Tailored models of home-based palliative care aimed to support death at home, should also ensure optimal symptom control. This study aimed to explore symptom occurrence and distress over time in Palliative Extended And Care at Home (PEACH) model of care recipients.

This was a prospective cohort study.

Participants were consecutive recipients of the PEACH rapid response nurse-led model of care in metropolitan Sydney (December 2013–January 2017) who were in the last weeks of life with a terminal or deteriorating phase of illness and had a preference to be cared or die at home.

Deidentified data including sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and symptom distress scores (Symptom Assessment Score) were collected at each clinical visit. Descriptive statistics and forward selection logistic regression analysis were used to explore influence of symptom distress levels on mode of separation ((1) died at home while still receiving a PEACH package, (2) admitted to a hospital or an inpatient palliative care unit or (3) discharged from the package (alive and no longer requiring PEACH)) across four symptom distress level categories.

1754 consecutive clients received a PEACH package (mean age 70 years, 55% male). 75.7% (n=1327) had a home death, 13.5% (n=237) were admitted and 10.8% (n=190) were still alive and residing at home when the package ceased. Mean symptom distress scores improved from baseline to final scores in the three groups (p

Tailored home-based palliative care models to meet preference to die at home, achieve this while maintaining symptom control. A focus on particular symptoms may further optimise these models of care.

Over 40 million people in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) experience serious health-related suffering (SHS) annually and require palliative care. Patient and caregiver experiences of SHS in LMICs are understudied despite their importance in guiding palliative care provision. Diabetes and cancer are the second-leading and third-leading causes of death in Mexico, causing a significant SHS burden on patients, families and health systems. This study examines SHS and palliative care from the point of view of patients with cancer and diabetes and their caregivers.

A qualitative descriptive study based on in-depth telephone interviews was conducted between August 2021 and February 2022. Data were analysed through inductive thematic analysis.

Overall, 20 patients with end-stage cancer, 13 patients with diabetes and 35 family caregivers were interviewed individually.

Participants were recruited from two family medicine clinics and a pain clinic in Mexico City.

Seven themes emerged: (1) suffering as a multifaceted phenomenon, (2) diversity in perceptions of suffering, (3) different coping strategies, (4) need and perceived importance of relief from suffering, (5) barriers to accessing services to relieve suffering, (6) demand for the health sector’s active and humane role in addressing suffering and (7) preferences and need for comprehensive care for relief from suffering. The primary coping strategies included family companionship, protective buffering and faith-based support. Participants lacked knowledge of palliative care. They expressed the importance of relief from suffering, viewing it as the health sector’s responsibility and requesting more humane, personalised care and access to medicines and pain clinics.

The multifaceted nature of SHS highlights the health system’s responsibility to provide high-quality palliative care. Policies to enhance access to palliative care should integrate it into primary care, redesigning services towards patient and caregiver biopsychosocial and spiritual needs and ensuring access to medicines and competent health personnel.

Our systematic review aimed to summarise non-pharmacological interventions applicable in primary care that improve the quality of life of older patients with palliative care needs.

Systematic review.

The primary outcome was patients’ quality of life. Secondary outcomes were symptoms relief and patients’ well-being measures.

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL up to October 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched abstract books of relevant congresses and scientific meetings in the last 5 years. Screening, data extraction and quality evaluation (Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) V.2.0 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)) were done independently by two reviewers, with disagreements solved by a third reviewer. Findings were narratively synthesised.

We identified 4 RCTs, including 268 patients. One study used a broad criteria of palliative care needs (‘progressive, life-threatening disease’), two studies focused on advanced cancer and one study on heart failure. The non-pharmacological interventions evaluated were advance care planning conducted by general practitioners (GPs); social worker-aided palliative care; online primary palliative care training for GPs and spiritual history taking by nurses and GPs. No intervention showed a statistically significant impact on quality of life and the evidence was low according to GRADE.

The results highlight a dearth of evidence on what non-pharmacological interventions can be effectively done in primary care to improve the quality of life of older persons with palliative care needs. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the search more comprehensively covers interventions delivered by GPs.

CRD42020154216.

Exploring the experiences and perspectives of healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers toward serious illness conversations based on the Serious Illness Care Program is vital for improving communication with patients who are seriously ill, as has been shown in previous studies. However, few studies have carried out a systematic review to examine common themes, strengthen conclusions and identify gaps in the literature, the findings of which could help steer further research, policies and practice to improve more timely and person-centred conversations about the values and priorities of patients with serious illnesses. The objective of this qualitative meta-synthesis is to explore how healthcare professionals, patients and caregivers described their own experiences of the processes of serious illness communication through a secondary analysis of published qualitative data.

Meta-aggregation will be used to conduct a systematic review of qualitative studies. We conducted an initial search on 10 October 2023; papers published in English will be searched using electronic databases, including PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Embase, Ovid and CINAHL. Studies that satisfy the eligibility criteria will be evaluated for methodological quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. The meta-aggregative review will consist of the following: (1) extraction of findings of all included studies; (2) categorisation of the findings, with at least two findings per category; and (3) synthesis of one or more findings from at least two categories. Study eligibility screening, data extraction, analysis and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research assessments will be undertaken independently by two authors.

Secondary data analysis of published literature does not require ethical approval. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented in conference papers and elsewhere.

CRD42022330859.

A head and neck cancer (HNC) diagnosis significantly impacts a patient’s quality of life (QOL). Palliative care potentially improves their QOL. We will conduct a scoping review to identify existing knowledge about palliative care interventions for patients with HNC.

This scoping review was designed in accordance with the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis: Scoping Reviews and will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Our eligibility criteria follow the Population, Intervention, Comparison or Control, Outcomes and Study characteristics framework. The population is adult patients with locally advanced, metastatic, unresectable and/or recurrent HNC. We include peer-reviewed journal articles and articles in the press, in English, reporting on palliative care interventions with at least two of the eight National Consensus Project on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care domains; studies with and without comparators will be included. The outcomes are patient QOL (primary) and symptom severity, patients’ satisfaction with care, patients’ mood, advance care planning and place of death (secondary). We developed a search strategy across ten databases, to be searched from the inception to 11 September 2023: Medline ALL (Medline and EPub Ahead of Print and In-Process, In-Data-Review & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase Classic+Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO all from the OvidSP platform; CINAHL from EBSCOhost, Scopus from Elsevier, Web of Science from Clarivate and Global Index Medicus from WHO. We will extract data using a piloted data form and analyse the data through descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Ethics approval is not needed for a scoping review. We will disseminate the findings to healthcare providers and policy-makers by publishing the results in a scientific journal.