Background:Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans (LGBT) people have higher risk of certain life-limiting illnesses and unmet needs in advanced illness and bereavement. ACCESSCare is the first national study to examine in depth the experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness.Aim:To explore health-care experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness to elicit views regarding sharing identity (sexual orientation/gender history), accessing services, discrimination/exclusion and best-practice examples.Design:Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis.Setting/participants:In total, 40 LGBT people from across the United Kingdom facing advanced illness: cancer (n = 21), non-cancer (n = 16) and both a cancer and a non-cancer conditions (n = 3).Results:In total, five main themes emerged: (1) person-centred care needs that may require additional/different consideration for LGBT people (including different social support structures and additional legal concerns), (2) service level or interactional (created in the consultation) barriers/stressors (including heteronormative assumptions and homophobic/transphobic behaviours), (3) invisible barriers/stressors (including the historical context of pathology/criminalisation, fears and experiences of discrimination) and (4) service level or interactional facilitators (including acknowledging and including partners in critical discussions). These all shape (5) individuals’ preferences for disclosing identity. Prior experiences of discrimination or violence, in response to disclosure, were carried into future care interactions and heightened with the frailty of advanced illness.Conclusion:Despite recent legislative change, experiences of discrimination and exclusion in health care persist for LGBT people. Ten recommendations, for health-care professionals and services/institutions, are made from the data. These are simple, low cost and offer potential gains in access to, and outcomes of, care for LGBT people.

SummaryEvaluation of healthcare is evolving, with the patient perspective increasingly sought to provide a more patient centred service. Self-report questionnaires are being used to gather information about patients' health-related quality of life; outcomes with, and experience of a treatment, and perceptions of the care delivered by the healthcare team. Patient satisfaction measures may be familiar to clinicians and researchers, as they are used routinely in many clinical settings. Patient satisfaction measures have a ceiling effect, masking the negative healthcare experience. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are measures that that provide a patient-centric view of healthcare. In this article, we aim to untangle for the reviewer, the distinctions between patient satisfaction, PROMs and PREMs measures with a focus on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and introduce work in progress around the development of a new PREM for COPD.

Abstract. Improvements in biomedical technologies, combined with changing social attitudes to sexual minorities, provide new opportunities for HIV prevention among gay and other men who have sex with men (GMSM). The potential of these new biomedical technologies (biotechnologies) to reduce HIV transmission and the impact of HIV among GMSM will depend, in part, on the degree to which they challenge prejudicial attitudes, practices and stigma directed against gay men and people living with HIV (PLHIV). At the structural level, stigma regarding gay men and HIV can influence the scale-up of new biotechnologies and negatively affect GMSM's access to and use of these technologies. At the personal level, stigma can affect individual gay men's sense of value and confidence as they negotiate serodiscordant relationships or access services. This paper argues that maximising the benefits of new biomedical technologies depends on reducing stigma directed at sexual minorities and people living with HIV and promoting positive social changes towards and within GMSM communities. HIV research, policy and programs will need to invest in: (1) responding to structural and institutional stigma; (2) health promotion and health services that recognise and work to address the impact of stigma on GMSM's incorporation of new HIV prevention biotechnologies; (3) enhanced mobilisation and participation of GMSM and PLHIV in new approaches to HIV prevention; and (4) expanded approaches to research and evaluation in stigma reduction and its relationship with HIV prevention. The HIV response must become bolder in resourcing, designing and evaluating programs that interact with and influence stigma at multiple levels, including structural-level stigma.Additional keywords: community mobilisation, health promotion, men who have sex with men, policy, social inequality.

We developed a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patient-reported experience measure (PREM-C9). 174 patients with COPD (86 [49%] with a confirmed diagnosis and 88 [51%] with a self-reported diagnosis of COPD) completed a 38-item list, COPD Assessment Test (CAT) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Hierarchical and Rasch analysis produced a 9-item list (PREM-C9). It demonstrated fit to the Rasch model (χ² p=0.33) and correlated moderately with CAT (r=0.42), HAD-anxiety (r=0.30) and HAD-depression (r=0.41) (p<0.05). A substudy confirmed its ability to detect change prepulmonary and postpulmonary rehabilitation. The PREM-C9 is a simple, valid measure of experience of patients living with COPD, validated in this study population with mild to very severe disease; it may be a useful measure in research and clinical audits.

Respiratory nurses make a significant contribution to the delivery of respiratory healthcare, but there is a dearth of nurse-led, practice-focused, published research.Using a modified three-round Delphi, this study sought to identify research priorities for respiratory nursing to inform a national research strategy. Study information and the survey link were sent electronically to members of UK professional respiratory organisations. Round 1 had 78 items across 16 topics, informed by a systematic literature review. Respondents suggested additional items which were content analysed to inform Round 2. Respondents rated all items and ranked the topics in all rounds. To ensure rigour, rounds had an explicit focus with pre-determined criteria for consensus (70%).In total, 363 responses were received across Rounds 1, 2 and 3 (n=183, 95 and 85, respectively). The top five research priorities were: 1) “Patient understanding of asthma control”; 2) “The clinical and cost-effectiveness of respiratory nurse interventions”; 3) “The impact of nurse-led clinics on patient care”; 4) “Inhaler technique”; and 5) two topics jointly scored: “Prevention of exacerbations” and “Symptom management”.With potential international significance, this is the first UK study to identify research priorities for respiratory nursing, providing direction for those planning or undertaking research.