Background and Aim. People with end stage liver disease on the liver transplant waiting list have high symptom burden, which can successfully be addressed by specialist palliative care. Potential tensions with the perceived curative nature of liver transplant make delivering specialist palliative care challenging. This systematic review seeks to establish what is known on the impact of specialist palliative care for patients on liver transplant waiting lists, healthcare professionals' perspectives of providing specialist palliative care for this population, and uptake of advance care planning (ACP).Medline, Embase and CINAHL were searched to 5th May 2020. Qualitative and quantitative findings were grouped together according to main relevant themes.Results: Eight studies of mixed quality and mainly quantitative, were identified. Findings suggest early palliative care intervention improve patients' symptoms and prompt ACP conversations, but patients on the waiting list receive limited palliative care input. Liver physicians' lack of clarity on referral criteria and liver transplant patients' concerns of being abandoned, were reasons for reluctance to refer to specialist palliative care. They felt referral to specialist palliative care is appropriate only for patients receiving hospice or end of life care. Uptake and understanding of ACP and Goals of Care designation by patients is poor.Conclusions: This review found evidence of benefit of specialist palliative care for patients on liver transplant waiting lists, but found in a limited understanding of their role. Evidence is limited to studies from North America. Future research is needed to understand better how palliative care could be provided into this clinical environment.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

BackgroundMany liver patients have unmet palliative care needs, but liver clinicians are unclear whom to refer to specialist palliative care (SPC). The Supportive and Palliative Care Indicator Tool (SPICT) and the Bristol Prognostic Screening Tool (BPST) could help identify suitable patients, but neither has been tested for this role. This study evaluated their role as screening tools for palliative care needs and for predicting 12-month mortality.MethodsA case note review of hepatology in-patients, who were not peritransplant and post-transplant status, was conducted in one tertiary unit. Main outcomes were clinical judgement of need for SPC referral, BPST scores, SPICT attribution of caseness and 12-month survival status. Discriminatory ability of tools was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.Results117 medical notes were reviewed for survival analysis, 47 of which were additionally assessed for suitability for SPC referral, using clinical judgement. SPICT (sensitivity=93%; PPV=93%; AUROC=0.933) and BPST (sensitivity=59%, PPV=79%, AUROC=0.693) demonstrated excellent and good performance, respectively, in predicting patients’ need for SPC referral. SPICT and BPST only had moderate ability at predicting death at 12 months (PPV: 54% and 56%, respectively).ConclusionSPICT and BPST show potential as screening tools for identifying patients for referral to SPC. Further work is needed to determine how to implement these tools in a clinical setting.

Background: Studies have found that inappropriate use of non-sterile gloves (NSG) can affect hand hygiene compliance; the main risks are missing opportunities for hand hygiene and gloves being a vector for microbial transmission. Aim: The aims of this study were to explore the accuracy of healthcare worker (HCW) risk assessment and decision making regarding the use of NSG. Methods: The study was conducted in two acute NHS Trusts and a community social enterprise. A cross-sectional survey was carried out, followed by qualitative semi-structured interviews. Findings: There were highly significant differences at the 95% probability level between staff groups, unqualified staff being significantly more likely than qualified staff to report NSG use when not indicated ( P < 0.0001). The primary motivating factor for staff to wear NSG was for personal protection; the secondary factor being the protection of patients. Staff were also motivated by a desire to create an image of professionalism. Respondents were more likely to follow the lead of seniors in their own profession. Discussion: The results suggest a necessity for change interventions aimed at unqualified staff such as healthcare assistants (HCAs). It would be beneficial to review the indications for glove use and amend organisational policies accordingly. Leaders in each professional staff group would be required to influence practice across organisations, taking into account motivating factors, and in association with multi-modal interventions to improve practice.