Summary Objective To explore the experiences of, and impact on, staff working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Qualitative multiple case study using semi-structured interviews between November 2020 and April 2021 as part of the CovPall study. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Setting Organisations providing specialist palliative services in any setting. Participants Staff working in specialist palliative care, purposefully sampled by the criteria of role, care setting and COVID-19 experience. Main outcome measures Experiences of working in palliative care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results Five cases and 24 participants were recruited (n = 12 nurses, 4 clinical managers, 4 doctors, 2 senior managers, 1 healthcare assistant, 1 allied healthcare professional). Central themes demonstrate how infection control constraints prohibited and diluted participants’ ability to provide care that reflected their core values, resulting in experiences of moral distress. Despite organisational, team and individual support strategies, continually managing these constraints led to a ‘crescendo effect’ in which the impacts of moral distress accumulated over time, sometimes leading to burnout. Solidarity with colleagues and making a valued contribution provided ‘moral comfort’ for some. Conclusions This study provides a unique insight into why and how healthcare staff have experienced moral distress during the pandemic, and how organisations have responded. Despite their experience of dealing with death and dying, the mental health and well-being of palliative care staff was affected by the pandemic. Organisational, structural and policy changes are urgently required to mitigate and manage these impacts.

Background according to the World Health Organisation, the role of the environment for older adults is to maintain and facilitate independence and promote quality of life. However, measures that examine the environment in terms of its potential impact on older people are either oriented towards specific aspects of the environment, specifically designed for community-level assessment rather than individually oriented, or are unwieldy for everyday use. Objectives this article describes the development and validation of the Age-Friendly Environment Assessment Tool (AFEAT), assessing whether individual function and frailty impact on perceptions of environmental age-friendliness. The extent to which such perceptions may have moderate impacts of frailty on outcomes such as need for care support, quality of life and loneliness is examined. Methods a total of 132 participants aged 58–96 were recruited from retirement villages and local communities in the Midlands of the UK. Participants completed the AFEAT, and a series of measures designed to assess frailty and assessments of quality of life, loneliness and perceptions of functional limitations. Results internal reliability assessment indicated that the AFEAT possesses a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.745. The AFEAT significantly predicted quality of life and loneliness, accounting for 17.1% and 5.8% of variance respectively, indicating high concurrent and predictive validity. Furthermore, the AFEAT moderated the predictive strength of frailty in predicting the amount of formal care an individual receives, but not quality of life or loneliness. Discussion the AFEAT is a valid and reliable tool, and analyses highlight the need for an individual-oriented Age-Friendly environment tool.

Background: Palliative rehabilitation involves multi-professional processes and interventions aimed at optimising patients’ symptom self-management, independence and social participation throughout advanced illness. Rehabilitation services were highly disrupted during the Covid-19 pandemic. Aim: To understand rehabilitation provision in palliative care services during the Covid-19 pandemic, identifying and reflecting on adaptative and innovative practice to inform ongoing provision. Design: Cross-sectional national online survey. Setting/participants: Rehabilitation leads for specialist palliative care services across hospice, hospital, or community settings, conducted from 30/07/20 to 21/09/2020. Findings: 61 completed responses (England, n = 55; Scotland, n = 4; Wales, n = 1; and Northern Ireland, n = 1) most frequently from services based in hospices (56/61, 92%) providing adult rehabilitation. Most services (55/61, 90%) reported rehabilitation provision becoming remote during Covid-19 and half reported reduced caseloads. Rehabilitation teams frequently had staff members on sick-leave with suspected/confirmed Covid-19 (27/61, 44%), redeployed to other services/organisations (25/61, 41%) or furloughed (15/61, 26%). Free text responses were constructed into four themes: (i) fluctuating shared spaces; (ii) remote and digitised rehabilitation offer; (iii) capacity to provide and participate in rehabilitation; (iv) Covid-19 as a springboard for positive change. These represent how rehabilitation services contracted, reconfigured, and were redirected to more remote modes of delivery, and how this affected the capacity of clinicians and patients to participate in rehabilitation. Conclusion: This study demonstrates how changes in provision of rehabilitation during the pandemic could act as a springboard for positive changes. Hybrid models of rehabilitation have the potential to expand the equity of access and reach of rehabilitation within specialist palliative care.

Background: Volunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown. The aim of this study is to understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Multi-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach. Results: 458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19 across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient facing support (58.7%), indirect support (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (OR=0.15, 95% CI = 0.07-0.3 p<.001). This reduction in volunteers was felt to protect potentially vulnerable volunteers, with policy changes preventing volunteer support. However, adapting was also seen where new roles were created, or existing roles pivoted to provide virtual support. Conclusion: Volunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19.

Background: Volunteers are common within palliative care services, and provide support that enhances care quality. The support they provided, and any role changes, during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown. Aims: To understand volunteer deployment and activities within palliative care services, and to identify what may affect any changes in volunteer service provision, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Multi-national online survey disseminated via key stakeholders to specialist palliative care services, completed by lead clinicians. Data collected on volunteer roles, deployment, and changes in volunteer engagement. Analysis included descriptive statistics, a multivariable logistic regression, and analysis of free-text comments using a content analysis approach. Results: 458 respondents: 277 UK, 85 rest of Europe, and 95 rest of the world. 68.5% indicated volunteer use pre-COVID-19. These were across a number of roles (from 458): direct patient/family facing support (58.7%), indirect support (e.g. driving) (52.0%), back office (48.5%) and fundraising (45.6%). 11% had volunteers with COVID-19. Of those responding to a question on change in volunteer deployment (328 of 458) most (256/328, 78%) indicated less or much less use of volunteers. Less use of volunteers was associated with being an in-patient hospice, (OR=0.15, 95%CI = 0.07-0.3 p<.001). This reduction in volunteers was felt to protect potentially vulnerable volunteers and with policy changes preventing volunteers from supporting services. However, adapting was also seen where new roles were created, or existing roles pivoted to provide virtual support. Discussion and conclusion: Volunteers were mostly prevented from supporting many forms of palliative care, particularly in in-patient hospices, which may have quality and safety implications given their previously central roles. Volunteer re-deployment plans are needed that take a more considered approach, using volunteers more flexibly to enhance care while ensuring safe working practices. Consideration needs to be given to widening the volunteer base away from those who may be considered to be most vulnerable to COVID-19