What Constitutes Good Health Care for Patients with Breathlessness? Perspectives of Patients, Caregivers, and Health Care Professionals

A Mixed Methods Evaluation of a Pilot Multidisciplinary Breathlessness Support Service

Breathlessness support services have demonstrated benefits for breathlessness mastery, quality of life and psychosocial outcomes for people living with breathlessness. However, these services have predominantly been implemented in hospital and home care contexts. This study aims to evaluate the adaptation and implementation of a hospice-based outpatient Multidisciplinary Breathlessness Support Service (MBSS) in Ireland. A sequential explanatory mixed methods design guided this study. People with chronic breathlessness participated in longitudinal questionnaires (n = 10), medical record audit (n = 14) and a post-discharge interview (n = 8). Caregivers (n = 1) and healthcare professionals involved in referral to (n = 2) and delivery of (n = 3) the MBSS participated in a cross-sectional interview. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated deductively via the pillar integration process, guided by the RE-AIM framework. Integration of mixed methods data enhanced understanding of factors influencing the reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance of the MBSS, and the potential outcomes that were most meaningful for service users. Potential threats to the sustainability of the MBSS related to potential preconceptions of hospice care, the lack of standardized discharge pathways from the service and access to primary care services to sustain pharmacological interventions. This study suggests that an adapted multidisciplinary breathlessness support intervention is feasible and acceptable in a hospice context. However, to ensure optimal reach and maintenance of the intervention, activities are required to ensure that misconceptions about the setting do not influence willingness to accept referral to MBSS services and integration of services is needed to enable consistency in referral and discharge processes.

Opioid Management of Dyspnea at End of Life: A Systematic Review

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to consolidate the existing evidence on opioid use, including administration, dosing, and efficacy, for the relief of dyspnea at end of life. The overarching goal is to optimize clinical management of dyspnea by identifying patterns in opioid use, improving opioid management of dyspnea, and to prioritize future research. Background: Opioids are commonly used in the management of dyspnea at end of life, yet specific administration guidelines are limited. A greater understanding of the effectiveness of opioids in relieving end-of-life dyspnea with consideration of study design, patients, and opioids, including dyspnea evaluation tools and outcomes, will leverage development of standardized administration and dosing. Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review using six databases identified quality studies of opioid management for patients with dyspnea at end of life. Results: Twenty-three references met review inclusion criteria, which included terminally ill cancer and noncancer patients with various diagnoses. Studies included two randomized controlled trials, and three nonrandomized experimental, three prospective observational, one cross-sectional, and one case series. Thirteen retrospective chart reviews were also included due to the limited rigorous studies rendered by the search. Thirteen studies evaluated morphine, followed by fentanyl (6), oxycodone (5), general opioid use (4), and hydromorphone (2). Routes of administration were parenteral, oral, combination, and nebulization. Dyspnea was evaluated using self-reporting and non-self-reporting evaluation tools. Sedation was the most reported opioid-related adverse effect. Discussion: Challenges persist in conducting end-of-life research, preventing consensus on standardization of opioid treatment for dyspnea within this specific palliative time frame. Future robust prospective trials using specific, accurate assessment with reassessment of dyspnea/respiratory distress, and consideration of opioid tolerance, polypharmacy, and comorbidities are required.

BreathEase: rationale, design and recruitment of a randomised trial and embedded mixed-methods study of a multiprofessional breathlessness service in early palliative care

Background

The Munich Breathlessness Service has adapted novel support services to the German context, to reduce burden in patients and carers from breathlessness in advanced disease. It has been evaluated in a pragmatic fast-track randomised controlled trial (BreathEase; NCT02622412) with embedded qualitative interviews and postal survey. The aim of this article is to describe the intervention model and study design, analyse recruitment to the trial and compare sample characteristics with other studies in the field.

Methods

Analysis of recruitment pathways and enrolment, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of participants and carers.

Results

Out of 439 people screened, 253 (58%) were offered enrolment and 183 (42%) participated. n=97 (70%) carers participated. 186 (42%) people did not qualify for inclusion, mostly because breathlessness could not be attributed to an underlying disease. All participants were self-referring; 60% through media sources. Eligibility and willingness to participate were associated to social networks and illness-related activities as recruitment routes. Mean age of participants was 71 years (51% women), with COPD (63%), chronic heart failure (8%), interstitial lung disease (9%), pulmonary hypertension (6%) and cancer (7%) as underlying conditions. Postal survey response rate was 89%. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 patients and nine carers.

Conclusion

The BreathEase study has a larger and more heterogeneous sample compared to other trials. The self-referral-based and prolonged recruitment drawing on media sources approximates real-world conditions of early palliative care. Integrating qualitative and quantitative components will allow a better understanding and interpretation of the results of the main effectiveness study.

The BreathEase study, a mixed-methods pragmatic RCT evaluating the Munich Breathlessness Service, included a heterogeneous sample that approximates real-world conditions of early palliative care, and ran qualitative and quantitative trial siblingshttps://bit.ly/375nCMO

Effectiveness of a specialised breathlessness service for patients with advanced disease in Germany: a pragmatic fast-track randomised controlled trial (BreathEase)

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of the Munich Breathlessness Service (MBS), integrating palliative care, respiratory medicine and physiotherapy, was tested in the BreathEase trial in patients with chronic breathlessness in advanced disease and their carers.

METHODS

BreathEase was a single-blinded randomised controlled fast-track trial. The MBS was attended for 5-6 weeks; the control group started the MBS after 8 weeks of standard care. Randomisation was stratified by cancer and the presence of a carer. Primary outcomes were patients' mastery of breathlessness (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ) Mastery), quality of life (CRQ QoL), symptom burden (Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)) and carer burden (Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI)). Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses were conducted with hierarchical testing. Effectiveness was investigated by linear regression on change scores, adjusting for baseline scores and stratification variables. Missing values were handled with multiple imputation.

RESULTS

92 patients were randomised to the intervention group and 91 patients were randomised to the control group. Before the follow-up assessment after 8 weeks (T1), 17 and five patients dropped out from the intervention and control groups, respectively. Significant improvements in CRQ Mastery of 0.367 (95% CI 0.065-0.669) and CRQ QoL of 0.226 (95% CI 0.012-0.440) score units at T1 in favour of the intervention group were seen in the ITT analyses (n=183), but not in IPOS. Exploratory testing showed nonsignificant improvements in ZBI.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings demonstrate positive effects of the MBS in reducing burden caused by chronic breathlessness in advanced illness across a wide range of patients. Further evaluation in subgroups of patients and with a longitudinal perspective is needed.