Background: People with advanced heart failure have repeated hospital admissions. Advance care planning can support patient preferences, but studies in people with heart failure have not been assessed. Aim: To evaluate the literature regarding advance care planning in heart failure. Design: Systematic review and narrative analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017059190). Data sources: Electronic databases were searched (1990 to 23 March 2017): MEDLINE(R), Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Scopus. Four journals were hand searched. Two independent researchers screened against eligibility criteria. One reviewer extracted all data and a sample by a second. Quality was assessed by Cochrane Risk of Bias or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Tool for Cohort Studies. Results: Out of the 1713 articles, 8 were included representing 14,357 participants from in/outpatient settings from five countries. Two randomised controlled trials and one observational study assessed planning as part of a specialist palliative care intervention; one randomised controlled trial assessed planning in addition to usual cardiology care; one randomised controlled trial and one observational study assessed planning in an integrated cardiology-palliative care model; one observational study assessed evidence of planning (advance directive) as part of usual care and one observational study was a secondary analysis of trial participants coded Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Advance care planning: (1) reduced hospitalisation (5/7 studies); (2) increased referral/use of palliative services (4/4 studies); and (3) supported deaths in the patient-preferred place (2/2 studies). Conclusion: Advance care planning as part of specialist palliative care reduces hospitalisation. Preliminary studies of planning integrated into generic care, accessing specialist palliative care support if needed, are promising.

Objectives To investigate the prevalence and current approaches to clinical management of chronic nonmalignant pain in patients referred to palliative care services. Methods A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021205432). Six databases were searched on 25 August 2020 and again on 11 July 2022: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Scopus, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Search included prevalence or intervention studies with patients who had chronic nonmalignant pain and were referred to palliative care services. Screening was undertaken independently by 2 reviewers. Results The searches returned 417 titles; subsequent screening identified 5 eligible studies, 4 from the USA and 1 from Hong Kong, including 2 cohort and 3 cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 137 to 323, with a total of 1,056 patients. The prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain ranged from 14% to 34% across different palliative care settings. There was significant crossover of pain types; 54% of patients with chronic no-malignant pain had additional cancer-related pain or cancer treatment–related pain. Opioids were used to manage stand-alone chronic nonmalignant pain for 39% of patients compared to 58% with mixed chronic nonmalignant pain and other pain diagnoses. Significance of results Five studies have documented the prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain of 14–34% in palliative care. Further research including prevalence and treatment studies would provide clearer evidence for best practice management of chronic nonmalignant pain in the palliative care setting.

Background. Ascites formation is a common occurrence in patients receiving palliative care. This is associated with symptoms that may respond to drainage. Aim. To review and quantify ascites-related symptoms pre- and post-paracentesis to evaluate its benefit in an inpatient palliative care setting. Methods. A retrospective audit of patients admitted to an inpatient palliative care unit who underwent paracentesis between November 2016 to June 2020 was performed. The primary outcome was a symptomatic benefit of paracentesis. Secondary outcomes assessed the associated complications as well as the alterations to functional status. Data were analysed using a paired T-test. Results. 43 instances of ascitic paracentesis were performed on a total of 26 patients. Three patients were excluded from the study due to the technical failure of their paracentesis procedure. There was a mean 0.16-point reduction in pain (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.33 to 0.65), a mean 0.03-point increase in dyspnoea (95% CI −0.51 to 0.46), and a mean 0.32-point reduction in nausea (95% CI −0.09 to 0.74). Conclusions. Ascitic paracentesis in the palliative setting may demonstrate some benefit in managing symptoms associated with ascites. Although the findings of this study did not achieve statistical significance, these results may be substantiated by future studies with larger sample size.