Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership

Abstract

The importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

What elements of a systems’ approach to bereavement are most effective in times of mass bereavement? A narrative systematic review with lessons for COVID-19

“…The review was conducted in accordance with palliative care evidence review service (PaCERS) modified systematic review methodology. 10 This approach was developed to enable the rapid and robust assessment and reporting of clinical evidence following requests from palliative care practitioners in Wales. An initial request for this review was made by the Lead Clinician of the End of Life Care Board in Wales and the need for rapid synthesis and timely reporting during the ongoing pandemic favoured the application of this methodology.…”

The role and response of primary healthcare services in the delivery of palliative care in epidemics and pandemics: A rapid review to inform practice and service delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…The articles together provided very limited insights into the role and response of primary healthcare services in palliative care delivery during pandemics. We therefore used the pandemic response framework 15 to categorise what little data that was available into 'systems' (data that provided insights into wider healthcare systems including policy), 'space' (insights into primary healthcare delivery of palliative care in the community), 'staff' (workforce concerns) and 'stuff' (all other relevant concerns; see Table 3). 17 Systems.…”

“…This rapid review was conducted using modified systematic review methods, refined from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for systematic reviews in healthcare 14 and informed by rapid review methods outlined by the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service, 15 with a refined review question, the search carried out within a limited set of databases, and transparency in the reporting. The structure and content of the review is informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines.…”

Symptom burden and lived experiences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals on the management of malignant bowel obstruction: A qualitative systematic review

“…This review was conducted in accordance with the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS) modified systematic review methodology. 21 This review uses modified systematic review methods in which components of the review process are streamlined, in particular the time frame, which was decided upon due to the striking lack of existing literature before 2010, which was identified from a scoping search undertaken prior to the conduction of the review. The review was prospectively registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 30th March 2020, ID: CRD42020176393, and is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.…”