Background:The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is a newly developed advancement of the Palliative care Outcome Scale. It assesses patient-reported symptoms and other concerns. Cognitive interviewing is recommended for questionnaire refinement but not adopted widely in palliative care research.Aim:To explore German- and English-speaking patients’ views on the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale with a focus on comprehensibility and acceptability, and subsequently refine the questionnaire.Methods:Bi-national (United Kingdom/Germany) cognitive interview study using ‘think aloud’ and verbal probing techniques. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis and pre-defined categories. Results from both countries were collated and discussed. The Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale was then refined by consensus.Setting/participants:Purposely sampled patients from four palliative care teams in palliative care units, general hospital wards and in the community.Results:A total of 15 German and 10 UK interviews were conducted. Overall, comprehension and acceptability of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale were good. Identified difficulties comprised the following: (1) comprehension problems with specific terms (e.g. ‘mouth problems’) and length of answer options; (2) judgement difficulties, for example, due to the 3-day recall for questions; and (3) layout problems. Combining the results from both countries (e.g. regarding ‘felt good about yourself’) and discussing them from both languages’ perspectives resulted in wider consideration of the items’ meaning, enabling more detailed refinement.Conclusion:Cognitive interviewing proved valuable to increase face and content validity of the questionnaire. The concurrent approach in two languages – to our knowledge the first such approach in palliative care – benefited the refinement. Psychometric validation of the refined Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale is now underway.

Background: Palliative care patients are often described as complex but evidence on complexity is limited. We need to understand complexity, including at individual patient-level, to define specialist palliative care, characterise palliative care populations and meaningfully compare interventions/outcomes. Aim: To explore palliative care stakeholders' views on what makes a patient more or less complex and insights on capturing complexity at patient-level. Design: In-depth qualitative interviews, analysed using Framework analysis. Participants/setting: Semi-structured interviews across six UK centres with patients, family, professionals, managers and senior leads, purposively sampled by experience, background, location and setting (hospital, hospice and community). Results: 65 participants provided an understanding of complexity, which extended far beyond the commonly used physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains. Complexity included how patients interact with family/professionals, how services' respond to needs and societal perspectives on care. 'Pre-existing', 'cumulative' and 'invisible' complexity are further important dimensions to delivering effective palliative and end-of-life care. The dynamic nature of illness and needs over time was also profoundly influential. Adapting Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory, we categorised findings into the microsystem (person, needs and characteristics), chronosystem (dynamic influences of time), mesosystem (interactions with family/health professionals), exosystem (palliative care services/systems) and macrosystem (societal influences). Stakeholders found it acceptable to capture complexity at the patient-level, with perceived benefits for improving palliative care resource allocation. Conclusion: Our conceptual framework encompasses additional elements beyond physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains and advances systematic understanding of complexity within the context of palliative care. This framework helps capture patient-level complexity and target resource provision in specialist palliative care.

Background:Uncertainty is common in advanced illness but is infrequently studied in this context. If poorly addressed, uncertainty can lead to adverse patient outcomes.Aim:We aimed to understand patient experiences of uncertainty in advanced illness and develop a typology of patients’ responses and preferences to inform practice.Design:Secondary analysis of qualitative interview transcripts. Studies were assessed for inclusion and interviews were sampled using maximum-variation sampling. Analysis used a thematic approach with 10% of coding cross-checked to enhance reliability.Setting/participants:Qualitative interviews from six studies including patients with heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal disease, cancer and liver failure.Results:A total of 30 transcripts were analysed. Median age was 75 (range, 43–95), 12 patients were women. The impact of uncertainty was frequently discussed: the main related themes were engagement with illness, information needs, patient priorities and the period of time that patients mainly focused their attention on (temporal focus). A typology of patient responses to uncertainty was developed from these themes.Conclusion:Uncertainty influences patient experience in advanced illness through affecting patients’ information needs, preferences and future priorities for care. Our typology aids understanding of how patients with advanced illness respond to uncertainty. Assessment of these three factors may be a useful starting point to guide clinical assessment and shared decision making.