Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership

Informing evidence-based policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: learning from a national evidence centre

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the vital need for research to inform policy decision-making and save lives. The Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre (WCEC) was established in March 2021 and funded for two years, to make evidence about the impact of the pandemic and ongoing research priorities for Wales available and actionable to policy decision-makers, service leads and the public.

OBJECTIVES

We describe the approaches we developed and our experiences, challenges and future vision.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

The centre operated with a core team, including a public partnership group, and six experienced research groups as collaborating partners. Our rapid evidence delivery process had five stages: 1. Stakeholder engagement (continued throughout all stages); 2. Research question prioritisation; 3. Bespoke rapid evidence review methodology in a phased approach; 4. Rapid primary research; and 5. Knowledge Mobilisation to ensure the evidence was available for decision-makers.

MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS

Between March 2021-23 we engaged with 44 stakeholder groups, completed 35 Rapid Evidence Reviews, six Rapid Evidence Maps and 10 Rapid Evidence Summaries. We completed four primary research studies, with three published in peer reviewed journals, and seven ongoing. Our evidence informed policy decision-making and was cited in 19 Welsh Government papers. These included pandemic infection control measures, the Action Plan to tackle gender inequalities, and Education Renew and Reform policy. We conducted 24 Welsh Government evidence briefings and three public facing symposia.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Strong engagement with stakeholder groups, a phased rapid evidence review approach, and primary research to address key gaps in current knowledge enabled high-quality efficient, evidence outputs to be delivered to help inform Welsh policy decision-making during the pandemic. We learn from these processes to continue to deliver evidence from March 2023 as the Health and Care Research Wales Evidence Centre, with a broader remit of health and social care, to help inform policy and practice decisions during the recovery phase and beyond.

Symptom burden and lived experiences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals on the management of malignant bowel obstruction: A qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Malignant bowel obstruction occurs in up to 50% of people with advanced ovarian and 15% of people with gastrointestinal cancers. Evaluation and comparison of interventions to manage symptoms are hampered by inconsistent evaluations of efficacy and lack of agreed core outcomes. The patient perspective is rarely incorporated.

AIM

To synthesise the qualitative data regarding patient, caregiver and healthcare professionals' views and experience of malignant bowel obstruction to inform the development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of malignant bowel obstruction.

DESIGN

A qualitative systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD42020176393).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2021. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed.

RESULTS

Nine papers were included, reporting on seven studies which described the views and experiences of malignant bowel obstruction through the perspectives of 75 patients, 13 caregivers and 62 healthcare professionals. Themes across the papers included symptom burden, diverse experiences of interventions, impact on patient quality of life, implications and trajectory of malignant bowel obstruction, mixed experience of communication and the importance of realistic goals of care.

CONCLUSION

Some of the most devastating sequelae of malignant bowel obstruction, such as pain and psychological distress, are not included routinely in its clinical or research evaluation. These data will contribute to a wider body of work to ensure the patient and caregiver perspective is recognised in the development of a core outcome set.

The role and response of primary healthcare services in the delivery of palliative care in epidemics and pandemics: A rapid review to inform practice and service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The increased number of deaths in the community happening as a result of COVID-19 has caused primary healthcare services to change their traditional service delivery in a short timeframe. Services are quickly adapting to new challenges in the practical delivery of end-of-life care to patients in the community including through virtual consultations and in the provision of timely symptom control.

AIM

To synthesise existing evidence related to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care by primary healthcare professionals in epidemics and pandemics.

DESIGN

Rapid systematic review using modified systematic review methods, with narrative synthesis of the evidence.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were carried out in Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science on 7th March 2020.

RESULTS

Only five studies met the inclusion criteria, highlighting a striking lack of evidence base for the response of primary healthcare services in palliative care during epidemics and pandemics. All were observational studies. Findings were synthesised using a pandemic response framework according to 'systems' (community providers feeling disadvantaged in terms of receiving timely information and protocols), 'space' (recognised need for more care in the community), 'staff' (training needs and resilience) and 'stuff' (other aspects of managing care in pandemics including personal protective equipment, cleaning care settings and access to investigations).

CONCLUSIONS

As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, there is an urgent need for research to provide increased understanding of the role of primary care and community nursing services in palliative care, alongside hospices and community specialist palliative care providers.

What elements of a systems' approach to bereavement are most effective in times of mass bereavement? A narrative systematic review with lessons for COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The global COVID-19 pandemic has left health and social care systems facing the challenge of supporting large numbers of bereaved people in difficult and unprecedented social conditions. Previous reviews have not comprehensively synthesised the evidence on the response of health and social care systems to mass bereavement events.

AIM

To synthesise the evidence regarding system-level responses to mass bereavement events, including natural and human-made disasters as well as pandemics, to inform service provision and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

DESIGN

A rapid systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD 42020180723).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Global Health, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2020. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed.

RESULTS

Six studies were included reporting on system responses to mass bereavement following human-made and natural disasters, involving a range of individual and group-based support initiatives. Positive impacts were reported, but study quality was generally low and reliant on data from retrospective evaluation designs. Key features of service delivery were identified: a proactive outreach approach, centrally organised but locally delivered interventions, event-specific professional competencies and an emphasis on psycho-educational content.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations in the quantity and quality of the evidence base, consistent messages are identified for bereavement support provision during the pandemic. High quality primary studies are needed to ensure service improvement in the current crisis and to guide future disaster response efforts.