Deaths due to COVID-19 are associated with risk factors which can lead to prolonged grief disorder, post-traumatic stress, and other poor bereavement outcomes among relatives, as well as moral injury and distress in frontline staff. Here we review relevant research evidence and provide evidence-based recommendations and resources for hospital clinicians to mitigate poor bereavement outcomes and support staff. For relatives, bereavement risk factors include dying in an intensive care unit, severe breathlessness, patient isolation or restricted access, significant patient and family emotional distress, and disruption to relatives' social support networks. Recommendations include advance care planning; proactive, sensitive, and regular communication with family members alongside accurate information provision; enabling family members to say goodbye in person where possible; supporting virtual communication; providing excellent symptom management and emotional and spiritual support; and providing and/or sign-posting to bereavement services. To mitigate effects of this emotionally challenging work on staff, we recommend an organizational and systemic approach which includes access to informal and professional support.

There is a lack of evidence on how best to meet policy guidance in fulfilling the information needs of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) and their families. We aimed to generate guidance for appropriate information provision to CHF patients and their families through a cross-sectional qualitative methodology with constant comparison of emergent themes. Participants were 20 CHF patients (New York Heart Association Functional Classification III, III-IV, and IV); 11 family carers; six palliative care staff; and six cardiology staff. Patients and carers severely lacked understanding of CHF and its symptoms. None had discussed disease progression or advanced care planning with staff. Although patients expected honest discussion of disease implications, data from clinicians described an unwillingness to disclose poor prognosis. We identified four types of barriers to the discussion of disease progression: disease-specific; patient-specific; specialism-specific; and staff time and resources. This is the first study to integrate cardiology, palliative care, and patient and family views to develop feasible recommendations on meeting information needs. Three recommendations for hospital-based clinical practice were generated from the data: (1) improved methods of providing information; (2) introduction of mutual education and joint working; and (3) development of care pathways and referral criteria.

Background:Spiritual distress is prevalent in advanced disease, but often neglected, resulting in unnecessary suffering. Evidence to inform spiritual care practices in palliative care is limited.Aim:To explore spiritual care needs, experiences, preferences and research priorities in an international sample of patients with life-limiting disease and family caregivers.Design:Focus group study.Setting/participants:Separate patient and caregiver focus groups were conducted at 11 sites in South Africa, Kenya, South Korea, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Finland and Poland. Discussions were transcribed, translated into English and analysed thematically.Results:A total of 74 patients participated: median age 62 years; 53 had cancer; 48 were women. In total, 71 caregivers participated: median age 61 years; 56 were women. Two-thirds of participants were Christian. Five themes are described: patients’ and caregivers’ spiritual concerns, understanding of spirituality and its role in illness, views and experiences of spiritual care, preferences regarding spiritual care, and research priorities. Participants reported wide-ranging spiritual concerns spanning existential, psychological, religious and social domains. Spirituality supported coping, but could also result in framing illness as punishment. Participants emphasised the need for staff competence in spiritual care. Spiritual care was reportedly lacking, primarily due to staff members’ de-prioritisation and lack of time. Patients’ research priorities included understanding the qualities of human connectedness and fostering these skills in staff. Caregivers’ priorities included staff training, assessment, studying impact, and caregiver’s spiritual care needs.Conclusion:To meet patient and caregiver preferences, healthcare providers should be able to address their spiritual concerns. Findings should inform patient- and caregiver-centred spiritual care provision, education and research.

No abstract