The impact of conducting a regional palliative care clinical study

End-of-life care must be informed by methodologically rigorous, high-quality research, but well-documented barriers make the conduct of palliative care clinical trials difficult. With careful consideration to study design and procedures, these barriers are surmountable. This paper discusses the approach used in a large scale, randomised, controlled trial of service-based interventions in a regional palliative care service in South Australia, and the impact of this trial on palliative care research more broadly, the changes to the service in which it was conducted, and on health policy beyond palliative care. The Palliative Care Trial evaluated three interventions in a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial cluster randomised design: case conferences, general practitioner education, and patient education. Main outcomes were performance status, pain intensity, and resource utilisation. A total of 461 patients were enrolled in the study. Pre-study planning and piloting is crucial, and accurately estimated withdrawal and death rates in the study. Other study design elements that facilitated this research included assessment of three interventions at one time, a dedicated recruitment role, a single clinical triage point, embedding data collection into routine clinical assessments, and meaningful outcome measures. Recruitment and retention of participants is possible if barriers are systematically identified and addressed. This study challenged and developed the research culture within our clinical team and subsequently translated into further research.     

Evaluation of hospital palliative care teams: strengths and weaknesses of the before-after study design and strategies to improve it

Hospital palliative care teams (HPCTs) are well established as multi-professional services to provide palliative care in an acute hospital setting and are increasing in number. However, there is still limited evaluation of them, in terms of efficacy and effectiveness. The gold standard method of evaluation is a randomised control trial, but because of methodological (e.g., randomisation), ethical and practical difficulties such trials are often not possible. HPCT is a complex intervention, and the specific situation in palliative care makes it challenging to evaluate (e.g., distress and cognitive impairment of patients). The quasi-experimental before-after study design has the advantage of enabling an experimental character without randomisation. But this has other weaknesses and is prone to bias, for example, temporal trends and selection bias. As for every study design, avoidance and minimisation of bias is important to improve validity. Therefore, strategies of selecting an appropriate control group or time series and applying valid outcomes and measurement tools help reducing bias and strengthen the methods. Special attention is needed to plan and define the design and applied method.     

The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review

OBJECTIVE: To examine reasons given for the use of unequal randomisation in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). MAIN MEASURES: Setting of the trial; intervention being tested; randomisation ratio; sample size calculation; reason given for randomisation. METHODS: Review of trials using unequal randomisation. DATABASES AND SOURCES: Cochrane library, Medline, Pub Med and Science Citation Index. RESULTS: A total of 65 trials were identified; 56 were two-armed trials and nine trials had more than two arms. Of the two-arm trials, 50 trials recruited patients in favour of the experimental group. Various reasons for the use of unequal randomisation were given. Six studies stated that they used unequal randomisation to reduce the cost of the trial, with one screening trial limited by the availability of the intervention. Other reasons for using unequal allocation were: avoiding loss of power from drop-out or cross-over, ethics and the gaining of additional information on the treatment. Thirty seven trials papers (57%) did not state why they had used unequal randomisation and only 14 trials (22%) appeared to have taken the unequal randomisation into account in their sample size calculation. CONCLUSION: Although unequal randomisation offers a number of advantages to trials the method is rarely used and is especially under-utilised to reduce trial costs. Unequal randomisation should be considered more in trial design especially where there are large differences between treatment costs.     

Palliative Care in Swaziland

Abstract

Evidence-based practice is the current buzz-word of healthcare practice. It draws on a positivist approach to research centred on the randomised controlled trial. While it is imperative that palliative care embrace evidence-based approaches to patient and family care, at least two key barriers exist. Firstly, palliative care developed as a reaction against positivist science and its approaches to healthcare provision. Consequently, its field of inquiry, and what it counts as evidence, is significantly broader than can be assessed using randomised controlled trials. Secondly, even when appropriate, attempts to conduct randomised controlled trials in palliative care have largely failed. This paper explores the relationship between palliative care and evidence-based practice through a critique of randomised controlled trials as the benchmark for evidence in palliative care.     

Palliative care clinical trials: how nurses are contributing to integrated, evidence-based care

The aim of this paper is to describe the emerging role of the palliative care clinical trials nurse in an era of evidence-based practice and increasing clinical trial activity in palliative care settings across Australia. An overview of the current clinical trials work is provided, with a focus on three aspects of clinical trials nursing practice that have significant implications for patients: managing the consent process, integrating clinical trials into multidisciplinary care, and establishing and building the evidence base to inform practice in palliative care settings. Clinical trials roles provide palliative care nurses with an opportunity to contribute to clinical research, help expand palliative care's evidence base, and develop their own research capabilities.     

Research in emergency situations: with or without relatives consent

Patients in emergency situations with impaired consciousness are unable to give informed consent to participate in clinical trials. In this situation, some ethics committees ask that consent is obtained from a relative or a legal representative. Others however, waive the need for informed consent and allow the doctor in charge to take responsibility for entering such patients. This study used data from the MRC CRASH Trial, an international randomised controlled trial of corticosteroids in head injury, to assess whether the practice of waiving consent results in earlier administration of the trial treatment. It was found that time from injury to randomisation was significantly reduced (1.2 hours, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.8 hours) and patient recruitment was higher in hospitals where consent was waived compared with those that required relatives consent.     

Recruitment issues when primary care population clusters are used in randomised controlled clinical trials: Climbing mountains or pushing boulders uphill?

Cluster randomised controlled trials for health promotion, education, public health or organisational change interventions are becoming increasingly common to inform evidence-based policy. However, there is little published methodological evidence on recruitment strategies for primary care population clusters. In this paper, we discuss how choosing which population cluster to randomise can impact on the practicalities of recruitment in primary care. We describe strategies developed through our experiences of recruiting primary care organisations to participate in a national randomised controlled trial of a policy to provide community breastfeeding groups for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, the BIG (Breastfeeding in Groups) trial. We propose an iterative qualitative approach to recruitment; collecting data generated through the recruitment process, identifying themes and using the constant comparative method of analysis. This can assist in developing successful recruitment strategies and contrasts with the standardised approach commonly used when recruiting individuals to participate in randomised controlled trials. Recruiting primary care population clusters to participate in trials is currently an uphill battle in Britain. It is a complex process, which can benefit from applying qualitative methods to inform trial design and recruitment strategy. Recruitment could be facilitated if health service managers were committed to supporting peer reviewed, funded and ethics committee approved research at national level.     

A celebration of hospice and palliative care in St Petersburg,Russia

Abstract

Introduction

Delirium research in palliative care, particularly in the dying phase, is possible but is frequently met with ethical and methodological challenges. This paper describes the challenges faced in a previous delirium screening study.

Methods

Within 72 hours of admission to an acute inpatient specialist palliative care unit, 100 consecutive patients over 18 years of age with advanced cancer were invited to be screened for delirium using validated screening tools.

Results

Of the 100 consecutive admissions, 49 patients were unable to participate including 7 who did not meet the inclusion criteria and 9 (6 families and 3 patients) who withheld consent. The remaining 33 patients were more unwell and closer to death than those who were recruited. Reasons for non-participation included being too unwell/gate keeping (10), unresponsive (9), died (2) or discharged (3) before recruitment, and exceeding the 72 hour time limit (9).

Conclusion

Gate keeping and physical condition of patients were the main obstacles to recruitment and is consistent with barriers faced in previous studies involving palliative care and dying patients. While it is possible and necessary to conduct studies in palliative care, including the terminal phase, as reflective practitioners, we must maintain the balance between the demands for evidence-based practice and our compassion and respect for our most vulnerable of patients.     

Are special ethical guidelines needed for palliative care research?

Recent studies have made it clear that there are substantial opportunities to improve end-of-life care. Doing so will require solid evidence on which to base clinical and policy decisions and this, in turn, will require a focused research effort. However, research that involves patients near the end of life creates numerous ethical challenges. Moreover, the inclusion of dying patients in research may make many providers uncomfortable. In short, there seems to be something ethically unique, and uniquely challenging, about palliative care research. This paper considers 4 arguments for this unique status: 1) dying patients are especially vulnerable; 2) adequate informed consent may be difficult to obtain; 3) balancing research and clinical roles is particularly difficult; and 4) the risks and benefits of palliative research are difficult to assess. We conclude that the first three of these arguments are weak, and that special guidelines are not needed. We suggest, however, that the fourth argument may have some merit, and should be the focus of discussion among investigators, providers, and patients.     

Improving delirium recognition and assessment for people receiving inpatient palliative care: a mixed methods meta-synthesis

BackgroundDelirium is a serious acute neurocognitive condition frequently occurring for hospitalized patients, including those receiving care in specialist palliative care units. There are many delirium evidence-practice gaps in palliative care, including that the condition is under-recognized and challenging to assess.ObjectivesTo report the meta-synthesis of a research project investigating delirium epidemiology, systems and nursing practice in palliative care units.MethodsThe Delirium in Palliative Care (DePAC) project was a two-phase sequential transformative mixed methods design with knowledge translation as the theoretical framework. The project answered five different research questions about delirium epidemiology, systems of care and nursing practice in palliative care units. Data integration and metasynthesis occurred at project conclusion.ResultsThere was a moderate to high rate of delirium occurrence in palliative care unit populations; and palliative care nurses had unmet delirium knowledge needs and worked within systems and team processes that were inadequate for delirium recognition and assessment. The meta-inference of the DePAC project was that a widely-held but paradoxical view that palliative care and dying patients are different from the wider hospital population has separated them from the overall generation of delirium evidence, and contributed to the extent of practice deficiencies in palliative care units.ConclusionImproving palliative care nurses' capabilities to recognize and assess delirium will require action at the patient and family, nurse, team and system levels. A broader, hospital-wide perspective would accelerate implementation of evidence-based delirium care for people receiving palliative care, both in specialist units, and the wider hospital setting.     

The Comprehensive Cohort Design as alternative to the randomized controlled trial in rehabilitation research: advantages, disadvantages, and implementation in the SARAH study

In rehabilitation research new therapies have to be evaluated within randomized trials as the best choice for proving the efficacy. Randomized controlled trials are widely accepted as the definitive method for evaluating the efficacy of new therapies. The random assignment of patients to their treatment ensures the internal validity of the comparison of new treatments with controls. Often patients in a randomized trial only represent a small proportion of the patients who satisfy the inclusion criteria of the trial. This will especially be true in rehabilitation medicine because of strong preferences of the patients for one or the other therapy. An assessment of the external validity of trial results can best be achieved by comparing the study population to the population of patients who met the eligibility criteria but did not consent to randomization. The Comprehensive Cohort Design (CCD) is designed to have the opportunity of recruiting all patients fulfilling these eligibility criteria regardless of their consent to randomisation. Advantages and disadvantages of this study design will be discussed in detail and on the example of the SARAH-study.     

Human research ethics committees: issues in palliative care research

Palliative care research is fraught with many difficulties. There are challenges associated with conducting research with vulnerable patients and families, difficulties with obtaining informed consent, and methodological complexities. Thoughtful construction of research protocols may overcome many of these problems. However, researchers may be powerless to overcome the discomfort of members of human research ethics committees (HRECs) who disallow access to palliative care patients and families. The notion of conducting research with this group is often perceived as abhorrent by those who do not practise in palliative care. This is because of a persistent idea that dying people and their families are so burdened by the dying process and so vulnerable to exploitation that they should not be approached to be involved in research. This over-protectiveness regarding palliative care research often distorts the proper gate-keeping role of HRECs and health-care professionals. This article draws on the authors' experiences of presenting applications to HRECs over the last 20 years. It explores the responsibilities of HRECs, the responsibilities of palliative care researchers and the rights of patients and families. HRECs and health professionals who endeavour to undertake palliative care research are encouraged to reflect and re-examine the role of ethics committees.     

What is palliative care in Germany? Results from a representative survey

The recent development of palliative care inpatient units in Germany has been impressive. As a first step for quality assurance, a core documentation form was developed in 1996. The core documentation form consisted of 4 pages with 35 items documenting physical and psychosocial symptoms at the time of admission, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures before and during inpatient treatment, and outcome of physical and psychosocial dimensions. Checklists were used for most items and free text entries could be added. Of the 65 palliative inpatient units in Germany, 44 participated in the second phase of the evaluation of the core documentation in 2000. Eight units were affiliated with anesthesiology departments, 31 with internal medicine, two with radiotherapy, 1 with a surgical department, and 2 units were not affiliated with a department of the hospital. A total of 1087 patients were assessed in the 44 units during a period of up to 3 months. There was a high variability between units in all checklist items of the core documentation. Compared to units affiliated with internal medicine departments, units affiliated with anesthesiology departments performed less chemotherapy, but more immunotherapy; gave fewer infusions and blood transfusions but more skin and wound care, and more lymphatic drainage and massage; and documented psychosocial interventions more frequently for patients as well as for relatives. In one-third of the patients, a consent for omission of therapeutic options was documented. Inpatient treatment ended with the death of the patient in 45.3% of patients and with discharge in 51.6% (not documented 3.1%). The efficacy of inpatient treatment was rated very high by the staff. In conclusion, we found large variation in the documentation pertaining to palliative care patients at the time of admission, as well as for inpatient treatment, among palliative care units in Germany. This was related to the affiliation of the units at least to some degree, but also to differences in interests and documentation discipline. We suggest that training procedures for documentation should be included in crossectional surveys, as the results may not be comparable otherwise. However, common documentation instruments may be the first step towards an interdisciplinary discussion on aims and methods in palliative care.     

Changes in quality of life following admission to palliative care units

The primary goal of palliative care is to improve the quality of life (QOL) of people with a terminal illness. Previous studies of the impact of hospice/palliative care have documented improvement in physical and psychological symptoms, but not in overall QOL, due in part to the difficulties of measuring QOL. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL) was developed to assess QOL in persons with advanced illness. MQOL scores were determined on admission and 7-8 days later for sequential eligible and willing patients admitted to five palliative care units. These 88 patients represented 8% of those admitted to the units during the study period. Following the final MQOL completion, patients were interviewed and asked to describe the nature of the changes in QOL they had experienced since admission. Significant improvements were found in the MQOL total score and subscale scores reflecting physical, psychological and existential well-being. In the interviews patients indicated that they had experienced changes in physical, emotional and interpersonal status, in spiritual outlook, and in their preparation for death. They also described the impact of the palliative care unit environment. This is the first study to demonstrate that hospice/palliative care can improve existential well-being in addition to psychological and physical symptoms. It provides evidence in the patients' own words that improvements in QOL go beyond symptom control following admission to a palliative care unit. However, the study results are generalizable only to those few patients admitted who are well enough to complete a questionnaire 1 week after admission.     

A cluster randomized trial of a primary palliative care intervention (CONNECT) for patients with advanced cancer: Protocol and key design considerations

BackgroundThe addition of specialty palliative care to standard oncology care improves outcomes for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers, but many lack access to specialty care services. Primary palliative care—meaning basic palliative care services provided by clinicians who are not palliative care specialists—is an alternative approach that has not been rigorously evaluated.MethodsA cluster randomized, controlled trial of the CONNECT (Care management by Oncology Nurses to address supportive care needs) intervention, an oncology nurse-led care management approach to providing primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, is currently underway at 16 oncology practices in Western Pennsylvania. Existing oncology nurses are trained to provide symptom management and emotional support, engage patients and families in advance care planning, and coordinate appropriate care using evidence-based care management strategies. The trial will assess the impact of CONNECT versus standard oncology care on patient quality of life (primary outcome), symptom burden, and mood; caregiver burden and mood; and healthcare resource use.DiscussionThis trial addresses the need for more accessible models of palliative care by evaluating an intervention led by oncology nurses that can be widely disseminated in community oncology settings. The design confronts potential biases in palliative care research by randomizing at the practice level to avoid contamination, enrolling patients prior to informing them of group allocation, and conducting blinded outcome assessments. By collecting patient, caregiver, and healthcare utilization outcomes, the trial will enable understanding of the full range of a primary palliative care intervention's impact.     

Formal feasibility studies in palliative care: why they are important and how to conduct them

The concept of clinical trial feasibility is of great interest to the community of palliative care researchers, clinicians, and granting agencies. Significant allocation of resources is required in the form of funding, time, intellect, and motivation to carry out clinical research, and understandably, clinical investigators, institutions, and granting agencies are disappointed when funded trials are unsuccessfully conducted. We argue that for many trials conducted in palliative care, the feasibility of conducting the proposed trial should be formally explored before implementation. There is substantial information available within the literature on the topic of study feasibility but no singular guide on how one can pragmatically apply this advice in the palliative care setting. We suggest that a Formal Feasibility Study for palliative care trials should be commonly conducted before development of a larger pivotal trial, to prospectively identify barriers to research, develop strategies to address these barriers, and predict whether the larger study is feasible. If a Formal Feasibility Study is not required, elements of feasibility can be specifically tested before launching clinical trials. The purpose of this article is to offer a draft framework for the design and conduct of a Formal Feasibility Study that, if implemented, could concretely support successful completion of high-quality research in a timely fashion. Additionally, we hope to foster dialogue within the palliative care research community regarding the relevance of establishing feasibility before initiation of definitive trials in the palliative care population.     

Lessons learned from the CONCOR-1 trial

Faced with an evolving pandemic and a lack of clarity of the role of convalescent plasma for patients with COVID-19, the CONCOR-1 trial was launched. In 14 months the trial was designed, launched, completed, and submitted for publication. In total, 72 sites in three countries served by four blood suppliers randomised 940 patients. Many enablers facilitated the trial including: three study principal investigators to distribute the trial workload, diverse steering committee members, an international data safety monitoring committee, multiple statisticians and methodologists, virtual meeting platforms, REDCap data platform, pausing of non-COVID-19 trials, rapid approval pathways for institutional review boards and regulators, centralised institutional review boards in many locations, restriction of use of convalescent plasma to trial participants and the incredible dedication by research personnel. In future pandemics, we need to be prepared for rapid launch of trials. The protocols, consent forms, data collection tools, and procedures need to be in draft form ready for use at all times. We were well-prepared for blood shortages but should have anticipated the need to conduct trials with convalescent plasma. In this short article, we detail our lessons learned to inform researchers faced with the next pandemic pathogen.     

Attitudes of patients and staff to research in a specialist palliative care unit

Many randomized trials in specialist palliative care (SPC) have failed to recruit sufficient numbers of patients. A questionnaire was designed to assess the attitudes of inpatients of a SPC unit to taking part in research. Only 50% of patients were considered physically and mentally fit for interview. Forty patients and 13 nurses were asked to indicate their willingness to take part, or for their patients to take part, in research in general and then in three hypothetical trials. Reasons for their responses were analysed. The patients were generally agreeable to trial participation (66% 'quite happy' or 'very happy'). The nurses were strongly in favour of research participation for the same group of patients (92% 'quite happy' or 'very happy'). The most invasive study involving venepuncture and random drug allocation had the least favourable response (46% of patients and 54% of nurses 'quite happy' or 'very happy'). A trial of reflexology attracted 77% of patients, while 62% were happy to take part in a study involving mood assessment and interview. Factors deterring willingness to participate included the need for record keeping by the patient and concern about potential emotional strain. The nurses correctly identified some of the factors deterring patients, but often their willingness for trial participation did not match that of the patient. Although there is support for research among the small number of potential trial entrants in specialist palliative care units, their limited physical and emotional reserves make careful attention to appropriate trial design essential to the success of future studies.