Objectives: Clinicians report that withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in motor neuron disease is challenging. We report on the evaluation of the process and outcomes called for by the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland (APM) guidance. Methods: Excel analysis of a core data set, defined in the APM guidance, and thematic analysis of free-text comments, submitted by a UK clinician soon after withdrawal of mechanical ventilation in any care setting. Results: Thirty-seven professionals submitted 46 data sets from 4 patients with tracheostomy ventilation (TV) and 42 with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in 35 months. These took place at home (43%), inpatient hospice (48%), hospital and care homes. Eighty-nine per cent received opioid and/or sedative medication at the initiation of withdrawal, majority of which were subcutaneous. A median of 2 doses (range 1-9) were used to manage symptoms before ventilation withdrawal. Subsequently 73% of patients required either none or one dose of medication. In addition to any background opioid, symptom management required a total parenteral morphine equivalent mean of 20.6 mg (range 0-60 mg) and midazolam mean of 25.8 mg (range 0-120 mg). The median time from first medication to removal of mechanical ventilation was 45 min. Patients with TV died within 30 min of withdrawal. The mode (14 of 42 patients) time to death after NIV withdrawal was 15 min, but ranged between <15 min and 54 hours. Conclusions: Individualised, proportionate, titrated opioid and sedative medications were used to provide good symptom management, and provided new insight into the substantial variability in what patients require to manage their symptoms and how long the process takes. Most patients required lower doses than in previous literature.

Training to enhance healthcare practitioners' capabilities in engaging people in sensitive and end-of life-related conversations is in demand. However, evaluations have either not measured, or found very limited impact on actual practice and patient experience. Training effectiveness is improved when it is based on in-depth evidence, reflects the complexity of real-life interactions, and instils principles adaptable to everyday practice. A relatively new source of in-depth evidence and practice-relevant insights on healthcare interactions is conversation analytic research, a form of observational analysis of real-life interactions. However, conversation analytic research findings have largely been disseminated by and for scientists, rather than clinicians and trainers. We used conversation analytic evidence to develop resources for use by healthcare trainers. The aim was to increase training's evidence-base and authenticity. We further aimed to develop resources applicable to working with learners ranging from novices to advanced practitioners. Methods: Using an intervention development approach, we created online video-clips and supplementary written materials for professionals who deliver training, supervision, and support in healthcare communication for staff and students. The materials were reviewed by an advisory group comprising clinicians, lay consultees, educators, and researchers, and piloted by trainers in UK universities, NHS organisations and independent hospices. We refined materials based on their feedback. Results: The resulting 'RealTalk' resources focus on practices for communicating with patients and their companions about end-of-life and prognosis. Two core training modules were developed, each comprising several patient case studies featuring video-clips from real-life healthcare consultations. The clips featured practices that patients and experienced practitioners use in approaching end-of-life matters. The case studies also included evidence-based descriptions of observable practices and the principles underlying these, alongside transcripts and case synopses. Conclusions: RealTalk training resources aim to facilitate evidence-based, experiential and reflective learning, focusing on communication challenges, practices and principles for end-of-life-related interactions. The resources are designed for use by trainers for delivering all levels of training, from introductory to advanced, in both formal and informal training settings. Our development process may serve as a blueprint for the production of future evidence-based training resources based on conversation analytic research.

Outbreaks of COVID-19 in hospices for palliative care patients pose a unique and difficult situation. Staff, relatives and patients may be possible sources and recipients of infection. We present an outbreak of COVID-19 in a hospice setting, during the UK's first pandemic wave. During the outbreak period, 26 patients and 30 staff tested SARS-CoV-2 positive by laboratory-based RT-PCR testing. Most infected staff exhibited some mild, non-specific symptoms so affected staff members may not have voluntarily self-isolated or had themselves tested on this basis. Similarly, for infected patients, most became symptomatic and were then isolated. Additional, enhanced aerosol infection control measures were implemented, including opening of all windows where available; universal masking for all staff, including in non-clinical areas and taking breaks separately; screening for asymptomatic infection among staff and patients, with appropriate isolation (at home for staff) if infected; performing a ventilation survey of the hospice facility. After these measures were instigated, the numbers of COVID-19 cases decreased to zero over the following three weeks. This outbreak study demonstrated that an accurate understanding of the routes of infection for a new pathogen, as well as the nature of symptomatic versus asymptomatic infection and transmission, is crucial for controlling its spread.