David Oxenham

The integrated implementation of two end-of-life care tools in nursing care homes in the UK: an in-depth evaluation:

In economically developed countries there is a rapidly increasing number of older people living and dying in care homes. The relative isolation of nursing care homes from the development of palliative care, the poor retention and recruitment of staff, and the lack of medical cover, hinder the provision of quality end-of-life care. End-of-life care strategies internationally highlight the benefit of using tools to help improve end-of-life care in care homes. All seven private nursing care homes within one district in Scotland undertook to implement, as a package, two end-of-life care tools, namely, the Gold Standards Framework for Care Homes (GSFCH) and an adapted Liverpool Care Pathway for Care Homes (LCP). A model of high facilitation, visiting the homes every 10—14 days with significant in-house staff training, was used to implement the 18-month programme. The notes of 228 residents who had died prior to and during the project were examined, alongside a staff audit looking at the effect that the project had on practice. A nurse researcher undertook qualitative interviews of bereaved relatives, pre-/post-implementation. This paper reports the results of an in-depth evaluation of professional practices and residents outcomes. There was a highly statistically significant increase in use of Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) documentation, advance care planning and use of the LCP. An apparent reduction in unnecessary hospital admissions and a reduction in hospital deaths from 15% deaths pre-study to 8% deaths post-study were also found. Further work is needed to assess the optimum input required for successful implementation.

Improving end-of-life care in nursing homes: Implementation and evaluation of an intervention to sustain quality of care:

Background: Internationally, policy calls for care homes to provide reliably good end-of-life care. We undertook a 20-month project to sustain palliative care improvements achieved by a previous intervention. Aim: To sustain a high standard of palliative care in seven UK nursing care homes using a lower level of support than employed during the original project and to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention. Design: Two palliative care nurse specialists each spent one day per week providing support and training to seven care homes in Scotland, United Kingdom; after death audit data were collected each month and analysed. Results: During the sustainability project, 132 residents died. In comparison with the initial intervention, there were increases in (a) the proportion of deceased residents with an anticipatory care plan in place (b) the proportion of those with Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation documentation in place and (c) the proportion of those who were on the Liverpool Care Pathway when they died. Furthermore, there was a reduction in inappropriate hospital deaths of frail and elderly residents with dementia. However, overall hospital deaths increased. Conclusions: A lower level of nursing support managed to sustain and build on the initial outcomes. However, despite increased adoption of key end-of-life care tools, hospital deaths were higher during the sustainability project. While good support from palliative care nurse specialists and GPs can help ensure that key processes remain in place, stable management and key champions are vital to ensure that a palliative care approach becomes embedded within the culture of the care home.

Preferred place of death for patients referred to a specialist palliative care service

Objectives Understanding patients’ preferences for place of death and supporting patients to achieve their wishes has become a priority. This study aims to: (1) examine preferences of patients referred to a specialist palliative care service; (2) determine whether preferences of those who have been admitted as hospice inpatients differ from those who have not; (3) identify reasons why preferred place of death (PPD) is sometimes not recorded; and (iv) investigate whether nominating a PPD relates to actual place of death. Method PPD information was collected as part of standard care for all patients referred to a specialist palliative care service. Case notes were reviewed retrospectively for 1127 patients who died under the care of the service. Results Seventy-seven percent of the patients expressed a PPD, a further 21% of patients had documented reasons for PPD remaining unknown. Eighty percent of patients who had never been admitted to the hospice wanted to die at home. In contrast, 79% of those with at least one hospice inpatient admission wanted to die in the hospice. Patients who had an unknown PPD were three times more likely to die in hospital. Conclusions Most patients in a specialist palliative care setting are willing to express a PPD. Preferences differ for patients who had never been admitted as hospice inpatients from those who have had at least one inpatient stay. Routine and ongoing assessment of PPD are recommended to support patients’ wishes at the end of life.

Do place-of-death preferences for patients receiving specialist palliative care change over time?

BACKGROUND Discussing preferred place of death (PPD) with patients approaching end of life is an important part of anticipatory care planning. Preferences at a specific point in time have been described; however the extent to which preferences may change is unclear. This study examines changes in PPD. METHODS A retrospective case note review of all patients who died under the care of a specialist palliative care service during a 6-month period in 2012 was undertaken. Notes relating to 299 patients were examined by a member of the clinical team. RESULTS Of the 204 patients who had more than one PPD assessment, 57% showed a change in preference status between the first and last assessment. The majority changed from an unclarified preference to identifying a preferred place. Only 15% of patients with two or more assessments switched from one location to another. CONCLUSIONS Most patients under the care of a specialist palliative care service identify a preference for place of death as end of life approaches. Only a minority change their preference once a preferred place has been elicited. We recommend that patients are supported to explore their preferences for PPD as part of specialist palliative care, and that preferences are reviewed as end of life approaches.

Delivering preference for place of death in a specialist palliative care setting

Abstract Over the last 10 years, one of the key themes of public policy in palliative care has been achievement of choice in place of death. In Marie Curie Hospice Edinburgh a baseline audit conducted in 2006 showed that only a small proportion (18%) of patients referred to hospice services died at home. The audit also revealed that only 31% of those who expressed a preference to die at home were able to do so, whereas 91% of those who chose a setting other than home achieved their preference. Overall achievement of preferred place of death was 56%. However a significant number of patients (29%) did not have a recorded preference. A programme of quality improvement has continued over the last 7 years to improve identification, communication and achievement of preferred place of death for all patients. The mechanisms to change practice have been: changes to documentation; changes to clinical systems to support use of documentation; support for clinical staff to recognise the value of discussing preferences; and support for clinical staff to develop new skills. In addition the programme has been incorporated into local clinical strategy and this has enabled gaps in service to be addressed with a new service to support early discharge of those patients who wish to die at home. A recent audit showed that all patients had a recorded preference or a documented reason why their preference was unclarified. One third of patients died at home – nearly double the proportion that died at home in the baseline audit. Seventy one per cent of patients who wished to die at home actually died at home - a substantial increase from 31% at baseline. Achievement of preferred place of death for patients wishing to die in the hospice remained high at 88%. The focus on assessment of preference for place of death has led to substantial improvements in the identification and achievement of preference for patients dying under the care of the hospice. Furthermore, it has been associated with an increase in the overall proportion of patients who die at home.

Is the patient satisfaction questionnaire an acceptable tool for use in a hospice inpatient setting? A pilot study

BackgroundThe Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire (PSQ) is an assessment tool used to evaluate patients’ perspectives of their doctor’s communication and interpersonal skills. The present pilot study investigated whether the PSQ could be administered successfully in a hospice inpatient setting and if it is an acceptable tool for completion by patients and relatives in this context.MethodsThe study was conducted in two phases. A first phase was undertaken to establish the process of PSQ administration in a hospice inpatient ward. A second phase of questionnaire administration followed by semi-structured interviews explored inpatient experiences of the questionnaire process.ResultsOverall, 30 inpatients and one relative were invited to complete the PSQ across both phases of data collection, representing 53% of all inpatients at the time of data collection. The remaining 47% were deemed unsuitable to ask due to a diagnosis of dying (24%), confusion (17%), distress (3%) or lack of availability (2%). The average response rate across both phases of data collection was 87%. Qualitative interview data suggested that the PSQ was considered clear, easy to understand and not burdensome in terms of time or effort for this population.ConclusionsThe PSQ appears an acceptable tool to use in a hospice inpatient setting. Many patients welcomed the opportunity to be involved and give feedback. Using a greater proportion of relatives as an alternative source of feedback could be considered in future studies.

Improving electronic information sharing for palliative care patients

Abstract Coordination of services used by palliative care patients across care contexts is essential in providing patient centred care. In Lothian, Edinburgh, a baseline audit in 2008 of patients known to all four specialist palliative care teams revealed only 49% had information available to out of hours (OOH) general practitioners (GPs). This highlighted the poor handover and sharing of information, which are essential for providing quality care for palliative patients in accordance with their wishes, and for reducing inappropriate hospital admissions. A number of quality improvement measures have been introduced, some nationally in Scotland, such as the roll out of Electronic Palliative Care Summaries (ePCS) – an electronic register containing up to date information including patient wishes and latest treatment decisions. In addition there have been changes to the GP Quality Outcomes Framework encouraging the use of electronic records. Locally, at Marie Curie Hospice, drivers were implemented including hosting GP education evenings promoting ePCS use, alteration of hospice discharge letter format to complement ePCS completion, in addition to offering specialist nurse support and presence at GP practice palliative care register meetings. A re-audit in 2012 revealed that 75% of specialist palliative care patients had electronic information available to OOH services, and in 2013, 71% of patients. This represents a significant improvement in electronic information sharing across care contexts. Building on the progress of ePCS, a new Electronic Key Information Summary is currently being rolled out across Scotland. This quality improvement report reflects on the positive measures taken to address the important clinical need of effective electronic handover for specialist palliative care patients in Lothian. Furthermore, it highlights the ongoing requirement to continue to improve the quality and availability of electronically shared information for every patient known to palliative care services across care contexts.

CHANGES IN PLACE OF DEATH PREFERENCES IN PATIENTS RECEIVING SPECIALIST PALLIATIVE CARE: A RETROSPECTIVE CASE NOTE REVIEW

Introduction To have choice and control over where death occurs is considered central to a good death. In recognition of this, most end of life care strategies promote the need to support people to die in their place of choice. Previous studies suggest that preferences may change over time, however few studies have examined the type of changes in preference that occur in patients receiving specialist palliative care (SPC). Aims and Methods To explore changes in preferred place of death (PPD) for patients receiving SPC; and to examine the pattern of these changes. A retrospective case note review of all patients who died under the care of Marie Curie Hospice Edinburgh during a 6-month period was undertaken (311 patients). Caldicott Guardian approval was given for this study. Results 204 patients were asked about PPD more than once; 57% of these changed their mind at least once. Most changed from ‘preference unknown’ to home (33%) or to hospice (39%). 44% of patients who had an inpatient stay changed their preference compared to 27% who did not have an inpatient stay. Of those choosing the hospice, 88% had been an inpatient compared to 39% of those choosing home. The majority of patients wished to die in the location where they were asked about their preference: Care home: 100%, Hospice: 81% Home:78%. Conclusions Preference for place of death changes; more patients make a categorical choice over time. Most patients choose a place they are familiar with. Patients who have experienced hospice admission are more likely to choose this option.

‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ discussions at the point of discharge: a case note review of hospice practice following local integrated policy implementation

Background An integrated ‘Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation’ (DNACPR) policy was implemented across Lothian in 2006 (for ease of reading the terminology ‘DNACPR’ has been used throughout the paper where the original Lothian Policy used ‘DNAR’). Patients were, for the first time, able to be discharged home with their DNACPR form after discussion about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Aims To ascertain the number of patients who, following a discussion, were discharged with a DNACPR form and the reasons for not holding discussions with certain patients. Methods Two retrospective case note reviews of 50 patients discharged over two 4-month periods (2007 and 2009). Results There was a high proportion (78–80%) of CPR discussions for patients discharged from the hospice. Reasons for not discussing CPR were: potential for excess distress (10–12% 2007 and 2009) and lack of time (4% both years). Of those discussing CPR on discharge, 90% took forms home in both years. The reasons patients did not take forms home were: form not taken in error (two patients in 2007); patients refusing a form at home (one and three patients in 2007 and 2009); form to be arranged by general practitioner and one incomplete discussion. The proportion of patients with forms already at home increased from 10% (2007) to 28% (2009). Conclusion It is possible to discuss CPR with a high proportion of hospice patients prior to discharge from a hospice. Following the introduction of an integrated policy, more patients have DNACPR forms prior to admission. Most patients receiving specialist palliative care find DNACPR discussions acceptable and understand the benefits of having a DNACPR form.

UK Consensus Project on Quality in Palliative Care Day Services

Background: People dying with advanced dementia areoften unable to effectively self-report pain and are at riskof under-assessment which may hinder pain diagnosis andmanagement. Pain assessment tools for use in advanceddementia are available but their use by physicians withdying patients has not been explored.Aims: To explore hospice, secondary and primary carephysicians’ use of pain assessment tools with patientsdying with advanced dementia.Methods: Twenty-three, semi-structured, face-to-facephysician interviews were conducted and transcribed verbatim.Thematic analysis was applied to identify corethemes across healthcare settings. Three researchers verifiedfinal themes.Results: Four key themes emerged: non-use of painassessment tools; perceived limitations of tools; clinicaloutcomes of use and improving pain assessment. Physiciansdid not routinely use pain assessment tools withpatients dying with advanced dementia. Information fromphysical examination, physiological parameters andpatient observation in addition to collateral patient historyfrom families and nursing staff were perceived to providea more reliable and holistic approach to assessment andmanagement. Scoring subjectivity, proxy-reporting andoverreliance on nonverbal and behavioural cues were limitationsassociated with pain tools. Physicians perceived theclinical outcome of pain tool use to be quicker identificationand reporting of pain by nurses. Most physiciansbelieved pain assessment could be improved via betterintegration of secondary, hospice and primary care servicesin addition to ongoing medical education andmentoring.Conclusion: Physicians preferred clinical investigationand collateral patient history from family and other healthprofessionals to assess pain and guide management. Thesefindings have important implications for medical education,practice and health policy.Funding: HSC Research and Development Division, PublicHealth Agency, Northern Ireland.PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS Dr Martin Dempster, Queen’s University Belfast (Joint lead applicant) Dr Noleen McCorry, Marie Curie Hospice, Belfast (Joint lead applicant) Dr Kathy Armour, Marie Curie Hospice, West Midlands Professor Joanna Coast, University of Birmingham Professor Joachim Cohen, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels Dr Michael Donnelly, Queen’s University Belfast Dr Anne Finucane, Marie Curie Hospice, Edinburgh Dr Joan Fyvie, Marie Curie Hospice, Belfast Dr Louise Jones, Royal Free & University College Medical School Professor George Kernohan, University of Ulster Dr Kathleen Leemans, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels Dr Sean O’Connor, Queen’s University Belfast Professor David Oxenham Dr Paul Perkins, Sue RyderBackground: Management of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should relieve symptoms, optimise daily functioning and reduce carer burden. Health care professional (HCP) barriers and facilitators to meeting patient and carer needs exist but our understanding of them is limited, and we don’t know stakeholder views of actionable responses to them. Aim: To identify barriers and facilitators to HCPs’ ability to meet patient and carer needs in advanced COPD, and stakeholder views of actionable responses to them. Method: HCPs were nominated by a population-based cohort of patients participating in the multiple-perspective mixed-method Living with Breathlessness Study. We purposively sampled 45 HCPs for topic-guided interviews: medical and nursing specialists and generalists from primary and secondary care. Verbatim transcripts analysed with framework approach. National stakeholder workshop (October 2015) will review actionable responses. Results: Barriers and facilitators to meeting needs exist at operational, professional and patient levels, varying by professional group and setting. Barriers included: the drive of organisational and medical agenda, focus on prognostication and patient categorisation, time constraints, lack of confidence and skills in psychological support and end of life conversations, lack of patient support needs assessment, lack of referable services, service location, managing expectations (commissioners and patients), and non-compliance. Facilitators included: longevity of patient-HCP relationships, listening skills, accessibility and patient expertise. Some HCPs described the facilitative effect of the study interviews for reflection on their clinical practice. Stakeholder views of actionable-responses will be reported. Conclusion: Actioning stakeholder-endorsed responses to HCP barriers and facilitators to meeting needs could improve care and support of patients and carers living with advanced COPD.Background: Palliative and end of life care research is an underdeveloped research area. The importance of setting research priorities has been recognized internationally, however to date, this has largely been led by researchers and academics. James Lind Alliance advocate an approach to research priority setting whereby patients, carers and clinicians work together to agree the most important questions.Aim: To identify and prioritise research questions for palliative and end of life care from the perspective of patients, carers and health care professionals in Ireland.Method: Mixed methods four stage approach.Stage 1: was part of a larger national study, which involved a survey focused on uncertainties of care, (n=1403 responses), subsequently categorized as interventional questions, into a list of questions (n=83).Stage 2: An online survey asking user/carer organizations and professional groups in Ireland to rate these questions in terms of low to high priority (n=168 responses).Stage 3: Involved a final prioritization workshop, using nominal group technique undertaken with user/carers (n=16), resulting in the identification of the top ten research priority for Ireland. Stage 4: Comprised a strategic workshop with academics, researchers and funders from the island of Ireland, to develop action plans for each of the areas.Results: The top ten areas were identified and include aspects such as co-ordination of care; out of hours; care at home; pain and symptom management, palliative care and non-cancer and advanced care planning.Conclusions: This process enables researchers to demonstrate that their research is relevant, targeted and valuable to the people who most need it. We will report preliminary findings on the process and types of questions proposed. Discussion with key stakeholders contributes to better co-ordination, seeking to address the highest priority areas together.Funded: AIIHPC, larger study led by Marie Curie UKGood communication is of utmost importance in all forms of cancer care and especially so in the palliative context. To render the ungraspable graspable, metaphors are frequently used drawing on the ...Background: The experience of care transitions for family carers of a relative living with dementia do not necessarily lessen once their relative is admitted to a care home.Goals of care and end of life care decisions need to be made. The process of reaching these decisions can be significantly challenging.Aim: To explore the experience of family carers responsible for decision-making on behalf of a relative living with advanced dementia through their transitions from the community into a care home.Method: Carers of a resident living with dementia were offered an individual interview in a qualitative study within a randomised trial evaluating an Advanced Care Planning intervention in care homes in Northern Ireland,UK. Twenty participants completed a semi-structured audio recorded interview, from which transcripts were thematically analysed.Results: Interviews highlighted that carers were at differentstages of the decision-making process for their relative’s carewhen they were admitted to the care home. Some had previouslydiscussed end of life care wishes with their relative,whereas others had to make an informed choice for the care without prior discussions. The emotional impact of this transition varied from high levels of stress and extreme guilt, to a sense of relief that their relative was content and safe in their new setting. Some carers reported that this decision process left them feeling isolated due to family conflict, but support was also available for others from their new ‘family’:the care home staff. However, reports of poor communication with and amongst staff, and inconsistencies of healthcare provision were an additional source of distress.Conclusion: Key findings which require further investigation include: holding goals of care decision-making earlier in the dementia disease trajectory; recognition of family dynamics; the need for improved knowledge to facilitate informed decision-making, and improving communication with and between staff.Background: Evidence suggests that end-of-life care in heart failure is poor, characterized by high levels of symptoms, inadequate support and poor quality of life. Family carers play a crucial role in supporting advanced HF patients yet there is a lack of knowledge on the needs and experiences of carers for this group of patients.Aim: To examine the palliative care needs, quality of life, perceived burden and level of preparedness of carers of people living with advanced heart failure.Methods: A sequential confirmatory mixed methods approach comprising two phases.Phase 1: Postal survey with carers identified via a database of patients living with advanced heart failure (NYHA Classification III-IV, ejection fraction < 40% and ⩾ 1 unscheduled hospital admission in the previous 12 months) across Ireland. Data included measures of depression, anxiety, QoL, perceived social support and illness beliefs, caregiver burden, needs assessment and preparedness for caregiving. Inclusion criteria: carers identified by the patient as the main person who provides care.Phase 2: semi structured face to face interviews with carers (n=20). Thematic analysis of verbatim transcripts was used to identify emergent themes. Descriptive and inferential data analysis using SPSS was undertaken.Results: 82 carer responses was obtained (response rate 47%). Nearly one third of the carers experienced moderate to severe levels of depression and anxiety and their quality of life was impacted by their caregiving role. They spent a considerable time on caregiving tasks with over 60% spending over 50 hours per week. Themes from the qualitative interviews indicated that the carers considered that their life is on hold; expressing feelings of isolation and frustration at a perceived lack of support.Conclusions: Carer’s needs are variable depending on the patients’ medical stability. A holistic approach is needed to support these carers.Funding: Health Research Board & AIIHPC.Background: Patient-reported outcome measurements are important for measuring changes in patients’ health over time, evaluating the quality of care given, and improving the quality of care service. ...Background: User involvement is widely promotedwithin health and social care policy as an effective meansof developing patient-centred services. This has, however,particular challenges for palliative care, as patients arelikely to be experiencing poor health, are psychologicallyvulnerable and socially isolated. Nevertheless this is animportant agenda for palliative care to address. Voices-4Care is a user/carer Forum comprised of: patients serviceusers, carers or former carers, and people from the widercommunity across the island of Ireland.Aim: To evaluate the implementation process, contributionand lessons learnt from a Voices4Care initiative thathave wider international relevance.Method: A mixed methods approach comprised of fourstrands of work. Phase 1: Review of the literature on modelsof user involvement; Phase 2: secondary analysis anddocument review of user involvement activities and process;Phase 3: Two focus group with members of user/carer Forum (n= 14) and Phase 4: Key stakeholder telephoneinterviews with policy and hospice representatives(n=10) were conducted. Thematic analysis of verbatimtranscripts was used to identify emergent themes.Results: it was found that the Forum provided a supportivecontext in which the voices of users and carers could be heard,valued and contribute to mutual sharing of information andexperiences. The impact of the forum was identified at personal,practice and policy levels. The personal level developeda sense of empowerment whilst the practice level challengedprofessional complacency and triggered discussions.The policy level was considered as more aspirational withpotential for further development. Challenges were notedhowever with sustainability and building on progress to date.Conclusions: Organisational cultures need to be supportiveof user involvement and dedicated resources; leadershipand openness are key factors for sustainabilityThe UK Consensus Project on Quality in Palliative Care Day Services is funded by MarieCurie and based at Queen’s University, Belfast. It is being carried out in collaboration with anumber of other academic institutions and key stakeholder organizations. The project willinvolve and take into account the perspectives of a range of different stakeholders and itsoutcomes will be relevant to patients, family members, palliative care professionals, andpolicy makers. The aim is to use an expert consensus process to develop a set of qualityindicators for assessment of all aspects [structure, process and outcomes] of quality of care in Palliative Care Day Services. This expert panel will include around 20 people from all over the UK who work in, or have experience of day services. The panel will include a wide range of different professionals and volunteers, as well as people who have experience of attending day services as a patient, a carer or family member.Agreement on a quality indicator set will be reached using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method [1], a method of reaching consensus based on differing opinions. The first stage of the process will involve a panel of 20 experts individually considering and rating the appropriateness of potential quality indicators. Ratings will be based on their own experience and knowledge, as well as a series of evidence summary tables drawn up based on a systematic review carried out to identify existing indicators relevant to palliative care day services. Ratings will be analysed and summarised in advance of the second round, at an expert panel meeting. At this meeting quality indicators and their preliminary ratings will be discussed and re-rated. All ratings will be made anonymously. Unlike other consensus development processes, complete agreement is not required. During the meeting, discussions will be focused specifically on any areas of disagreement, in order to understand how and why the variation was found. Indicators will be considered to be “appropriate” if they have a median rating of 7 or more without disagreement. Disagreement will be defined as more than 30% of panel members give a rating of 3 or less to a potential indicator. An indicator will be considered as “not appropriate” if its median score is 3 or less without disagreement (disagreement being when 30% or more of the ratings are 7 or more). When the median rating is between 4 and 6, or if disagreement is observed, the appropriateness of the indicator will be considered as uncertain and it will be discussed at the panel meeting. The following options will be offered to the panel members: acceptance of a quality indicator, rejection or adjustment of a quality indicator, and merging multiple indicators into a single quality indicator. Panel members will also be asked to identify additional indicators not on the original list, modify existing indicators that may require re-wording and remove those perceived to be irrelevant. Following this discussion, a revised list of indictors will be developed, and panel members will re-rate the appropriateness of each. Panel members will also be asked to rate the feasibility or practicability of measuring each indicator in a typical day service setting using the same 9-point scale. At the end of the process, a set of quality indicators will be developed that passed the first round of individual rating as well as the second-round discussion. This set of quality indicators will be sent to the expert panel by e-mail after the meeting, as well as to other stakeholders, for final approval. Following this, further work will be conducted to develop and test the suitability of a toolkit which can be used to measure quality indicators in palliative care day services.Background: Evidence suggests ACP can improve thecare provided to people with dementia in long-term caresettings (LTCSs), facilitating their participation in caredecisions. However, few people with dementia haveengaged in ACP, despite it being advocated by internationalpolicy. The role of health care professionals is integralto addressing this deficit, therefore further understandingof their perspective is needed.Aim: To examine registered nursing home managers(RMs) knowledge & attitudes in relation to ACP for peoplewith dementia in LTCSs.Design: A cross-sectional postal survey was carried out aspart of a larger scale sequential explanatory mixed methodsstudy. An adapted survey instrument was used, developedthrough incorporation of results from an in-depthanalysis of the literature & consultation with key experts inACP & dementia. Principal component analysis was conducted,revealing 6 components.Setting/participants: All registered nursing home managersemployed by homes caring for people with dementiaacross Northern Ireland (n=178).Results: Response rate of 66% achieved(n=116). Thelevel of knowledge in relation to ACP was poor, with correspondinglow levels of confidence reported. A lack ofclarity surrounding who should lead the process was evident.Varying levels of support impacted on practice. Thepositive influence of ACP training was evident, with subsequentincreased perceived control reported. However,RMs struggle with the ethical dilemma created when outweighingthe potential benefits of ACP to the person withdementia with the desire to protect them.Conclusions: Whilst RMs recognise the potential benefitsof ACP, intention to engage is influenced by several interrelatedfactors, making implementation in practice complex.Enhanced understanding of the factors which influencetheir perspective will contribute to the developmentof future educational support and guidance, in order toimprove facilitation of ACP in this setting.Objective: Despite increasing levels of research evidencebeing generated in palliative care, there appear to be severalbarriers to the implementation of research in practice.The aim of this project was to review knowledge transferand exchange (KTE) frameworks used in health settingsand assess their relevance to palliative care.Methods: In line with PRISMA guidelines, a systematicscoping review was developed to search articles included insix electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE,CINAHL and PsycINFO) for four terms (knowledge, transfer,framework, healthcare) and their variations.Results: The search identified 4288 abstracts, with 294eligible for full-text screening, resulting in 79 papers analysed.Studies were published between 1985 and 2014 (twothirds since 2006); the majority were conducted in North America. In total 87 models were indicated, with the PromotingAction on Research Implementation in Health ServicesFramework (PARIHS) being the most common (n =15).The key components of the models include a partnershipor collaborative approach to KTE, focus on the needsof the audience, and an awareness of different modes ofcommunication. The papers were appraised for relevanceto the palliative care and it was found that the study or thetarget population were relevant in many of the papers. Thecomponents most relevant to palliative care were used toestablish a proposed model of KTE for palliative care.Conclusions: The model offers guidance as to effectiveways of translating different types of research knowledgeto care providers and stakeholders, and could be utilised inhospital, community and home based settings as well as toinform future research. It is recommended that researchersadopt this model of KTE for palliative care in futureresearch to ensure that research is conducted with knowledgetransfer in mind.Background: Palliative care day services (typically known as “day hospices”) are provided routinely across Europe. Due largely to the historically localised nature of development, there is wide variability in the organisation and content of services, which militates against strategic planning and development.Aims: We aimed to address this knowledge deficit by identifying core service provision within one country by mapping three regional providers of palliative care day services. Methods: A retrospective, observational study design, using the Donabedian quality framework, involved two components. Firstly, a review of local policy and operational documents at each site provided information on the structure of each service (how care is organised). This covered four key areas: service organisational structure; funding arrangements and expenditure; staffing and management structure, and; other information relevant to estimating the costs of service delivery. Secondly, a retrospective review of the clinical records of patients referred to the service at each site delivered information on the process of care (what is provided). Using reported attendance figures, cases were randomly selected according to a proportionate regime. Results: The review covers key features of: the local-level patient populations, including socio-economic and diagnostic profile; referral, allocation and discharge; all interventions offered; service uptake, and; contextual information onpatient circumstances, need and preferences for care. Itdelivers a comprehensive body of evidence concerning thestructure and process of UK palliative care day services.Conclusions:Our study makes a fundamental contributionto a previously limited evidence base on the organisation,content and mechanisms of delivery of palliative care dayservices.Background: Evidence indicates that people nearing endof life fear loss of dignity and a central tenet of palliativecare is to help people die with dignity. The Dignity CareIntervention (DCI), based on the Chochinov theoreticalmodel of dignity care, comprises four components: educationmanual; patient dignity inventory, reflective questionsand care actions.Aim: To evaluate the usability and acceptability of a DignityCare Intervention (DCI) delivered by communitynurses for people with advanced and life limitingconditions.Method: Mixed methods research design, with threephases.Phase 1: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews withpatient/carer dyads (n=18),Phase 2: four focus groups with (n=24) and an onlinesurvey with community nurses (n=27),Phase 3: analysis of completed DCI tools (n=27). Datawere analysed using thematic analysis of verbatim transcriptsand descriptive statistical analysis.Results: The DCI was acceptable to the communitynurses. It contributed to the overall assessment of palliativecare patients; identified areas that might not otherwisehave been identified; supported communication andassisted the nurses to provide holistic end of life care. Concernshowever were expressed that the tool ‘opened a canof worms’ initiating difficult conversations for which thenurses felt unprepared. The patients however found thatthe tool helped them to identify and consider future needsand were happy to discuss death and dying.Conclusion: The DCI helped nurses to delivered individualisedholistic care. Whilst all the nurses wished to continueto use the DCI, there were barriers identified such asthe time taken to complete; the identification of suitablepatients and the need for more training to enable them toinitiate difficult conversations on dignity conserving careand end of life care.Background & aim: The evidence-base for educational interventions to support informal carers and enhance their caregiving capacity is limited. Our aim was to develop an evidence-based educational intervention on breathlessness in advanced disease for carers. Method: Stage 1: Qualitative in-depth interviews with purposive sample of 25 patient-carer dyads from two disease groups (COPD and cancer) to identify educational needs and intervention preferences. Stage 2: One-day multidisciplinary workshop with 13 clinical experts to identify evidence-based content and acceptability and feasibility of potential delivery modes. Stage 3: Two half-day workshops (one COPD and one cancer) with 10 carers and seven patients to review intervention content, format, and language. Qualitative data analysis used a Framework approach. Results: Carers wanted to learn about breathlessness. Six key topics emerged from patient-carer dyad interviews: understanding breathlessness, de-escalating anxiety and panic, keeping active, living positively, managing infections (in COPD), and knowing what to expect in the future. There was wide variation in how carers wanted to learn, but written resources were less popular than face-to-face, group, video and web-based learning. Carers wanted an intervention that drew on both clinical expertise and peer-carer experience. In general, they wanted to learn with the patient. Building on these findings, the clinical expert workshop identified evidence-based content for the six topics and discussed a potential web-based platform to facilitate multiple modes of access e.g. via clinicians, established support groups, or by carers independently. Carer workshops endorsed the need for the intervention, its content and format, and refined its language and presentation style. Conclusion: Developed with carer, patient and clinician expertise this educational intervention on breathlessness has the potential to be highly relevant and acceptable to carers.