The 'work' of managing medications when someone is seriously ill and dying at home: A longitudinal qualitative case study of patient and family perspectives'

Anticipatory prescribing in community end-of-life care

OBJECTIVES

Our work aims to critically review the use of anticipatory medicines in our inner-city hospice community population and whether our current practices are fit for purpose.

METHODS

Retrospective audit of community palliative care patients at the end-of-life prescribed anticipatory medicines within a 3-month period. Anticipatory charts and case notes reviewed. Intervention included updating local guidelines, local teaching for medical and non-medical prescribers and sharing results nationally. Eighteen months later, reaudit was performed assessing impact.

RESULTS

In total, 76 patients included. 75/76 (99%) were prescribed an analgesic, antiemetic, antisecretory and anxiolytic. 49/76 (64%) were administered 'as required' medications at home. Haloperidol was the favoured antiemetic (88%), costing our hospice ~£2000/month. Case note review highlighted prescribing and administration issues. Reaudit showed a reduction in prescriptions of antisecretory (by 57%) and antiemetic (by 50%), with a wider range of antiemetics (levomepromazine 47%, haloperidol 35%, cyclizine 14%, metoclopramide 3%) indicating individualised prescribing. Those without an antiemetic prescribed did not later require one dispensing.

CONCLUSION

Our work challenges the orthodoxy that an analgesic, antiemetic, antisecretory and anxiolytic medication must always be included for effective anticipatory prescribing. Antiemetics may not be universally required and individualised prescribing was cost-effective and safe at a local level. Further work evaluating the impacts of altered practice on patients, caregivers, professionals and in other community settings is required.

Simultaneously reassuring and unsettling: a longitudinal qualitative study of community anticipatory medication prescribing for older patients

BACKGROUND

The prescription of injectable anticipatory medications is widely accepted by clinicians to be key in facilitating effective last-days-of-life symptom control. Community end-of-life care and admission avoidance is particularly strongly advocated for older patients. However, patient and informal caregiver views and experiences of anticipatory medication have been little studied to date.

OBJECTIVE

To understand older patients', informal caregivers' and clinicians' views and experiences of the prescribing and use of anticipatory medications.

DESIGN

Qualitative study.

SETTING

Patients' homes and residential care homes.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of six older patients, nine informal caregivers and six clinicians.

METHODS

Multi-perspective, longitudinal interview study based on 11 patient cases. Semi-structured interviews (n = 28) were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Three themes were identified: (i) living in the present whilst making plans: anticipatory medications were used by clinicians as a practical tool in planning for uncertainty, while patients and informal caregivers tried to concentrate on living in the present; (ii) anticipation of dying: it was rare for patients and informal caregivers to discuss explicitly the process and experience of dying with clinicians; and (iii) accessing timely care: the use of anticipatory medications generally helped symptom control. However, informal caregivers reported difficulties in persuading nurses to administer them to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipatory medications are simultaneously reassuring and a source of unease to older patients and their informal caregivers. Prescriptions need careful discussion and tailoring to their preferences and experience. Nurses' decisions to administer medication should consider informal caregivers' insights into patient distress, especially when patients can no longer communicate their needs.

Talking about death and dying: Findings from deliberative discussion groups with members of the public

Talking about death and dying is promoted in UK health policy and practice, from a perception that to do so encourages people to plan for their end of life and so increase their likelihood of experiencing a good death. This encouragement occurs alongside a belief that members of the public are reluctant to talk about death, although surveys suggest this is not the case. This paper describes findings from a research study in which people participated in deliberative discussion groups during which they talked about a range of topics related to death, including talking about death, the good death, choice and planning and compassionate communities. Here we report what they had to say in relation to talking about death and dying. We identified three themes: 1. The difference between talking about death as an abstract concept and confronting the certainty of death, 2. how death and dying presents issues for planning and responsibility, and 3. approaches to normalising death within society. For our participants, planning was considered most appropriate in relation to wills and funerals, while dying was considered too unpredictable to be easy to plan for; they had complex ideas about the value of talking about death and dying.

Getting palliative medications right across the contexts of homes, hospitals and hospices: protocol to synthesise scoping review and ethnographic methods in an activity theory analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prescribing and medication use in palliative care is a multistep process. It requires systems coordination and is enacted through activities of patients, informal carers and professionals. This study compares practice to idealised descriptions of what should happen; identifying when, how and why process disturbances impact on quality and safety. Our objectives are to:Document an intended model (phase 1, scoping review).Refine the model with study of practice (phase 2, ethnography).Use the model to pinpoint 'hot' (viewed as problematic by participants) and 'cold' spots (observed as problematic by researchers) within or when patients move across three contexts-hospice, hospital and community (home).Create learning recommendations for quality and safety targeted at underlying themes and contributing factors.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The review will scope Ovid Medline, CINAHL and Embase, Google Scholar and Images-no date limits, English language only. The Population (palliative), Concept (medication use), Context (home, hospice, hospital) framework defines inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted to create a model illustrating how processes ideally occur, incorporating multiple steps of typical episodes of prescribing and medication use for symptom control. Direct observations, informal conversations around acts of prescribing and medication use, and semistructured interviews will be conducted with a purposive sample of patients, carers and professionals. Drawing on activity theory, we will synthesise analysis of both phases. The analysis will identify when, how and why activities affect patient safety and experience. Generating a rich multivoiced understanding of the process will help identify meaningful targets for improvement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval granted by the Camden & Kings Cross NHS Regional Ethics Committee (21/LO/0459). A patient and public involvement (PPI) coinvestigator, a multiprofessional steering group and a PPI engagement group are working with the research team. Dissemination of findings is planned through peer-reviewed publications and a stakeholder (policymakers, commissioners, clinicians, researchers, public) report/dissemination event.