-life care. First, to evaluate the existing structures, processes, and outcomes at the patient-family, provider, team, and organizational levels. Second, to guide the planning and implementation of team and organizational changes that improve the quality delivery of CCC.

The impact of specialized palliative care on cancer patients' health-related quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Specialized palliative care (SPC) is currently underutilized or provided late in cancer care. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to critically evaluate the impact of SPC on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

Five databases were searched through June 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies using a pre- and post- assessment of HRQoL were included. The PRISMA reporting statement was followed. Criteria from available checklists were used to evaluate the studies' quality. A meta-analysis followed using random-effect models separately for RCTs and non-RCTs.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including five RCTs and 2939 cancer patients published between 2001 and 2014 were identified. There was improved HRQoL in patients with cancer following SPC especially in symptoms like pain, nausea, and fatigue as well as improvement of physical and psychological functioning. Less or no improvements were observed in social and spiritual domains. In general, studies of inpatients showed a larger benefit from SPC than studies of outpatients whereas patients' age and treatment duration did not moderate the impact of SPC. Methodological shortcomings of included studies include high attrition rates, low precision, and power and poor reporting of control procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological problems and publication bias call for higher-quality studies to be designed, funded, and published. However, there is a clear message that SPC is multi-disciplinary and aims at palliation of symptoms and burden in line with current recommendations.

Effect of specialist palliative care services on quality of life in adults with advanced incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To assess the effect of specialist palliative care on quality of life and additional outcomes relevant to patients in those with advanced illness.Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and trial registers searched up to July 2016.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials with adult inpatients or outpatients treated in hospital, hospice, or community settings with any advanced illness. Minimum requirements for specialist palliative care included the multiprofessional team approach. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, assessed the risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool), and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE tool).Data synthesis Primary outcome was quality of life with Hedges' g as standardised mean difference (SMD) and random effects model in meta-analysis. In addition, the pooled SMDs of the analyses of quality of life were re-expressed on the global health/QoL scale (item 29 and 30, respectively) of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (0-100, high values=good quality of life, minimal clinically important difference 8.1).Results Of 3967 publications, 12 were included (10 randomised controlled trials with 2454 patients randomised, of whom 72% (n=1766) had cancer). In no trial was integration of specialist palliative care triggered according to patients' needs as identified by screening. Overall, there was a small effect in favour of specialist palliative care (SMD 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.31; QLQ-C30 global health/QoL 4.1, 0.3 to 8.2; n=1218, six trials). Sensitivity analysis showed an SMD of 0.57 (-0.02 to 1.15; global health/QoL 14.6, -0.5 to 29.4; n=1385, seven trials). The effect was marginally larger for patients with cancer (0.20, 0.01 to 0.38; global health/QoL 5.1, 0.3 to 9.7; n=828, five trials) and especially for those who received specialist palliative care early (0.33, 0.05 to 0.61, global health/QoL 8.5, 1.3 to 15.6; n=388, two trials). The results for pain and other secondary outcomes were inconclusive. Some methodological problems (such as lack of blinding) reduced the strength of the evidence.Conclusions Specialist palliative care was associated with a small effect on QoL and might have most pronounced effects for patients with cancer who received such care early. It could be most effective if it is provided early and if it identifies though screening those patients with unmet needs.Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42015020674.

Randomized controlled trial of a home-based palliative approach for people with severe multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the efficacy of palliative care in persons with severe multiple sclerosis (MS) is scarce.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of a home-based palliative approach (HPA) for adults with severe MS and their carers.

METHODS

Adults with severe MS-carer dyads were assigned (2:1 ratio) to either HPA or usual care (UC). At each center, a multi-professional team delivered the 6-month intervention. A blind examiner assessed dyads at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Primary outcome measures were Palliative care Outcome Scale-Symptoms-MS (POS-S-MS) and Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW, not assessed in severely cognitively compromised patients).

RESULTS

Of 78 dyads randomized, 76 (50 HPA, 26 UC) were analyzed. Symptom burden (POS-S-MS) significantly reduced in HPA group compared to UC ( p = 0.047). Effect size was 0.20 at 3 months and 0.32 at 6 months, and statistical significance was borderline in per-protocol analysis ( p = 0.062). Changes in SEIQoL-DW index did not differ in the two groups, as changes in secondary patient and carer outcomes.

CONCLUSION

HPA slightly reduced symptoms burden. We found no evidence of HPA efficacy on patient quality of life and on secondary outcomes.

Association Between Palliative Care and Patient and Caregiver Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The use of palliative care programs and the number of trials assessing their effectiveness have increased.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of palliative care with quality of life (QOL), symptom burden, survival, and other outcomes for people with life-limiting illness and for their caregivers.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL to July 2016.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized clinical trials of palliative care interventions in adults with life-limiting illness.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data. Narrative synthesis was conducted for all trials. Quality of life, symptom burden, and survival were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis, with estimates of QOL translated to units of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-palliative care scale (FACIT-Pal) instrument (range, 0-184 [worst-best]; minimal clinically important difference [MCID], 9 points); and symptom burden translated to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) (range, 0-90 [best-worst]; MCID, 5.7 points).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of life, symptom burden, survival, mood, advance care planning, site of death, health care satisfaction, resource utilization, and health care expenditures.

RESULTS

Forty-three RCTs provided data on 12 731 patients (mean age, 67 years) and 2479 caregivers. Thirty-five trials used usual care as the control, and 14 took place in the ambulatory setting. In the meta-analysis, palliative care was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in patient QOL at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.83; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 11.36] and symptom burden at the 1- to 3-month follow-up (standardized mean difference, -0.66; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.07; ESAS mean difference, -10.30). When analyses were limited to trials at low risk of bias (n = 5), the association between palliative care and QOL was attenuated but remained statistically significant (standardized mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.34; FACIT-Pal mean difference, 4.94), whereas the association with symptom burden was not statistically significant (standardized mean difference, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.00; ESAS mean difference, -3.28). There was no association between palliative care and survival (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.17). Palliative care was associated consistently with improvements in advance care planning, patient and caregiver satisfaction, and lower health care utilization. Evidence of associations with other outcomes was mixed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, palliative care interventions were associated with improvements in patient QOL and symptom burden. Findings for caregiver outcomes were inconsistent. However, many associations were no longer significant when limited to trials at low risk of bias, and there was no significant association between palliative care and survival.

[Algorithms for early mobilization in intensive care units]

Immobility of patients in intensive care units (ICU) can lead to long-lasting physical and cognitive decline. During the last few years, bundles for rehabilitation were developed, including early mobilization. The German guideline for positioning therapy and mobilization, in general, recommends the development of ICU-specific protocols. The aim of this narrative review is to provide guidance when developing a best practice protocol in one's own field of work. It is recommended to a) implement early mobilization as part of a bundle, including screening and management of patient's awareness, pain, anxiety, stress, delirium and family's presence, b) develop a traffic-light system of specific in- and exclusion criteria in an interprofessional process, c) use checklists to assess risks and preparation of mobilization, d) use the ICU Mobility Scale for targeting and documentation of mobilization, e) use relative safety criteria for hemodynamic and respiratory changes, and Borg Scale for subjective evaluation, f) document and evaluate systematically mobilization levels, barriers, unwanted safety events and other parameters.