The global COVID-19 pandemic is likely to have a major impact on the experience of death, dying, and bereavement. This study aimed to review and synthesize learning from previous literature focused on the impact on grief and bereavement during other infectious disease outbreaks. We conducted a rapid scoping review according to the principles of the Joanna Briggs Institute and analyzed qualitative data using thematic synthesis. From the 218 identified articles, 6 were included in the analysis. They were four qualitative studies, one observational study, and a systematic review. Studies were conducted in West Africa, Haiti, and Singapore. No research studies have focused on outcomes and support for bereaved people during a pandemic. Studies have tended to focus on survivors who are those who had the illness and recovered, recognizing that some of these individuals will also be bereaved people. Previous pandemics appear to cause multiple losses both directly related to death itself and also in terms of disruption to social norms, rituals, and mourning practices. This affects the ability for an individual to connect with the deceased both before and after the death, potentially increasing the risk of complicated grief. In view of the limited research, specific learning from the current COVID-19 crisis and the impact on the bereaved would be pertinent. Current focus should include innovative ways to promote connection and adapt rituals while maintaining respect. Strong leadership and coordination between different bereavement organisations is essential to providing successful postbereavement support.

Abstract Objectives inconsistency in outcome measurement in dementia care trials impedes the comparisons of effectiveness between trials. The key aim of this study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people with dementia living at home. Method we used a mixed-methods research design, including substantive qualitative research with five key stakeholders groups. We consulted with people living with dementia for many aspects of this research. We applied a modified two-round 54 item Delphi approach to attain consensus on core outcomes. The COS was finalised in a face-to-face consensus meeting in 2018. Results of the 288 who completed round 1 (21 people living with dementia, 58 care partners, 137 relevant health and social care professionals, 60 researchers, 12 policy makers), 246 completed round 2 (85% response rate). Twenty participants attended the consensus meeting. We reached consensus for the inclusion of 13 outcome items. Conclusion we identified 13 outcome items which are considered core; many relate to social health. Providing there are adequate measures, measuring these core outcome items will enhance comparisons for effectiveness making trial evidence more useful. The items will provide commissioners and service planners with information on what types of interventions are most likely to be valued highly by people living with dementia. Trial registration The study is registered on the COMET initiative database.

Background Core outcome sets (COS) prioritise outcomes based on their importance to key stakeholders, reduce reporting bias and increase comparability across studies. The first phase of a COS study is to form a ‘long-list’ of outcomes. Key stakeholders then decide on their importance. COS reporting is described as suboptimal and this first phase is often under-reported. Our objective was to develop a ‘long-list’ of outcome items for non-pharmacological interventions for people with dementia living at home. Methods Three iterative phases were conducted. First, people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policymakers and researchers ( n = 55) took part in interviews or focus groups and were asked which outcomes were important. Second, existing dementia trials were identified from the ALOIS database. 248 of 1009 pharmacological studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary and secondary outcomes were extracted from a 50% random sample ( n = 124) along with eight key reviews/qualitative papers and 38 policy documents. Third, extracted outcome items were translated onto an existing qualitative framework and mapped into domains. The research team removed areas of duplication and refined the ‘long-list’ in eight workshops. Results One hundred seventy outcome items were extracted from the qualitative data and literature. The 170 outcome items were consolidated to 54 in four domains (Self-Managing Dementia Symptoms, Quality of Life, Friendly Neighbourhood & Home, Independence). Conclusions This paper presents a transparent blueprint for ‘long-list’ development. Though a useful resource in their own right, the 54 outcome items will be distilled further in a modified Delphi survey and consensus meeting to identify core outcomes.

BackgroundRecent recommendations promote the inclusion of people living with dementia beyond the role of ‘participant’ to involvement in all areas of the research process. This reflects shifts in dementia studies from ‘research on’ to ‘research with’ people living with the condition. In this paper, we describe the design process and features of a modified Delphi survey devised through consultation with people living with dementia.MethodsThis article focusses on consultation with people living with dementia and care partners to design an accessible Delphi survey to facilitate participation in core outcome set development. We used the COINED model of co-research developed through the ESRC/NIHR Neighbourhoods and Dementia Study to structure consultation on three features of modified Delphi design. Consultation was achieved through 1:1 and group sessions with a total of 28 individuals (18 people living with dementia and seven care partners).ResultsA flexible, responsive and adaptive approach to ongoing consultation with people living with dementia and care partners through 1:1 face-to-face sessions facilitated: (1) the development of a 3-point non-categorical importance scale; (2) the translation of 54 outcome areas into ‘accessible statements’ for a two-round Delphi survey administered to five stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, health and social care professionals, policy-makers and researchers); and (3) the delivery of a Delphi survey. These features of core outcome set development facilitated the involvement of people living with dementia in study design and as research participants in the data collection phase.ConclusionsInvolvement of people living with dementia as a key stakeholder group is not reflected in studies using Delphi survey methods for core outcome set development. Time, resources, researcher expertise and support, underpinned through targeted funding facilitate meaningful and productive inclusive approaches, now an expectation of dementia research.Trial registrationThe study is registered on the COMET Initiative.

Background: In 2009, the EAPC published recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, and a decade later, wished to update them to reflect contemporary practice. Aim: To elicit consensus on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe, taking account of developments since 2009. Design: A Delphi technique used three sequential online survey rounds, and a final expert consultation (EAPC Board). The original 2009 questionnaire with 134 statements was updated with 13 new concepts and practices following a scoping of the literature between 2009 and 2020 (total: 147 statements). Setting/participants: One contact of Boards of 52 national European organisations affiliated to the EAPC were invited to participate, with subsequent rounds sent to respondees. The EAPC Board ( n = 13) approved final recommendations. Results: In Round 1: 30 organisations (14 organisations × two people, 16 organisations × one person, total n = 44) in 27 countries responded (response rate 58% organisations, 82% countries), Round 2 ( n = 40), Round 3 ( n = 38). 119 statements reached consensus in Round 1, 9 in Round 2, 7 in Round 3. In total 135/145 statements in five domains (terminology, philosophy, levels, delivery, services) reached consensus (defined as >75% agreement), (122) were original EAPC recommendations with 13 new recommendations included emerging specialisms: neonatal, geriatric and dementia care, and better care practices. Seven statements failed to reach consensus and four were removed as irrelevant or repetition. Conclusions: Most recommendations on standards and norms for palliative care in Europe remain unchanged since 2009. Evolving concepts in palliative care can be used to support advocacy.

Background Advance care planning in nursing homes is important to ensure the wishes and preferences of residents are recorded, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, care staff and family members frequently report feeling unprepared for these conversations. More resources are needed to support them with these necessary discussions. This research aimed to develop, implement and evaluate a website intervention for care staff and family members to provide training and information about advance care planning during COVID-19. Methods The research was a primarily qualitative case study design, comprising multiple UK nursing home cases. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with care staff and family members which were coded and analysed thematically. A narrative synthesis was produced for each case, culminating in a thematic cross-case analysis of the total findings. Theoretical propositions were refined throughout the research. Results Eight nursing homes took part in the study, involving 35 care staff and 19 family members. Findings were reported according to the RE-AIM framework which identified the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance of the intervention. Themes included: website content that was well received; suggestions for improvement; implementation barriers and facilitators; examples of organisational and personal impact. Conclusions Four theoretical propositions relating to advance care planning in nursing homes are presented, relating to: training and information needs, accessibility, context, and encouraging conversations. Implications for practice and training include an awareness of diverse learning styles, re-enforcing the right to be involved in advance care planning and encouraging opportunities for facilitated discussion. Trial registration ISRCTN registry (ID 18003630) on 19.05.21.

BackgroundThe key aim of the study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people living at home with dementia.Methods/designDrawing on the guidance and approaches of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), this study uses a four-phase mixed-methods design:Focus groups and interviews with key stakeholder groups (people living with dementia, care partners, relevant health and social care professionals, researchers and policymakers) and a review of the literature will be undertaken to build a long list of outcomes.Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be used with key stakeholder groups. Statements for the Delphi surveys and participation processes will be developed and informed through substantial member involvement with people living with dementia and care partners. A consensus meeting will be convened with key participant groups to discuss the key findings and finalise the COS.A systematic literature review will be undertaken to assess the properties of tools and instruments to assess components of the COS. Measurement properties, validity and reliability will be assessed using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement (COSMIN) and COMET guidance.A stated preference survey will elicit the preferences of key stakeholders for the outcomes identified as important to measure in the COS.DiscussionTo the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to use a modified Delphi process to involve people living with dementia as a participant group. Though the study is confined to collecting data in the United Kingdom, use of the COS by researchers will enhance the comparability of studies evaluating non-pharmacological and community-based interventions.Trial registrationThe study is registered on the COMET initiative, registered in 2014 at comet-initiative.org.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2584-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

It is well-established that for a considerable period the United Kingdom has spent proportionally less of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health-related services than almost any other comparable country. Average European spending on health (as a % of GDP) in the period 1980 to 2013 has been 19% higher than the United Kingdom, indicating that comparable countries give far greater fiscal priority to its health services, irrespective of its actual fiscal value or configuration. While the UK National Health Service (NHS) is a comparatively lean healthcare system, it is often regarded to be at a 'crisis' point on account of low levels of funding. Indeed, many state that currently the NHS has a sizeable funding gap, in part due to its recently reduced GDP devoted to health but mainly the challenges around increases in longevity, expectation and new medical costs. The right level of health funding is a political value judgement. As the data in this paper outline, if the UK 'afforded' the same proportional level of funding as the mean average European country, total expenditure would currently increase by one-fifth.