Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Challenges to delivering evidence-based palliative medicine

Caroline Barry, Paul Paes, Simon Noble and Andrew Davies
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2022-0336
Clin Med March 2023
Caroline Barry
ANorfolk and Norwich NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK, and clinical associate professor in translational and clinical medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
Roles: consultant in palliative medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: caroline.barry@nnuh.nhs.uk
Paul Paes
BNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Northumbria, UK
Roles: consultant/reader in palliative medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon Noble
CCardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Roles: Marie Curie professor in supportive and palliative medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Davies
DTrinity College Dublin, University College Dublin and Our Lady's Hospice, Dublin, Ireland
Roles: professor of palliative medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

Established as a medical specialty in 1987, palliative medicine approaches middle age facing existential questions of identity, purpose and vision. Time has weakened strong foundations laid by Dame Cicely Saunders in research, education and clinical excellence. Clinical knowledge gaps are wide, and widening. Palliative medicine research is underfunded and underrepresented in discourse. Despite huge advances in modern medicine, there is still clinical uncertainty about simple interventions, such as whether artificial hydration at the end of life is helpful or harmful. Where good quality data do exist, the pace of change is slow, if change is happening at all. Trial design often fails to assess the holistic impact of interventions, using primary endpoints that are inconsistent with outcomes most valued to the patient. Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in innovation and investment in digital technologies, embraced by many in palliative medicine. Experience shows that caution must be applied where the evidence base is sparse. While as a specialty we must remain forward looking and progressive in our mindset, it cannot be assumed that these new interventions alone will provide the solutions to the old problems that exist in palliative medicine.

This review summarises the key points presented in the Palliative Medicine section of the RCP Clinical Medicine Conference, 2022.

Keywords:
  • palliative
  • evidence based
  • artificial intelligence
  • virtual ward
  • clinical trials

The modern history of palliative care

St Christopher's Hospice was founded in 1967 with the aim of ‘integrating a scientific programme concerned with the discriminating use of drugs with the “tender loving care”’ seen in traditional hospices.1 Funding for research, alongside clinical services, helped to identify optimal holistic treatment methods, including comparative studies of morphine and diamorphine,2 and evaluation of homecare services.3

A flurry of trials in the 1970s enhanced understanding of the safety and effectiveness of opioids in the treatment of cancer pain. Expansion in research mirrored the increase in the number of hospices, home care services and hospital palliative care teams across the country, but by the time palliative medicine was recognised as a specialty in 1987, there was increasing separation of research from clinical practice.

In the 1990s, epidemiological approaches came to the fore; there was a shift from focusing on the best care for the individual to a desire to understand the needs of the population, and a widening scope of practice, from mainly cancer care to a range of non-malignant diseases.4

Understanding the needs of the population necessitated a generalist, system-based approach. Policy,5 principles6 and education7 were developed to facilitate, rather than deliver, ‘gold standard’ palliative care. The seismic fallout from the Mid Staffordshire Enquiry8 and misuse of the Liverpool Care Pathway9 exposed the drawbacks of this approach, dispatching the myth that providing the ‘tools of the trade’ was sufficient to improve end of life care.

The present day: the evidence for innovation

The COVID-19 pandemic provided a new stimulus for innovation in palliative medicine and accelerated the use of telemedicine and other digital health interventions (DHIs). It is important in the post-pandemic era to evaluate these interventions for clinical and cost effectiveness, in comparison to standard interventions, to justify their ongoing use.

A recent meta review of DHIs (including telemedicine) in palliative care, involving 332 publications and 21 systematic reviews, found that while DHIs were ‘useful, safe and acceptable’ for many, evidence of quality of life, physical and psychological benefits was deemed ‘inconclusive’.10 In other words, we still don't know whether or not specific DHIs are better than the old ways or whether indeed they are worse.

Data from other patient groups suggest that certain DHIs could be useful in palliative care. For example, remote monitoring in oncology patients has been shown to improve symptom management and quality of life and to reduce admissions and the use of hospital services such as A&E.11,12 Remote monitoring may also help to mitigate some of the workforce issues affecting palliative medicine, which are likely to increase in coming years.

Feasibility studies of remote monitoring in palliative care have shown potential, and future studies involving a combination of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), carer-reported outcome measures, and remote monitoring of vital signs (using photoplethysmography) are about to commence. It is anticipated that this ‘remote comprehensive holistic assessment’ will be more effective than an isolated assessment of PROMs.

Artificial intelligence is another potentially important area for palliative care, with researchers trialling machine learning to improve prognostication in cancer patients. Models have been developed that incorporate both recognised prognostic indicators (eg C-reactive protein), and other clinical parameters (eg subjective sleep parameters). The results of an initial study (unpublished) are encouraging, although these models need further testing.13

The future: evidence-based empathy?

Despite a promising start, over the years palliative medicine has struggled to embed its practice within a robust and systematic evidence base. The barriers to producing conventional high-quality research (namely adequately powered randomised control trials) are well documented.14 Over time, these barriers have proven surmountable through improved funding, infrastructure and collaboration; however, even where there is evidence from research, the translation of evidence into practice has been slow.

The findings of several recent studies that challenge established clinical practice have faced a lukewarm reception by the specialty. Attitudes that such new data ‘should not negate 20 years of generally positive experience’ still prevail,15 where high-quality new data emerges which runs contrary to the closely held beliefs about a preferred therapeutic approach.

Justified critique is often applied to the narrow focus of clinical research and inappropriate selection of primary outcomes, which are often not relevant to clinical practice or reflective of patient experience.16 It is ironic that a specialty often perceived as particularly empathic towards the suffering of ill health produces research of limited practical application due to a lack of applied empathy in developing trial outcomes linked to patient values.

Evidence-based empathy, in this context, could be achieved by employing a systematic approach to developing a core outcome set for a particular condition. Such methodology is well established and involves using the results of a systematic review of current data and a qualitative study to inform a Delphi process.17 Under the direction of a clinical/patient expert group a core outcome set will be generated and evaluated for face validity and application. Future research should ensure that outcomes are standardised and clinically meaningful to the patient.

Defining palliative medicine

Statutory commissioning of specialist palliative care services provided for in the Health and Social Care Act of 2022 is an opportunity to reflect on service delivery, standardise quality measures and embed evidence based practice.

In order to do so, the specialty faces an outstanding challenge, in how to define palliative care to itself and others. On one hand, there has recently been an acute-led reinvigoration of the specialty relationship with cancer, expanding beyond the last year of life to the point of diagnosis, or even to those with curative disease. This has led some teams to distance themselves from the name ‘specialist palliative care’ to become ‘enhanced supportive care’ teams.18

In contrast, the focus on specialist palliative care teams with Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspections has led in some parts to an assumption of direct responsibility for all aspects of end-of-life care by hospital palliative care teams, potentially disempowering other ‘generalist’ teams in proving such care while diluting the ‘specialist’ nature of palliative care practice.

Alongside these internal debates, the specialty must assess its readiness to challenge the wider social determinates of death, dying and grief, whilst defining its role in relation to the community that it serves.19

On the cusp of middle age, therefore, the specialty of palliative medicine is at a crossroad. Lack of clarity and consistency on the purpose of the specialty is a risk, particularly where the relationship between practice and evidence diverges.

New technologies have an important role in supporting this, but risk being clouded by some of the old challenges of palliative care delivery including service variation, ambiguous definitions, and the potential for exclusion of certain patient groups. All palliative care professionals have a responsibility for delivering evidence-based practice, and to be thoughtfully curious about the impact of new technologies in achieving equity and value across the system.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2023. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Saunders C
    . Hospice care. Am J Med 1978;65:726–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Twycross RG
    . Choice of strong analgesic in terminal cancer: diamorphine or morphine? Pain 1997;3:93–104.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Baines M
    . The origins and development of palliative care at home. Progress Palliative Care 2010;18:4–8.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Higginson I
    , Hart S, Koffman J, et al. Needs assessments in palliative care: an appraisal of definitions and approaches used. J Pain Symptom Manage 2007;33:500–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Chan RJ
    , Webster J, Bowers A. End-of-life care pathways for improving outcomes in caring for the dying. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2:CD008006.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Singer PA
    , Robertson G, Roy D. Bioethics for clinicians: 6. Advance care planning. CMAJ 1996;155:1689–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  7. ↵
    1. Clifford C
    , Thomas K, Armstrong-Wilson J. Going for Gold: the Gold Standards Framework programme and accreditation in primary care. BMJ End Life J 2016;6:e000028.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Department of Health
    . Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: Stationary Office, 2013.
  9. ↵
    1. Neuberger J
    , Guthrie C, Aaronovitch D. More care, less pathway: a review of the Liverpool Care Pathway. Department of Health, 2013.
  10. ↵
    1. Finucane AM
    , O'Donnell H, Lugton J, et al. Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review. NPJ Digit Med 2021;4:64.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Maguire R
    , McCann L, Kotronoulas G, et al. Real time remote symptom monitoring during chemotherapy for cancer: European multicentre randomised controlled trial (eSMART). BMJ 2021;374:n1647.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Basch E
    , Stover AM, Schrag D, et al. Clinical utility and user perceptions of a digital system for electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring during routine cancer care: findings from the PRO-TECT Trial. JCO Clin Cancer Inform 2020;4:947–57.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Patel S
    , Davies AN, Laing E, et al. Machine learning approaches to prognostication in supportive care in cancer. Support Care Cancer 2019;27:S181–2.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Chen EK
    , Riffin C, Reid MC, et al. Why is high-quality research on palliative care so hard to do? Barriers to improved research from a survey of palliative care researchers. J Palliat Med 2014;17:782–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Mercadante S
    . Octreotide for malignant bowel obstruction: commentary on Currow et al. J Pain Symptom Manage 2015;49:813.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Abel J
    , Kellehar A. Public health palliative care: reframing death, dying, loss and care giving. J Palliat Med 2022;36:768–9.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Baddeley E
    , Bravington A, Johnson MJ, et al. Development of a core outcome set to use in the research and assessment of malignant bowel obstruction: protocol for the RAMBO study. BMJ Open 2020;10:e039154.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. NHS England
    . Enhanced supportive care: integrating supportive care in oncology. www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ca1-enhncd-supprtv-care-guid.pdf [Accessed 28 November 2022].
  19. ↵
    1. Sallnow L
    , Smith R, Ahmedzai SH, et al. Report of the Lancet Commission on the Value of Death: bringing death back into life. Lancet 2022;399:837–84.
    OpenUrlPubMed
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Challenges to delivering evidence-based palliative medicine
Caroline Barry, Paul Paes, Simon Noble, Andrew Davies
Clinical Medicine Mar 2023, 23 (2) 182-184; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0336

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Challenges to delivering evidence-based palliative medicine
Caroline Barry, Paul Paes, Simon Noble, Andrew Davies
Clinical Medicine Mar 2023, 23 (2) 182-184; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.2022-0336
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • The modern history of palliative care
    • The present day: the evidence for innovation
    • The future: evidence-based empathy?
    • Defining palliative medicine
    • References
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • An overview of the challenges and key initiatives in hepatology practice in the UK in 2022: a cautionary tale, but reasons for optimism – British Association for the Study of the Liver (BASL) Annual Meeting 2022 Conference Report
  • From FOBt to FIT: making it work for patients and populations
Show more Conference report

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians