scholarly journals The Role and Response of Palliative Care and Hospice Services in Epidemics and Pandemics: A Rapid Review to Inform Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. e31-e40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon N. Etkind ◽  
Anna E. Bone ◽  
Natasha Lovell ◽  
Rachel L. Cripps ◽  
Richard Harding ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Storick ◽  
Aoife O’Herlihy ◽  
Sarah Abdelhafeez ◽  
Rakesh Ahmed ◽  
Peter May

Introduction: Improving palliative care is a priority worldwide as this population experiences poor outcomes and accounts disproportionately for costs. In clinical practice, physician judgement is the core method of identifying palliative care needs but has important limitations. Machine learning (ML) is a subset of artificial intelligence advancing capacity to identify patterns and make predictions using large datasets.  ML has the potential to improve clinical decision-making and policy design, but there has been no systematic assembly of current evidence. Methods: We conducted a rapid review, searching systematically seven databases from inception to December 31st, 2018: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, WOS, SCOPUS and ECONLIT.  We included peer-reviewed studies that used ML approaches on routine data to improve palliative care for adults.  Our specified outcomes were survival, quality of life (QoL), place of death, costs, and receipt of high-intensity treatment near end of life.  We did not search grey literature. Results: The database search identified 426 citations. We discarded 162 duplicates and screened 264 unique title/abstracts, of which 22 were forwarded for full text review.  Three papers were included, 18 papers were excluded and one full text was sought but unobtainable.  One paper predicted six-month mortality, one paper predicted 12-month mortality and one paper cross-referenced predicted 12-month mortality with healthcare spending.  ML-informed models outperformed logistic regression in predicting mortality where data inputs were relatively strong, but those using only basic administrative data had limited benefit from ML.  Identifying poor prognosis does not appear effective in tackling high costs associated with serious illness.  Conclusion: While ML can in principle help to identify those at risk of adverse outcomes and inappropriate treatment, applications to policy and practice are formative.  Future research must not only expand scope to other outcomes and longer timeframes, but also engage with individual preferences and ethical challenges.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 1182-1192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Mitchell ◽  
Victoria Maynard ◽  
Victoria Lyons ◽  
Nicholas Jones ◽  
Clare Gardiner

Background: The increased number of deaths in the community happening as a result of COVID-19 has caused primary healthcare services to change their traditional service delivery in a short timeframe. Services are quickly adapting to new challenges in the practical delivery of end-of-life care to patients in the community including through virtual consultations and in the provision of timely symptom control. Aim: To synthesise existing evidence related to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care by primary healthcare professionals in epidemics and pandemics. Design: Rapid systematic review using modified systematic review methods, with narrative synthesis of the evidence. Data sources: Searches were carried out in Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science on 7th March 2020. Results: Only five studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting a striking lack of evidence base for the response of primary healthcare services in palliative care during epidemics and pandemics. All were observational studies. Findings were synthesised using a pandemic response framework according to ‘systems’ (community providers feeling disadvantaged in terms of receiving timely information and protocols), ‘space’ (recognised need for more care in the community), ‘staff’ (training needs and resilience) and ‘stuff’ (other aspects of managing care in pandemics including personal protective equipment, cleaning care settings and access to investigations). Conclusions: As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, there is an urgent need for research to provide increased understanding of the role of primary care and community nursing services in palliative care, alongside hospices and community specialist palliative care providers.


2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 624-625
Author(s):  
Sandhya Mudumbi ◽  
Alayne D. Markland ◽  
Cynthia Brown ◽  
Nicholas Hoppman ◽  
Catherine H. Smith

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S-15-S-19
Author(s):  
Michelle Sims ◽  
Konrad Fassbender

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-44
Author(s):  
Jane Manson ◽  
Clare Gardiner ◽  
Laura McTague

Background: There is insufficient high-quality evidence to suggest that palliative care education can impact care home settings. Aims: To identify, appraise and synthesise all available evidence on the barriers and facilitators to providing palliative care education in residential and nursing care homes and to generate recommendations to increase the effectiveness of future palliative care education programmes in care homes. Methods: A rapid review searching CINAHL, Medline and ProQuest. One author screened full-text articles for inclusion. Any uncertainties were discussed with a second author. Findings: Twenty-two articles were included in the full review. Analysis of the included articles revealed the following overlapping themes: structural systems; cultural and personal issues; and knowledge translation issues with interaction. Conclusion: Addressing the barriers and facilitators when designing palliative care education programmes for care homes will lead to more successful outcomes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 382.1-382
Author(s):  
Mala Mann ◽  
Annmarie Nelson ◽  
Amanda Woodward ◽  
Ishrat Islam ◽  
Anthony Byrne

BackgroundDeveloping and implementing novel models of care requires a robust approach to identifying and assessing existing evidence. Rapid reviews have emerged as an efficient approach. There is a growing number of rapid review ‘methods’ but no accepted standardised methodology. We describe the methodological options and an example the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS) where streamlined systematic review methodology is used to conduct rapid reviews requested by clinicians/clinical services.AimsTo describe evidence synthesis options including PaCERS for producing rapid evidence summaries on questions of direct importance to service delivery. To identify related methodological challenges.MethodsWe examine various rapid review methods and describe in full PaCERS methodology. This uses a focussed search strategy across a limited set of databases and other sources. Study selection data extraction and critical appraisal are performed independently by at least two reviewers. Results are published online using a template co-produced with users which describes key clinical messages evidence quality and summaries of included studies.ResultsWe will describe the pros and cons of conducting rapid reviews and highlight methodology development unique to PaCERS. We will discuss specific issues encountered during the review process to produce rigorous reviews in a short time frame for palliative services.ConclusionRapid reviews have tremendous methodological variation however they are an important tool for evidence-informed decision making especially when time resource constraints and health needs are an issue. Therefore using rapid reviews can be used in implementing new models of palliative care.Reference. Wales Cancer Research Centre. Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS)2016. Available at: http://palliativecare.walescancerresearchcentre.com/palliative-care-evidence-review-service/ [Accessed: 30 May 2018]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document