A Dual-Center Observational Review of Hospital-Based Palliative Care in Patients Dying With COVID-19

Death from COVID-19: management of breathlessness: a retrospective multicentre study

OBJECTIVES

Breathlessness is the most significant symptom in those dying of COVID-19. Historically, though, it has often been palliated poorly at end of life. The aim of this work was to assess whether breathlessness in patients dying from COVID-19 was being managed appropriately.

METHODS

A multicentre, retrospective analysis of clinical data was undertaken. Patients who had died of COVID-19 across three acute hospitals over a 2-month period were included. Those already prescribed background opioids and those who died in intensive care were excluded. Data were collected from clinical notes, where available.

RESULTS

71 patients from 18 wards (3 hospitals) were included. The median total dose of opioid and midazolam given in the last 24 hours of life (continuous subcutaneous infusion ± 'as required' medication) was 33 mg (14-55) and 15 mg (6-26), respectively. 37 patients (52%) were prescribed continuous subcutaneous infusions. There were 426 recorded respiratory rates of at least 25 breaths per minute, for which an opioid or benzodiazepine was given in 113 (27%) of instances.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than a third of episodes of breathlessness, as measured by respiratory rate, were palliated with anticipatory medicines. Specific palliative care guidelines for COVID-19 are necessary but may not always be followed.

COVID-19 and End of Life in a Quaternary Australian Hospital: Referral for Palliative Care Consultation

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in complex physical and psychosocial symptom burden at end of life. The benefit of specialist palliative care input in other disease states has been established, however, there is little evidence on referral patterns to these services in patients dying from COVID-19.

Objectives

This retrospective audit investigated the referral patterns for patients who died from COVID-19 at a quaternary hospital in South Australia (the Royal Adelaide Hospital) over a six-month period in 2022, and whether demographic features or COVID-19 specific factors had an impact on whether these patients received specialist palliative care services (PCS). The second aim was to identify prescription patterns for patients in the last 24 hours of life, and whether this was impacted by referral.

Method

Data were obtained from electronic medical records and analyzed using binary logistic regressions for referral to PCS versus no referral based on various predictors.

Results

There was no significant difference comparing patient demographics or COVID-19 specific factors with referral to PCS. There was statistical significance between patients who received referral to PCS and those who had a higher oral morphine equivalent daily dose (OMEDD) in the 24 hours before death, as well as the presence of a continuous subcutaneous infusion. Although the cause of this relationship is undetermined, it may represent the prescription patterns of the palliative care physicians during consultation or potentially higher symptom burden prompting referral. There was also a higher proportion of patients who received hydromorphone compared with other opioids, though the OMEDD was consistent with other published literature.

End-of-life care in natural disasters including epidemics and pandemics: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and severe, and place additional strains on end-of-life care services and users. Although end-of-life and palliative care are considered essential components of disaster planning and response, there are gaps in understandings about their real-life application, and how natural disasters impact end-of-life care.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise existing evidence of the impacts of natural disasters (eg, bushfires, communicable pandemics, etc) on end-of-life care.

METHODS

A systematic review with a narrative synthesis was undertaken. The review was registered on PROSPERO (registration: CRD42020176319). PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Science Direct and Web of Science were searched for studies published in English between 2003 and 2020, with findings explicitly mentioning end-of-life care impacts in relation to a natural disaster. Articles were appraised for quality using a JBI-QARI tool.

RESULTS

Thirty-six empirical studies met the inclusion criteria and quality assessment. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: impacts on service provision, impacts on service providers and impacts on service users. This review demonstrates that natural disasters impact profoundly on end-of-life care, representing a stark departure from a palliative care approach.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical practitioners, policy makers and researchers must continue to collaborate for viable solutions to achieve universal access to compassionate and respectful end-of-life care, during natural disasters. Using models, policies and practices already developed in palliative care, involving those most impacted in disaster planning and anticipating barriers, such as resource shortages, enables development of end-of-life care policies and practices that can be rapidly implemented during natural disasters.

Low Dietary Variety Is Associated with Incident Frailty in Older Adults during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: A Prospective Cohort Study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Stagnation of social activity due to the COVID-19 pandemic probably reduces motivation to maintain a healthy diet. It is important to report on the dietary changes observed in older adults during a period of restriction on outings and to clarify the relationship between dietary variety and frailty. This one-year follow-up study examined the association between frailty and dietary variety during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Baseline and follow-up surveys were conducted in August 2020 and August 2021, respectively. The follow-up survey was distributed by mail to 1635 community-dwelling older adults aged ≥65 years. Of the 1235 respondents, 1008 respondents who were non-frail at baseline are included in this study. Dietary variety was examined using a dietary variety score developed for older adults. Frailty was assessed using a five-item frailty screening tool. The outcome was frailty incidence.

RESULTS

In our sample, 108 subjects developed frailty. A linear regression analysis revealed a significant association between dietary variety score and frailty score (β, -0.032; 95% CI, -0.064 to -0.001; p = 0.046). This association was also significant in Model 1, adjusted for sex and age, (β, -0.051; 95% CI, -0.083 to -0.019; p = 0.002) and in a multivariate analysis that added adjustments for living alone, smoking, alcohol use, BMI, and existing conditions to Model 1 (β, -0.045; 95% CI, -0.078 to -0.012; p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

A low dietary variety score was associated with an increased frailty score during the COVID-19 pandemic. The restricted daily routine caused by the COVID-19 pandemic will probably continue to have a long-term effect in terms of reduced dietary variety. Thus, vulnerable populations, such as older adults, might require dietary support.

Use of Phenobarbitone for Palliative Sedation in Dyspneic Crises Due to COVID-19 Pneumonia - A Case Series

Patients who suffer from dyspnea while dying from COVID-19 are treated with opioids and benzodiazepines. In some instances, patients may experience refractory dyspnea at the end of life. Palliative sedation can be prescribed to alleviate such patients' suffering. We describe two patients being treated for severe COVID-19 pneumonia in a tertiary hospital. Both developed intractable dyspneic crises despite high-dose opioids and benzodiazepines. This led to their requirement of palliative sedation in the general ward using subcutaneous phenobarbitone (phenobarbital). We outline clinical considerations for the use of palliative sedation in COVID-19 related dyspnea. In particular, we discuss the evidence for, benefits and limitations of using phenobarbitone for palliative sedation in COVID-19 patients.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to palliative care integration in the management of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Palliative care is well suited to support patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but integration into care has been variable and generally poor.

AIM

To understand barriers and facilitators of palliative care integration for hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Internists, Intensivists and palliative care physicians completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences providing care to patients with COVID-19. Results were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-three physicians (13 specialist palliative care, five intensivists, five general internists) were interviewed; mean ± SD age was 42 ± 11 years and 61% were female. Six thematic categories were described including: patient and family factors, palliative care knowledge, primary provider factors, COVID-19 specific factors, palliative care service factors, and leadership and culture factors. Patient and family factors included patient prognosis, characteristics that implied prognosis (i.e., age, etc.), and goals of care. Palliative care knowledge included confidence in primary palliative care skills, misperception that COVID-19 is not a 'palliative diagnosis', and the need to choose quantity or quality of life in COVID-19 management. Primary provider factors included available time, attitude, and reimbursement. COVID-19 specific factors were COVID-19 as an impetus to act, uncertain illness trajectory, treatments and outcomes, and infection control measures. Palliative care service factors were accessibility, adaptability, and previous successful relationships. Leadership and culture factors included government-mandated support, presence at COVID planning tables, and institutional and unit culture.

CONCLUSION

The study findings highlight the need for leadership support for formal integrated models of palliative care for patients with COVID-19, a palliative care role in pandemic planning, and educational initiatives with primary palliative care providers.

One-Year Report of COVID-19 Impact on Geriatric Patients: a Bio-Psycho-Social Approach

Background

Since December of 2019, coronavirus 19 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly around the world. Our understanding of the infection has grown over the past year, and its impact on older adults is particularly significant. Apart from the direct impacts of COVID-19 infections, it has also led to lockdowns which, in turn, result in isolation and loneliness.

Method

We conducted a literature review of publicly available articles of the COVID-19 pandemic impact on the geriatric population between December 2019 and April 2021, a total of 748 articles.

Results

The review will be presented with the Bio-Psycho-Social model, covering how the biological, psychological, and sociological aspects of health are intertwined and impact older adults. Early studies have also highlighted the prevalence of post-COVID infection symptoms that typically fall under geriatric medicine care. We highlight the bidirectional impact of isolation and COVID-19 infections on geriatric health, as well as discuss pertinent topics such as vaccine efficacy, long-term sequelae of COVID-19 infections, and ageism.

Conclusion

This review seeks to present a one-year report of what is known about COVID-19 and geriatric medicine, as well as provide guidance to practitioners who care for older adults based on the most up-to-date literature.

What can we Learn from Patients who Died from Covid-19 Following Escalation to a Respiratory High Dependency Unit for Trial of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support?

Background: Covid-19 infection is associated with significant risk of death, particularly in older, comorbid patients. Emerging evidence supports use of non-invasive respiratory support (CPAP and high-flow nasal oxygen [HFNO]) in this context, but little is known about its use in patients receiving end-of-life care. Methods: This was a retrospective study of 33 patients who died of Covid-19 on the Respiratory High Dependency Unit at the John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford between 28/03/20 and 20/05/20. Data was sourced via retrospective review of electronic patient records and drug charts. Results: Patients dying from Covid-19 on the Respiratory HDU were comorbid with median Charlson Comorbidity Index 5 (IQR 4-6); median age 78 (IQR 72-85). Respiratory support was trialled in all but one case with CPAP being the most common form of first line respiratory support (84.8%) however, was only tolerated in 44.8% of patients. Median time to death was 10.7 days from symptom onset (IQR 7.5-14.6) and 4.9 days from hospital admission (IQR 3.1-8.3). 48.5% of patients remained on respiratory support at the time of death. Conclusions: End-of-life care for patients with Covid-19 remains a challenge. Patients tend to be frail and comorbid with a rapid disease trajectory. Non-Invasive Respiratory Support may play a key role in symptom management in select patients, however, further work is needed in order to identify patients who will most benefit from Respiratory Support and those for whom withdrawal may prevent unnecessary distress at the end of life or potential prolongation of suffering.

Hospital-Based Palliative and End-of-Life Care in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Scoping Review

Aim: To identify the nature of the evidence reporting hospital-based palliative and end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen an increase in the numbers of seriously ill people being cared for across all health services worldwide. Due to the rapid progression of severe symptoms, the majority of staff working in hospitals and other healthcare centres were providing end-of-life care. Little is known about the level of hospital-based palliative care service provided during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly during surges in admission rates with an increased number of deaths accruing. Methods: A scoping review was conducted to search and select potential studies. The scoping review was guided by the framework of Arskey and O’Malley and advanced by the use of the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: Eighteen studies published between March 2020 and July 2021 were identified. Three broad categories included overall management strategy and logistics, symptom prevalence and management of patients with COVID-19 and end-of-life care needs within the current pandemic. Conclusions: This review highlights increased awareness and knowledge of palliative and end-of-life care provided in hospitals. The review also highlights the response of hospital-based palliative care teams to an evolving crisis, within the context of developed health systems under sustained and overwhelming pressure. Implications: Newly established clinical links and referral pathways developed during the initial COVID-19 surge between hospital-based palliative care and other healthcare teams, be continued and further enhanced. Understanding of the role of specialist palliative care providers in supporting palliative and end-of-life care within the hospital setting needs further investigation.

Interprofessional Communication Team for Caregivers of Patients Hospitalized in the COVID-19 Wards: Results From an Italian Experience

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency restrictions did not allow clinician family meetings and relatives' visits. In Molinette Hospital, a new communication model between healthcare providers and families of COVID-19 affected patients was developed by a team of physicians and psychologists. The study's aims were to investigate caregivers' distress and to analyse their satisfaction with the communications provided. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among caregivers of patients of Molinette Hospital COVID wards. Between April and June 2020, all caregivers were contacted 2 weeks after the patient's discharge/death to assess their satisfaction with the communications received through an online survey. Results: A total of 155 caregivers completed the survey. Caregivers' distress level was found to be higher in women than men (p = 0.048) and in caregivers whose relative died compared to the caregivers whose relative was discharged (p < 0.001). More than 85% of caregivers defined communication "excellent"/"very good"; being male was associated with higher satisfaction levels than women (β = -0.165, p = 0.046). Besides daily communication, 63 caregivers (40.6%) received additional support from a psychologist of the team. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study presenting, in an emergency, a new model of communication provided by a team of physicians and psychologists, and analyzing satisfaction with it. This model was highly appreciated by caregivers and it limited the discomfort caused by the restrictions on relatives' visits. It would be interesting to further evaluate the possibility of extending a communication model that includes doctors and psychologists in routine clinical practice.

Association of frailty with outcomes in individuals with COVID-19: A living review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Frailty leaves older adults vulnerable to adverse health outcomes. Frailty assessment is recommended by multiple COVID-19 guidelines to inform care and resource allocation. We aimed to identify, describe, and synthesize studies reporting the association of frailty with outcomes (informed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim [health, resource use, and experience]) in individuals with COVID-19.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Studies reporting associations between frailty and outcomes in the setting of COVID-19 diagnosis.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with COVID-19.

MEASUREMENTS

Following review of titles, abstracts and full text, we included 52 studies that contained 118,373 participants with COVID-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic studies tool. Our primary outcome was mortality, secondary outcomes included delirium, intensive care unit admission, need for ventilation and discharge location. Where appropriate, random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool adjusted and unadjusted effect measures by frailty instrument.

RESULTS

The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) was the most used frailty instrument. Mortality was reported in 37 studies. After confounder adjustment, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with mortality in COVID-19 positive patients (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.14; hazard ratio 1.87, 95% CI 1.33-2.61). On an unadjusted basis, frailty identified using the CFS was significantly associated with increased odds of delirium and reduced odds of intensive care unit admission. Results were generally consistent using other frailty instruments. Patient-reported, cost and experience outcomes were rarely reported.

CONCLUSION

Frailty is associated with a substantial increase in mortality risk in COVID-19 patients, even after adjustment. Delirium risk is also increased. Frailty assessment may help to guide prognosis and individualized care planning, but data relating frailty status to patient-reported outcomes are urgently needed to provide a more comprehensive overview of outcomes relevant to older adults.

Palliative care and COVID-19 in the Australian context: a review of patients with COVID-19 referred to palliative care

ObjectivePalliative care has played a key role in the response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Australia. This review of consecutive patients with COVID-19 referred to the palliative care consultancy service of a tertiary health service in Melbourne describes the palliative care experience with COVID-19 in Australia.MethodsThe experiences of 55 patients (median age 86 years; interquartile range (IQR) 81-90 years; 55% male; median Charlson comorbidity score 6 (IQR 5-8); 85% with Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status ≤50; 67% from residential aged care facilities) were reviewed to collect relevant data points.ResultsMost patients were referred for end-of-life care with symptoms including dyspnoea (80%) and agitation/delirium (60%). Continuous subcutaneous infusions were commenced in 71% of patients, with the most frequent medications being opioids and benzodiazepines in relatively small doses; 81% required ≤20mg subcutaneous morphine equivalent and 64% required ≤10mg subcutaneous midazolam over 24h. Fifty patients (91%) died in hospital and the median time from palliative care referral to death was 3 days (IQR 1-5 days). Five patients were discharged back to residential aged care facilities. Overall, 80% of referrals were from the aged care team.ConclusionOur patients had similar demographics, symptoms, medication needs and outcomes to patients in similar settings overseas. We found the symptom management of patients with COVID-19 to be generally straightforward. However, the psychosocial needs of patients were predominant and contributed to complexity. This study highlights the need for well-integrated relationships between the palliative care consultancy service and the diverse range of key treating teams involved in the delivery of pandemic health care.What is known about the topic?Palliative care has played a key role in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia. There is limited research describing the Australian palliative care experience with the COVID-19 pandemic.What does this paper add?Patients with COVID-19 referred to a hospital-based palliative care consultancy service in Australia had similar demographic characteristics, symptoms, medication needs and outcomes to patients with COVID-19 referred to other palliative care services in the UK and the US. There were significant psychosocial issues affecting patients, families and staff in the context of the pandemic.What are the implications for practitioners?This study highlights the need for well-functioning working relationships between the palliative care consultancy service and other hospital teams that can be leveraged at a time of crisis, such as a pandemic, to provide optimal palliative care to patients.

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients

BACKGROUND

Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Pharmacological strategies used to manage symptoms of patients dying of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has tragically resulted in over 2.5 million deaths globally. Despite this, there is a lack of research on how to care for patients dying of COVID-19, specifically pharmacological management of symptoms.

AIM

The aim was to determine the dose ranges of pharmacological interventions commonly used to manage symptoms in adult patients dying of COVID-19, establish how effectiveness of these interventions was measured, and whether the pharmacological interventions were effective.

DESIGN

This was a rapid systematic review with narrative synthesis of evidence, prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020210892).

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL via the NICE Evidence Health Databases Advanced Search interface; medRxiv; the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; and Google Scholar with no date limits. We included primary studies which documented care of patients dying of COVID-19 under the care of a specialist palliative care team.

RESULTS

Seven studies, documenting the care of 493 patients met the inclusion criteria. Approximately two thirds of patients required a continuous subcutaneous infusion with median doses of 15 mg morphine and 10 mg midazolam in the last 24 h of life. Four studies described effectiveness by retrospective review of documentation. One study detailed the effectiveness of individual medications.

CONCLUSIONS

A higher proportion of patients required continuous subcutaneous infusion than is typically encountered in palliative care. Doses of medications required to manage symptoms were generally modest. There was no evidence of a standardised yet holistic approach to measure effectiveness of these medications and this needs to be urgently addressed.

Multicenter Evaluation of 434 Hospital Deaths From COVID-19: How Can We Improve End-of-Life Care During a Pandemic?

CONTEXT

The pandemic has substantially increased the workload of hospital palliative care providers, requiring them to be responsive and innovative despite limited information on the specific end of life care needs of patients with COVID-19. Multi-site data detailing clinical characteristics of patient deaths from large populations, managed by specialist and generalist palliative care providers are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a large multicenter study examining characteristics of COVID-19 hospital deaths and implications for care.

METHODS

A multi-center retrospective evaluation examined 434 COVID-19 deaths in 5 hospital trusts over the period March 23, 2020 to May 10, 2020.

RESULTS

Eighty three percent of patients were over 70%-32% were admitted from care homes. Diagnostic timing indicated over 90% of those who died contracted the virus in the community. Dying was recognized in over 90% of patients, with the possibility of dying being identified less than 48 hours from admission for a third. In over a quarter, death occurred less than 24 hours later. Patients who were recognized to be dying more than 72 hours prior to death are most likely to have access to medication for symptom control.

CONCLUSION

This large multicenter study comprehensively describes COVID-19 deaths throughout the hospital setting. Clinicians are alert to and diagnose dying appropriately in most patients. Outcomes could be improved by advance care planning to establish preferences, including whether hospital admission is desirable, and alongside this, support the prompt use of anticipatory subcutaneous medications and syringe drivers if needed. Finally, rapid discharges and direct hospice admissions could better utilize hospice beds and improve care.

COVID-19 End-of-life Care: Symptoms and Supportive Therapy Use in an Australian Hospital

Background

Descriptions of symptoms and medication use at end of life in COVID‐19 are limited to small cross‐sectional studies, with no Australian longitudinal data.

Aims

To describe end‐of‐life symptoms and care needs of people dying of COVID‐19.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included consecutive admitted patients who died at a Victorian tertiary referral hospital from 1 January to 30 September directly due to COVID‐19. Clinical characteristics, symptoms and use of supportive therapies, including medications and non‐pharmacological interventions in the last 3 days of life were extracted.

Results

The cohort comprised 58 patients (median age 87 years, interquartile range (IQR) 81–90) predominantly admitted from home (n = 30), who died after a median of 11 days (IQR 6–28) in the acute medical (n = 31) or aged care (n = 27) wards of the hospital. The median Charlson Comorbidity Score was 7 (IQR 5–8). Breathlessness (n = 42), agitation (n = 36) and pain (n = 33) were the most frequent clinician‐reported symptoms in the final 3 days of life, with most requiring opioids (n = 52), midazolam (n = 40), with dose escalation commonly being required. While oxygen therapy was commonly used (n = 47), few (n = 13) required an anti‐secretory agent.

Conclusions

This study presents one of the first and largest Australian report of the end of life and symptom experience of people dying of COVID‐19. This information should help clinicians to anticipate palliative care needs of these patients, for example, recognising that higher starting doses of opioids and sedatives may help reduce prevalence and severity of breathlessness and agitation near death.

Towards a sensitive and accurate interpretation of molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review of 264 studies

BackgroundSensitive molecular diagnostics and correct test interpretation are crucial for accurate COVID-19 diagnosis and thereby essential for good clinical practice. Furthermore, they are a key factor in outbreak control where active case finding in combination with isolation and contact tracing are crucial.AimWith the objective to inform the public health and laboratory responses to the pandemic, we reviewed current published knowledge on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2 infection as assessed by RNA molecular detection in a wide range of clinical samples.MethodsWe performed an extensive search on studies published between 1 December 2019 and 15 May 2020, reporting on molecular detection and/or isolation of SARS-CoV-2 in any human laboratory specimen.ResultsWe compiled a dataset of 264 studies including 32,515 COVID-19 cases, and additionally aggregated data points (n = 2,777) from sampling of 217 adults with known infection timeline. We summarised data on SARS-CoV-2 detection in the respiratory and gastrointestinal tract, blood, oral fluid, tears, cerebrospinal fluid, peritoneal fluid, semen, vaginal fluid; where provided, we also summarised specific observations on SARS-CoV-2 detection in pregnancy, infancy, children, adolescents and immunocompromised individuals.ConclusionOptimal SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing relies on choosing the most appropriate sample type, collected with adequate sampling technique, and with the infection timeline in mind. We outlined knowledge gaps and directions for future well-documented systematic studies.

COVID-19 emergency and palliative medicine: an intervention model'

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this work is to describe the multidisciplinary model of intervention applied and the characteristics of some COVID-19 patients assisted by the hospital palliative care unit (UCP-H) of an Italian hospital in Lombardy, the Italian region most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on patients admitted to the A. Manzoni Hospital (Lecco, Lombardy Region, Italy) and referred to the UCP-H between 11 March 2020 and 18 April 2020, the period of maximum spread of COVID-19 in this area. Data were collected on the type of hospitalisation, triage process, modality of palliative care and psychological support provided.

RESULTS

146 COVID-10 patients were referred to the UCP-H. Of these, 120 died during the observation time (82%) while 15 (10.2%) improved and were discharged from the UCP-H care. 93 had less favourable characteristics (rapid deterioration of respiratory function, old age, multiple comorbidities) and an intensive clinical approach was considered contraindicated, while 48 patients had more favourable presentations. Mean follow-up was 4.8 days. A mean of 4.3 assessments per patient were performed. As to respiratory support, 94 patients were treated with oxygen only (at different volumes) and 45 with Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP).

CONCLUSION

The ongoing pandemic highlighted the need for dedicated palliative care teams and units for dying patients. This work highlights how palliative medicine specialist can make a fundamental contribution thanks to their ability and work experience in an organised multiprofessional context.

Comparison of two different frailty measurements and risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19: findings from UK Biobank

BACKGROUND

Frailty has been associated with worse prognosis following COVID-19 infection. While several studies have reported the association between frailty and COVID-19 mortality or length of hospital stay, there have been no community-based studies on the association between frailty and risk of severe infection. Considering that different definitions have been identified to assess frailty, this study aimed to compare the association between frailty and severe COVID-19 infection in UK Biobank using two frailty classifications: the frailty phenotype and the frailty index.

METHODS

A total of 383,845 UK Biobank participants recruited 2006-2010 in England (211,310 [55.1%] women, baseline age 37-73 years) were included. COVID-19 test data were provided by Public Health England (available up to 28 June 2020). An adapted version of the frailty phenotype derived by Fried et al. was used to define frailty phenotype (robust, pre-frail, or frail). A previously validated frailty index was derived from 49 self-reported questionnaire items related to health, disease and disability, and mental wellbeing (robust, mild frailty, and moderate/severe frailty). Both classifications were derived from baseline data (2006-2010). Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyse the associations between both frailty classifications and severe COVID-19 infection (resulting in hospital admission or death), adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors.

RESULTS

Of UK Biobank participants included, 802 were admitted to hospital with and/or died from COVID19 (323 deaths and 479 hospitalisations). After analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 was observed for pre-frail (risk ratio (RR) 1.47 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71]) and frail (RR 2.66 [95% CI 2.04; 3.47]) individuals compared to those classified as robust using the frailty phenotype. Similar results were observed when the frailty index was used (RR mildly frail 1.46 [95% CI 1.26; 1.71] and RR moderate/severe frailty 2.43 [95% CI 1.91; 3.10]).

CONCLUSIONS

Frailty was associated with a higher risk of severe COVID-19 infection resulting in hospital admission or death, irrespective of how it was measured and independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Public health strategies need to consider the additional risk that COVID-19 poses in individuals with frailty, including which additional preventive measures might be required.

COVID-19 and Hospital Palliative Care - A service evaluation exploring the symptoms and outcomes of 186 patients and the impact of the pandemic on specialist Hospital Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 have increased morbidity and mortality, which requires extensive involvement of specialist Hospital Palliative Care Teams. Evaluating the response to the surge in demand for effective symptom management can enhance provision of Palliative Care in this patient population.

AIM

To characterise the symptom profile, symptom management requirements and outcomes of hospitalised COVID-19 positive patients referred for Palliative Care, and to contextualise Palliative Care demands from COVID-19 against a 'typical' caseload from 2019.

DESIGN

Service evaluation based on a retrospective cohort review of patient records.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

One large health board in Scotland. Demographic data, patient symptoms, drugs/doses for symptom control, and patient outcomes were captured for all COVID-19 positive patients referred to Hospital Palliative Care Teams between 30th March and 26th April 2020.

RESULTS

Our COVID-19 cohort included 186 patients (46% of all referrals). Dyspnoea and agitation were the most prevalent symptoms (median 2 symptoms per patient). 75% of patients were prescribed continuous subcutaneous infusion for symptom control, which was effective in 78.6% of patients. Compared to a 'typical' caseload, the COVID-19 cohort were on caseload for less time (median 2 vs 5 days; p < 0.001) and had a higher death rate (80.6% vs 30.3%; p < 0.001). The COVID-19 cohort replaced 'typical' caseload; overall numbers of referrals were not increased.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalised COVID-19 positive patients referred for Palliative Care may have a short prognosis, differ from 'typical' caseload, and predominantly suffer from dyspnoea and agitation. Such symptoms can be effectively controlled with standard doses of opioids and benzodiazepines.

COVID-19: guidance on palliative care from a European Respiratory Society international task force

BACKGROUND

Many people are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but consensus guidance on palliative care in COVID-19 is lacking. This new life-threatening disease has put healthcare systems under pressure, with the increased need of palliative care provided to many patients by clinicians who have limited prior experience in this field. Therefore, we aimed to make consensus recommendations for palliative care for patients with COVID-19 using the Convergence of Opinion on Recommendations and Evidence (CORE) process.

METHODS

We invited 90 international experts to complete an online survey including stating their agreement, or not, with 14 potential recommendations. At least 70% agreement on directionality was needed to provide consensus recommendations. If consensus was not achieved on the first round, a second round was conducted.

RESULTS

68 (75.6%) experts responded in the first round. Most participants were experts in palliative care, respiratory medicine or critical care medicine. In the first round, consensus was achieved on 13 recommendations based upon indirect evidence and clinical experience. In the second round, 58 (85.3%) out of 68 of the first-round experts responded, resulting in consensus for the 14th recommendation.

CONCLUSION

This multi-national task force provides consensus recommendations for palliative care for patients with COVID-19 concerning: advance care planning; (pharmacological) palliative treatment of breathlessness; clinician-patient communication; remote clinician-family communication; palliative care involvement in patients with serious COVID-19; spiritual care; psychosocial care; and bereavement care. Future studies are needed to generate empirical evidence for these recommendations.

Palliative Care During COVID-19: Data and Visits From Loved Ones

OBJECTIVES

A vital component of the coronavirus response is care of the dying COVID-19 patient. We document the demographics, symptoms experienced, medications required, effectiveness observed, and challenges to high-quality holistic palliative care in 31 patients. This will aid colleagues in primary and secondary care settings anticipate common symptoms and formulate management plans.

METHODS

A retrospective survey was conducted of patients referred to the hospital palliative care service in a tertiary hospital, south east of England between March 21 and April 26, 2020. Patients included had a confirmed laboratory diagnosis of COVID-19 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-Cov-2 or radiological evidence of COVID-19.

RESULTS

The thirty-one patients included were predominantly male (77%), elderly (median [interquartile range]: 84 [76-89]), and had multiple (4 [3-5]) comorbidities. Referral was made in the last 2 [1-3] days of life. Common symptoms were breathlessness (84%) and delirium (77%). Fifty-eight percent of patients received at least 1 "as required" dose of an opioid or midazolam in the 24 hours before death. Sixty percent of patients needed a continuous subcutaneous infusion and the median morphine dose was 10 mg S/C per 24 hours and midazolam 10 mg S/C per 24 hours. Nineteen percent of our cohort had a loved one or relative present when dying.

CONCLUSION

We provide additional data to the internationally reported pool examining death arising from infection with SARS-CoV-19. The majority of patients had symptoms controlled with low doses of morphine and midazolam, and death was rapid. The impact of low visitation during dying needs exploring.

Frailty and COVID-19: A Systematic Scoping Review

Older people have paid a huge toll in terms of mortality during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Frailty may have contributed to the vulnerability of older people to more severe clinical presentation. We aimed at reviewing available evidence about frailty and COVID-19. We searched PUBMED, Web of Science, and EMBASE from 1 December 2019 to 29 May 2020. Study selection and data extraction were performed by three independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis was conducted and quantitative data extracted when available. Forty papers were included: 13 editorials, 15 recommendations/guidelines, 3 reviews, 1 clinical trial, 6 observational studies, 2 case reports. Editorials and reviews underlined the potential clinical relevance of assessing frailty among older patients with COVID-19. However, frailty was only investigated in regards to its association with overall mortality, hospital contagion, intensive care unit admission rates, and disease phenotypes in the few observational studies retrieved. Specific interventions in relation to frailty or its impact on COVID-19 treatments have not been evaluated yet. Even with such limited evidence, clinical recommendations on the use of frailty tools have been proposed to support decision making about escalation plan. Ongoing initiatives are expected to improve knowledge of COVID-19 interaction with frailty and to promote patient-centered approaches.