==== Front BMC MedBMC MedBMC Medicine1741-7015BioMed Central London 44910.1186/s12916-015-0449-6GuidelineHow should we manage information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness for those affected by advanced disease: development of a Clinical Decision Support Tool using a Delphi design van Vliet Liesbeth M. +44 20 burgessashley@example.net Harding Richard burgessashley@example.net Bausewein Claudia burgessashley@example.net Payne Sheila burgessashley@example.net Higginson Irene J. burgessashley@example.net on behalf of EUROIMPACT Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, Bessemer Road, London, SE5 9PJ UK Department of Palliative Medicine, Munich University Hospital, Munich, Germany International Observatory on End of Life Care, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK 13 10 2015 13 10 2015 2431-06-96738 6 2015 12 8 2015 © van Vliet et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Clinicians request guidance to aid the routine use and interpretation of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), but tools are lacking. We aimed to develop a Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) focused on information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness (measured using the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS)) and related PROM implementation guidance. Methods We drafted recommendations based on findings from systematic literature searches. In a modified online Delphi study, 38 experts from 12 countries with different professional backgrounds, including four patient/carer representatives, were invited to rate the appropriateness of these recommendations for problems of varying severity in the CDST. The quality of evidence was added for each recommendation, and the final draft CDST reappraised by the experts. The accompanying implementation guidance was built on data from literature scoping with expert revision (n = 11 invited experts). Results The systematic literature searches identified over 560 potential references, of which 43 met the inclusion criteria. Two Delphi rounds (response rate 66 % and 62 %; n = 25 and 23) found that good patient care, psychosocial support and empathy, and open communication were central to supporting patients and families affected by all POS concerns as a core requirement. Assessment was recommended for increasing problems (i.e. scores), followed by non-pharmacological interventions and for breathlessness and depression, pharmacological interventions. Accompanying PROM implementation guidance was built based on the 8-step International Society for Quality of Life Research framework, as revised by nine (response rate 82 %) experts. Conclusions This CDST provides a straightforward guide to help support clinical care and improve evidence-based outcomes for patients with progressive illness and their families, addressing four areas of clinical uncertainty. Recommendations should be used flexibly, alongside skilled individual clinical assessment and knowledge, taking into account patients' and families' individual preferences, circumstances, and resources. The CDST is provided with accompanying implementation guidance to facilitate PROM use and is ready for further development and evaluation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0449-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Keywords Clinical decision support toolsDelphi studiesImplementationPalliative carePalliative care outcome scale (POS)Patient reported outcome measuresissue-copyright-statement© The Author(s) 2015 ==== Body Background Providing optimal care to patients facing life-threatening and progressing illnesses requires a focus on patients' and their family caregivers' physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual needs [1]. It is not solely a task of experts in palliative care. The number of people affected by chronic and progressive illness is escalating, fueled by population ageing and improved life expectancy [2]. While specialist palliative care services, such as hospices and home care teams, provide an extra layer of support for those with the most complex needs, patients and their families with progressive and life threatening illness come into contact with health and social care workers in all settings – primary, secondary, and tertiary. Providing holistic care for seriously ill patients and their families is now a central component of health care [3]. This can, however, be daunting for many doctors, nurses and other staff, especially with limited formal (undergraduate and postgraduate) training [4, 5]. An important starting point in effective clinical management is the assessment and identification of problems [6]. Unfortunately, practitioners often miss many of patients' needs and symptoms, especially when these are non-physical [7–11]. This problem is compounded because patients have multiple symptoms and concerns [12–14]. Asking patients to report their concerns using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) has been proposed as a way to overcome this [15]. When repeated over time, such assessments can become measurable outcomes, revealing how patients' health status changed following the care provided [16]. Although practitioners express positive attitudes towards measuring PROMs [17, 18], routine measurement of concerns is hampered by a lack of training and guidance on how to use and respond to PROMs in clinical care [17–19]. Published guidance on using PROMs [20–22] is fragmented; it lacks specified steps and recommendations to follow when implementing PROMs [20, 21] or does not focus on advance disease [22]. Even more pressing, there is a lack of guidance on how to respond to specific PROM scores. There is often an unfamiliarity with the score interpretation [23], while PROM scores are potentially not fed back to the right person, or reported as often as needed [24]. Clinical significance of health-related quality of life scores are not always reported in studies [25, 26]. Unsurprisingly, therefore, clinical decision-making is not often based on outcome scores [27] and measuring PROMS seems to have a stronger impact on process-aspects of care, i.e. detection of symptoms, than on outcome-aspects of care, i.e. patients' health status (e.g. [15, 23, 28, 29]). Ideally, PROMs should routinely be used and assist in detecting problems, planning treatment, and monitoring how well concerns are alleviated. To fill this gap we need specific clinical decision support aids for specific PROM scores. This should be linked with better focused guidance on how to implement PROMs in routine clinical practice. It is important that both sets of guidance are developed together. This will ensure specific PROMs are successfully implemented in clinical care, while at the same time clinicians are supported in using the PROMs when responding to concerns. One of the most widely used outcome measures in clinical practice in advanced illness is the Palliative (or Patient) care Outcome Scale (POS) family of measures (consisting of the POS, Integrated POS (IPOS), African Palliative Care Association African POS (APCA African POS), and POS-Symptoms (POS-S)) [30]. It assesses physical symptoms, emotional, psychological, and spiritual concerns, and needs for information and support [31]. It is brief (<10 minutes to complete), widely validated, able to transfer across settings, has good responsiveness to change, and has been translated and/or culturally adapted and revalidated in many different languages and cultures (e.g. [32–34]). A full suite of free user support resources is burgessashley@example.net [35]. During a training day on POS in 2013, we identified clinicians' need for guidance in the interpretation of and responding to POS scores. Most difficulties were encountered with interpreting the questions regarding psychological functioning (i.e. depression/feeling worthwhile, n = 18/36 comments), information provision (n = 7/36 comments), and family anxiety (n = 4/36 comments). Breathlessness is a very disturbing symptom for patients [36, 37] and their families [38]. Creation of evidence-based clinical guidance on how to respond to these concerns is needed. The aim of this study was therefore to develop a Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) for the specific POS items of most concern to clinicians: information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness. The guidance is aimed for all practitioners and settings, and is applicable to all patients/family caregivers with complex needs and progressive, life-threatening and serious disease. Because successful implementation of PROMs in clinical practice is a precondition to using a CDST, but current guidance is fragmented, in parallel we also developed accompanying guidance on PROM implementation. This article reports the development and final formats of the CDST and implementation guidance. It also offers a novel methodological approach for CDSTs in other areas. Methods Design A systematic literature search and modified Delphi study were conducted to develop the CDST. A literature search and expert consultations were used to create the PROMs implementation guidance. Ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethical Committee of King's College London (BDM/13/14-3). Participants were explained that participation implied informed consent. Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) The CDST on how to respond to different levels of reported POS scores on information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness was created using a systematic literature search to develop preliminary recommendations for clinical care, followed by a modified Delphi approach to determine how the recommendations should be applied for different levels of POS score severity. Systematic literature search Search strategy To develop draft recommendations we searched for guidelines and systematic reviews on the aforementioned topics in PubMed, Google Scholar (first 4 pages), Cochrane Database, and the York DARE database (2000 to end June 2013). The websites of NICE (UK), National Guideline Clearinghouse (US), the Canadian Medical Association, and google.com (first 4 pages) were hand searched for relevant guidelines. Three guides on using PROMS were screened for relevant information [20–22] (see Additional file 1 for search strategies). Inclusion criteria were:i). Guidelines/systematic reviews focusing on general palliative care, or focusing on information needs, family anxiety, depression, or breathlessness in palliative care (sources focusing on palliative care in a specific setting were included) ii). Guidelines/systematic reviews published in English/Dutch/German/Italian (languages available in the study team) iii). Guidelines from national (disease) organizations iv). Guidelines providing an evidence-base for created recommendation v). Systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals Exclusion criteria were guidelines/systematic reviews:i). Not focusing solely on palliative care (but on the entire trajectory of disease(s)) ii). Focusing on a specific disease iii). Focusing solely on pediatric care iv). Of which an updated version was available v). Of which no full-text was available Data extraction Data from included sources on how to clinically respond to information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness was extracted (by LV). Analysis LV drafted recommendations based on the extracted evidence. These were then critically revised by the co-authors (RH, CB, SP). Two authors (LV/IH) finalized the draft recommendations which were then taken forward into the subsequent modified Delphi study. Modified Delphi study We conducted a two-round online Delphi-study [39, 40] (hosted via internet platform Keypoint), to appraise and revise the draft recommendations and agree an expert consensus on the appropriateness of all recommendations for all scores on the POS items. Participants Overall, 38 experts were purposefully sampled (we approached 48, of which 10 declined beforehand); comprising 26 clinicians, 24 researchers (some had a dual role), and 4 patient/family representatives (as experts by experience, recruited via the UK National Council of Palliative Care and the European Cancer Patient Coalition). Experts came from the UK, US, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Australia, South Africa, Belgium, Greece, Sweden, Poland, and Switzerland. Experts were chosen based on their expertise in the field of the topics under study. Ratings In the Delphi round 1, experts rated the appropriateness of recommendations for all the different answer categories (0–4) for each POS-item and provided comments and/or suggested revisions. Appropriateness was rated on a 1–9 scale ('not at all appropriate' to 'extremely appropriate') with a 'do not know' option and space for comments. In round 2, a summary of the results of round 1 was provided (median, range, interquartile ranges, summary qualitative remarks) which participants were asked to take into account when rating the recommendations again. The results of round 1 were circulated. If recommendations in round 2 achieved a median ranging 7–9 and did not have >30 % of scores in the 1–3 and 7–9 range, they were deemed as appropriate [41–43] and included in the CDST. Lastly, the draft CDST was commented upon by (the same, plus one additional) experts via email and in a face-to-face research meeting (with different researchers). Quality of evidence For each recommendation, the quality of evidence was determined, using an adapted GRADE approach [44] with the classifications: A (e.g. meta-analysis, systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RCT), B (e.g. cohort studies, case–control studies), C (e.g. retrospective, poor quality cohort studies), and D (qualitative studies, expert opinion) quality evidence. We rated each recommendation using the most recent and highest level of known evidence (based on design). If sources already provided a quality rating, their rating was used. Additional file 2 depicts how quality ratings from each source were mapped to the ABCD framework. Accompanying guidance on implementing PROMs We scoped the literature for relevant guidance on implementing PROMs. Data was extracted from these sources to develop (with assistance of several experts in the field) a draft implementation guidance linked to our specific PROM, the POS. Next, we invited comments and critical revisions via email from the 10 members of the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Taskforce Outcome Measures (we approached 13, of which three declined beforehand), plus one additional expert who agreed to participate, representing the countries of the UK, US, Germany, Australia, Italy, Belgium, and South Africa. A finalized version was created with comments from one additional expert. Results Clinical Decision Support Tool (CDST) Systematic literature search Our search of the online databases revealed 703 sources (564 after duplication removal) of which 31 were included (see Fig. 1 for the flowchart of inclusion) [45–75]. Two additional guidelines [76, 77] were added as they were referred to by two included references [49, 73]. In addition, nine extra guidelines were included from the screened websites [78–86]. As panic/anxiety is often associated with breathlessness, we screened the NICE and Clearinghouse websites and all included guidelines for additional sources, revealing one additional source [87]. Therefore, ultimately 43 sources were included.Fig. 1 PRISMA flowchart inclusion guidelines/systematic reviews Clinical Decision Support Tool All included sources were scrutinized for evidence-based conclusions, data and recommendations on how to clinically respond to information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness in palliative care. Overall, 47 recommendations were drafted to be rated in the Delphi Round 1. Not all included sources provided information that could be used to draft recommendations, e.g. one review focusing on the effect of home-based palliative care found inconsistent results. As no other source focused on this topic, no recommendations about home-based care were made [72]. Modified Delphi study In total, 25/38 (66 %) of our experts participated in round 1. Open comments were used to adjust wordings of several recommendations (services should be 'offered' instead of 'provided'; pharmacological interventions should be 'offered, alongside non-pharmacological interventions'). For round 2, experts were asked to take into account a summary of the qualitative and quantitative results of round 1. In this second round, 62 % (23/37, one person withdrew from the project) of the experts participated. Demographic characteristics of participating experts in rounds 1 and 2 are displayed in Additional file 3. Open comments (services should be provided, 'depending on resources'; psycho-education, 'i.e. teaching, explanation') were used to finalize the recommendations, while the predefined cut-offs were used to draft the CDST. Quality of evidence was added for each recommendation, ranging from high to very low (later adapted to A–D). One recommendation (regarding chest-wall vibration to treat breathlessness) was downgraded from A to B as evidence was based on laboratory (as opposed to clinical) studies. Final clinical decision support tool Two formats of a decision-diagram for each POS item and a manual of the CDST were created and again sent out to all experts, of which 41 % (15/37) provided comments, in addition to one other expert in the field. Main comments focused on making it clear that for higher POS scores, lower recommendations still apply and creating both a short and long manual, while both formats of the decision diagrams were equally preferred (also in the face-to-face researchers meeting). The final decision-diagrams are depicted in Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. Additional file 4 depicts the short manual while the long manual can be found at the Palliative care Outcome Scale website [35]. Independent of POS score, core recommendations center on: i) good patient care, ii) the provision of psychosocial support and empathy, and iii) the use of open communication. Proper assessment is needed for increasing scores, followed by non-pharmacological interventions, and pharmacological interventions for high levels of depression and breathlessness.Fig. 2 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 1. Information needs Fig. 3 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 1. Family anxiety Fig. 4 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 1. Depression Fig. 5 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 1. Breathlessness Fig. 6 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 2. Information needs Fig. 7 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 2. Family anxiety Fig. 8 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 2. Depression Fig. 9 Final decision diagrams. Legends: POS score decision diagrams format 2. Breathlessness Implementation guidance Our scoping identified four major guides which had complementary approaches: i) the PROMs guidelines of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) including an 8-step framework [22], ii) the Outcome Measures in Palliative Care booklet [20], iii) the White paper on Outcome Measures of the EAPC [21], and iv) for the POS family of measures, the Guidelines for using the POS [88]. To provide guidance on implementing PROMs in clinical practice, the ISOQOL' [22] 8-step framework was followed. The 8 steps include i) identify goals for collecting PROMs; ii) select patients, setting, and timing of assessment; iii) determine which questionnaire to use; iv) choose a mode for administering/scoring the questionnaire; v) design processes for reporting results, vi) identify aids to facilitate score interpretation; vii) develop strategies for responding to identified issues; and 8) evaluate the impact of measuring PROMs on practice. We amalgamated consistent recommendations from the different sources into this framework. In total, 9/11 (82 %) of the invited participants provided comments on the guidance (in addition to one other expert in the field). The comments stressed the need to define the target group, present tables/boxes, and introductory passages, and these were integrated into the final guidance. The key recommendations of the implementation guidance are summarized in Table 1 for each step (the complete guidance can be found at [35]).Table 1 Implementation guidance key recommendations Step Key recommendations 1 Identify the goals for collecting Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Measuring PROMs can serve goals on different levels (several are often combined): Patient level goals: screening for symptoms and problems, monitoring of symptoms, aid decision making, facilitate communication with patients and within the team Service/setting level goals: evaluate and improve the quality of care (e.g. services), demonstrate effect, promote good practice Policy level goals: improving and monitoring palliative care practice on policy level (e.g. recommended routine collection and minimum dataset) POS measures Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS) measures can serve all discussed goals 2 Select patients, setting, and timing of assessment Respondents: The ideal way to collect PROM data is patient report. In palliative care, this can be difficult, in which case proxy rating is used (family or professional). Measuring both patient and proxy ratings is ideal. Family carers' own needs should be measured Setting: Measurement can be done both within/outside the clinical setting and within/between visits Timing: For screening PROMs are used once, for monitoring more often. Measurement frequency and questionnaire length should be related. Some argue that, ideally, no change in 'window of measurement' should be made. However, flexibility might be needed, e.g. following a change in situation or depending on patient preference POS measures POS measures have patient (all), family (POS), and staff (POS, IPOS) versions Both screening and monitoring is possible The measurement window of POS measures are either 3 ((APCA African) POS, IPOS) or 7 days (POS-S, IPOS). In practice, POS measures can be measured more flexibly, in response to clinical circumstances 3 Determine which questionnaire to use Take several factors into consideration in choosing outcome measure e.g., aim of use, questionnaire available Choose outcome measure based on evidence, with sound psychometric properties and suited for the clinical task Use multidimensional (specific or generic) measures which allow for comparisons across settings and countries POS measures: POS (individual items and total score) has good psychometric properties. POS-S/APCA African POS are validated, IPOS is being validated POS measures are holistic, translated, can be used in various settings and diseases and in clinical practice (e.g. to enhance patient management and as a quality improvement tool) 4 Choose a mode for administering/scoring the questionnaire PROMS can be collected using self- and interview-administration, while computer-completion is efficient Explain to patients why PROMS are helpful Pilot the measure with a few patients POS measures There are several ways to administer POS measures: i) leave the measure with the patient (provide written or verbal information), ii) stay with the patient (patient self-completes or practitioner helps), or iii) integrate measurement into holistic assessment (staff version – for specialists only) 5 Design processes for reporting results PROM results should be shared with other health care practitioners (who can provide assistance in how to respond to certain issues) and the patient (it can integrate them as active member of the team) Decide how to present results, e.g. numerical info (easy to generate) and/or graphic representations (easy to interpret over time, but might be more difficult to integrate into standard workflow). Looking at scores over time is also important Deal with (and anticipate on) missing data, which might be more prominent with long, paper/self-administrated PROMs and large sets. Avoiding missing data is difficult in advanced disease, but can be anticipated upon by quality control procedures (e.g. double checking). Recommendations have been developed for handling missing data (see MORECare Statement [109]) Store data in accordance with legal requirements POS measures Scores related to individual items and summary score can be generated. Summary scores highlight overall severity of needs, individual scores show where specific problems lie When analyzing, check your data and note missing values 6 Identify aids to facilitate score interpretation For measures responsive to change use (and determine) the minimum clinically important difference (MCID – distinguishes between clinically relevant and statistically significant changes If available, published cut-off scores can help with interpreting scores Guidelines or disease management pathways can be linked to PROM scores, but clear guidance is unavailable for many symptoms/topics. They are simple to understand, but do not provide information about clinical importance of scores for an individual POS measures The interpretation of scores is guided by clinical expertise and patient's condition. The MCID for the POS is a one-point change 7 Develop strategies for responding to identified issues PROM scores should go into clinical notes, shared with clinicians/patients, and used to improve care and influence decision-making; exploration with patients can increase understanding but might be time-consuming PROM scores might be integrated with other clinical data Develop a routine for how PROM scores are used in ward rounds, team meetings, other consultations POS measures A Clinical Decision Support Tool for POS items information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness is developed 8 Evaluate the impact of measuring PROMs on practice Precondition for successful implementation: use change management principles, facilitation, and communication to help embed PROM measurement in clinical practice Take into account described facilitators/barriers during preparing, implementing, and evaluating PROM measurement in clinical care Evaluate the impact of the PROM implementation, e.g. set up quality improvement initiatives (audits/benchmarking), use different (quasi/experimental) designs, evaluate implementation process, relate to quality indicators POS measures Ensure that staff is positive and see the added value of using POS, use a supportive training program to ensure routine uptake, and feed results back to sustain staff commitment Discussion This is the first study to develop a CDST for some of the complex problems faced in advanced disease, in particular information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness, linking these to specific actions. The CDST has an evidence-based approach, responding to different levels of patient-reported symptoms. We found it was necessary to have both core recommendations, applicable for all symptom levels, as well as responses that could be titrated up with increasingly severe symptom scores. Accompanying guidance on PROM implementation was also developed, using an 8-step approach. By producing both types of evidence, PROMs (and specifically POS, or similar tools) might be more widely integrated in clinical care and their effects on patients' outcomes can be strengthened. The potential of our guidance and CDST to improve provided care and patient outcomes is supported by accumulating evidence. The Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration showed that implementing PROMs nationally in palliative care improved patients' reported symptoms year after year [89, 90]. Expert consensus underlines the importance of coming to a routinely collected set of outcome measures, which can be used to make comparisons across services and countries [21]. Our provided guidance might assist in this development while overcoming some of the perceived barriers of implementing PROMs, most notably a lack of knowledge and education [6, 91]. The CDST can assist clinicians in responding to the psychosocial aspects of clinical care which they may feel less confident in delivering. Across the several symptoms included in our Delphi, for higher scores, more intensive clinical responses seem warranted. Ensuring the core recommendations (good patient care; providing psychosocial support and empathy; the use of open communication) are in place remains vital in these situations. These core recommendations reflect previous study findings, showing that patients expect their clinicians to show both technical competence [92] as well as seeing them as an individual person [93]. Empathy becomes increasingly important in progressing disease [94], while most medical complaints are related to communication deficits [95, 96], adding not only to patient but also caregiver distress [97]. Our CDST postulates that proper assessment should be followed by non-pharmacological interventions which can be progressed to pharmacological interventions in the more medical oriented symptoms of breathlessness and depression. However, also in these domains, there seems a preference for psychosocial interventions. Indeed, a recent RCT showed that a short-term service provided by palliative care, respiratory, physiotherapy, and occupational therapy improved breathless patients' outcomes [98]. This service combined pharmacological review with a focus on non-pharmacological interventions such as pacing and relaxation. Although originally developed for the POS family of measures, the core recommendations point towards the potential usefulness of our CDST for other PROMs covering similar domains (e.g. the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [99], the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire [100], or quality of life measures such as the EORTC-QLQC30 [101]). It is a wider problem that in advanced illness patients' and caregivers' psychosocial needs often remain unmet [102, 103]. A recent systematic review, including but not limited to POS, concluded that feeding back PROM data in palliative care influenced patients' psychosocial outcomes the most [104]. Our CDST might strengthen this finding by generalizing its applicability beyond POS. Although the CDST proposals are based on scientific evidence combined with expert opinion, this tool is not intended to be prescriptive. Instead, it aims to help practitioners think through the best decision towards difficult and complex encountered problems. Being too prescriptive can be counterproductive, especially because in advanced illness patients and families have complex and often quite individual needs, circumstances, and trajectories, which interact [1, 105]. Instead the CDST should be used as the name implies, as a support, to aid a wider range of aspects to be considered when making treatment choices, alongside skilled individual clinical assessment and knowledge, taking into account patients' and families' individual preferences, circumstances and available resources. In areas of uncertainty or conflict, specialist support or a second opinion should be obtained. The CDST should not be used as an endpoint ('tick-box' exercise) in itself but as a starting point to achieve high quality person-centered care and good clinical practice. As the implementation guide makes clear, training and ongoing support will be an essential component. This study has limitations. Our sample size was relatively small, although it should be noted that the responses rates in the online Delphi (66 % vs 62 %) are in line with a previous similar study in this field [106]. Next, we asked participants in the Delphi study to review a wide area of topics, which might have been challenging, especially surrounding the specific topic of breathlessness. However, as palliative care focuses on physical, psychological, emotional, and spiritual issues, we anticipated most participants to have (some) knowledge in all domains and added a 'do not know' option in the Delphi. The quality rating should also be interpreted with caution as we used an adapted GRADE approach. Many sources used different rating systems and we followed sources' own evidence-levels if already provided. No strength of recommendation (representing whether desirable effects of recommendations clearly outweigh (or not) undesirable effects [44]) was provided due to the heterogeneity of used quality ratings and the envisaged applicability of our recommendations in different settings and countries. Lower ratings do not necessarily imply that these recommendations are not important, as they were among the highest rated recommendations by our expert panel (e.g. the provision of emotional support and respect for cultural/religious traditions when handling family anxiety). These ratings also highlight the pressing need for more high-quality research studies to build the evidence-base of these and other key components of palliative care. For example, the use of a fan was labelled as 'no evidence' based on a Cochrane review [59]. However, this is still in the early stages of evaluation, with recent studies showing conflicting effects (e.g. [107, 108]). As fans are inexpensive, unlike to cause any harm and have low side effects, they can be worth trying. Another limitation entailed that we only included sources that focused on palliative care in general and not on specific diseases as we sought recommendations that were applicable across diseases. For some diseases, the evidence might propose alternative strategies; however, we would expect experts in those fields to be aware of this evidence to take it into consideration. Although we used a broad search strategy, relevant sources might have been missed. Furthermore, we refer in footnotes to the Cicely Saunders Institute's Breathlessness Intervention Service and the Vitaltalk organization for more resources on breathlessness and information needs. These were not found via our search strategies (as they are very recent), but we believed them to be of importance to clinical care. Finally, due to time and resource constraints, only one author identified resources and extracted data of included sources. That being said, a major strength of this work includes the involvement of patients and families in the development of the CDST and the combination of evidence-based recommendations with clinician expertise. Future studies can use this study as a starting point in developing evidence-based CDST for advanced disease, and should now refine our proposed CDST, test its effect on patient and family outcomes, and develop CDST for other POS items. Conclusions Our findings underline the importance of providing good patient care, psychosocial support and empathy, and communication in advanced disease for all patients and families, irrespective of POS scores, in the domains of information needs, family anxiety, depression, and breathlessness. For increasing scores, patients' symptoms should be assessed and responded to with non-pharmacological interventions, followed by pharmacological interventions (for breathlessness and depression). We were able to develop these recommendations into a CDST. Our novel evidenced-based approach to develop a CDST offers a replicable method for other areas. By using the presented recommendations alongside skilled clinical knowledge and patient preferences and ongoing training, it aims to help support clinicians provide the best possible patient-centered care and patients and their families achieve the best possible outcomes in highly threatening times. Systematically following the 8-step framework can support successful implementation of PROMS, and POS, in advanced disease. Additional files Additional file 1: Search strategy. (DOCX 26 kb) Additional file 2: ABCD approach quality of evidence. (DOCX 53 kb) Additional file 3: Demographics participants. (DOCX 18 kb) Additional file 4: Short manual of Clinical Decision Support Tools. (DOCX 4651 kb) Abbreviations CDSTClinical decision support tool EAPCEuropean Association for Palliative Care ISOQOLInternational Society for Quality of Life Research POSPalliative (or patient) Outcome Scale PROMsPatient reported outcome measures Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors' contributions All authors participated in the design of the study, helped draft the manuscript and read and approved the final version of the manuscript for submission. LV carried out the Delphi study and literature searches. LV and IH drafted the recommendations and the implementation guidance, with help from RH, CB, SP. Acknowledgements We would like to thank all experts who participated in the Delphi studies and/or who commented upon the implementation guidance. Funding European Intersectorial and Multidisciplinary Palliative Care Research Training (EURO IMPACT) is funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013, under grant agreement number [264697]). EURO IMPACT aims to develop a multidisciplinary, multi-professional and inter-sectorial educational and research training framework for palliative care research in Europe. EURO IMPACT is coordinated by Prof. Luc Deliens and Prof. Lieve Van den Block of the End-of-Life Care Research Group, Ghent University and Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. Other partners are VU University Medical Center, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; King's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, London, Cicely Saunders International, London, and International Observatory on End-of-Life Care, Lancaster University, Lancaster, United Kingdom; Norwegian University of Science and Technology, and EAPC Research Network, Trondheim, Norway; Regional Palliative Care Network, IRCCS AOU San Martino–IST, Genoa, and Cancer Research and Prevention Institute, Florence, Italy; EUGMS European Union Geriatric Medicine Society, Geneva, Switzerland; Springer Science and Business Media, Houten, the Netherlands. UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior investigator Award. The NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) South London. The funder had no role in the design of the study; collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. ==== Refs References 1. Higginson IJ Costantini M Dying with cancer, living well with advanced cancer Eur J Cancer 2431-06-9673 24 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.02.024 18342501 2. Gomes B Higginson IJ Where people die (1974—2030): past trends, future projections and implications for care Palliat Med 2008 22 33 41 10.1177/0269216307084606 18216075 3. Quill TE Abernethy AP Generalist plus specialist palliative care – creating a more sustainable model New Engl J Med 2013 368 1173 5 10.1056/NEJMp1215620 23465068 4. Frey R Gott M Raphael D O'Callaghan A Robinson J Boyd M Clinical staff perceptions of palliative care-related quality of care, service access, education and training needs and delivery confidence in an acute hospital setting BMJ Support Palliat Care 2014 4 381 9 10.1136/bmjspcare-+1-830-225-0805 24644167 5. Gibbins J McCoubrie R Forbes K Why are newly qualified doctors unprepared to care for patients at the end of life? Med Educ 2011 45 389 99 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03873.x 21401687 6. Antunes B Harding R Higginson IJ Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers Palliat Med 2014 28 158 75 10.1177/0269216313491619 23801463 7. Stromgren AS Groenvold M Pedersen L Olsen AK Spile M Sjogren P Does the medical record cover the symptoms experienced by cancer patients receiving palliative care? A comparison of the record and patient self-rating J Pain Symptom Manage 2001 21 189 96 10.1016/S0885-3924(01)00264-0 11239737 8. Brunelli C Costantini M DiGiulio P Gallucci M Fusco F Miccinesi G Quality-of-life evaluation: when do terminal cancer patients and health-care providers agree? J Pain Symptom Manage 1998 15 151 8 10.1016/S0885-3924(97)00351-5 9564116 9. Petersen MA Larsen H Pedersen L Groenvold M Assessing health-related quality of life in palliative care: comparing patient and physician assessments Eur J Cancer 2431-06-9673 66 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.032 16624553 10. Hladschik-Kermer B Kierner KA Heck U Miksovsky A Reiter B Zoidl H Patients and staff perceptions of cancer patients' quality of life Eur J Oncol Nurs 2013 17 70 4 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.01.005 22369950 11. Janse A Gemke R Uiterwaal C van der Tweel I Kimpell JL Sinnema G Quality of life: patients and doctors don't always agree: a meta-analysis J Clin Epidemiol 2004 57 653 61 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2003.11.013 15358393 12. Moens K Higginson IJ Harding R Are there differences in the prevalence of palliative care-related problems in people living with advanced cancer and eight non-cancer conditions? A systematic review J Pain Symptom Manage 2014 48 660 77 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.11.009 24801658 13. Solano JP Gomes B Higginson IJ A comparison of symptom prevalence in far advanced cancer, AIDS, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and renal disease J Pain Symptom Manage 2006 31 58 69 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.06.007 16442483 14. Radbruch L Nauck F Ostgathe C Elsner F Bausewein C Fuchs M What are the problems in palliative care? Results from a representative survey Support Care Cancer 2003 11 442 51 10.1007/s00520-003-0472-6 12774219 15. Greenhalgh J The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 2009 18 115 23 10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6 19105048 16. Donabedian A Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring 1980 Ann Arbor Health Administration Press 17. Bausewein C Simon ST Benalia H Downing J Mwangi-Powell FN Daveson BA Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care – users' cry for help Health Qual Life Out 2011 9 27 10.1186/1477-7525-9-27 18. Daveson B Simon S Benalia H Downing J Higginson IJ Harding R Are we heading in the same direction? European and African doctors' and nurses' views and experiences regarding outcome measurement in palliative care Palliat Med 2012 26 242 9 10.1177/0269216311409614 21697267 19. Simon ST Higginson IJ Harding R Daveson BA Gysels M Deliens L Enhancing patient-reported outcome measurement in research and practice of palliative and end-of-life care Support Care Cancer 2431-06-9673 8 10.1007/s00520-012-1436-5 22391595 20. Bausewein C, Daveson BA, Benalia A, Simon ST, Higginson IJ. Outcome measurement in palliative care. The Essentials; 2011. PRISMA (Reflecting the Positive Diversities of European Priorities for Research and Measurement in End-of-Life Care). 21. Bausewein C, Daveson BA, Currow DC, Downing J, Deliens L, Radbruch L, et al. EAPC White paper on Outcome Measurement in Palliative Care: improving practice, attaining outcomes and delivering quality services. Recommendations from the European Association for Palliative care (EAPC) Task Force on outcome measurement. Palliat Med June 11, 2015 [Published online before print]. 22. International Society for Quality of Life Research; Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, et al. User's guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice, Version: November 11, 2011. http://www.isoqol.org/research/isoqol-publications. Accessed June 2013. 23. Valderas JM Alonso J Guyatt GH Measuring patient-reported outcomes: moving from clinical trials into clinical practice Med J Aust 2008 189 93 4 18637778 24. Greenhalgh J Long AF Flynn R The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory? Soc Sci Med 2005 60 833 43 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.022 15571900 25. Cocks K King MT Velikova G Fayers PM Brown JM Quality, interpretation and presentation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire core 30 data in randomised controlled trials Eur J Cancer 2431-06-9673 8 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.05.008 18599286 26. Efficace F Osoba D Gotay C Sprangers M Coens C Bottomley A Has the quality of health-related quality of life reporting in cancer clinical trials improved over time? Towards bridging the gap with clinical decision making Ann Oncol 2007 18 775 81 10.1093/annonc/mdl494 17259641 27. Espallargues M Valderas JM Alonso J Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact Med Care 2000 38 175 86 10.1097/00005650-200002000-00007 10659691 28. Greenhalgh J Meadows K The effectiveness of the use of patient‐based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review J Eval Clin Pract 1999 5 401 16 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1999.00209.x 10579704 29. Marshall S Haywood K Fitzpatrick R Impact of patient‐reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review J Eval Clin Pract 2006 12 559 68 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x 16987118 30. Higginson IJ Simon ST Benalia H Downing J Daveson BA Harding R Republished: which questions of two commonly used multidimensional palliative care patient reported outcome measures are most useful? Results from the European and African PRISMA survey Postgrad Med J 2012 88 451 7 10.1136/postgradmedj-2011-000061rep +1-830-225-0805. Hearn J Higginson IJ Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative Care Core Audit Project Advisory Group Qual Health Care 1999 8 219 27 10.1136/qshc.8.4.219 10847883 32. Harding R Selman L Agupio G Dinat N Downing J Gwyther L Validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care in Africa: the APCA African Palliative Outcome Scale Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010 8 10 10.1186/1477-7525-8-10 20100332 33. Bausewein C Fegg M Radbruch L Nauck F von Mackensen S Borasio GD Validation and clinical application of the German version of the palliative care outcome scale J Pain Symptom Manage 2005 30 51 62 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2005.01.017 16043007 34. Bausewein C Le Grice C Simon S Higginson I PRISMA. The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: A systematic review of POS and STAS Palliat Med 2011 25 304 13 10.1177/0269216310395984 21464119 35. Palliative care Outcome Scale. A resource for palliative care. www.pos-pal.org. Accessed on August 21, 2015. 36. Disler RT Green A Luckett T Newton PJ Inglis S Currow DC Experience of advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: metasynthesis of qualitative research J Pain Symptom Manage 2431-06-9673 99 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.03.009 24780181 37. Weingaertner V Scheve C Gerdes V Schwarz-Eywill M Prenzel R Bausewein C Breathlessness, functional status, distress, and palliative care needs over time in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer: a cohort study J Pain Symptom Manage 2014 48 569 81 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.11.011 24613784 38. Malik FA Gysels M Higginson IJ Living with breathlessness: a survey of caregivers of breathless patients with lung cancer or heart failure Palliat Med 2013 27 647 56 10.1177/0269216313488812 23703238 39. Goodman CM The Delphi technique: a critique J Adv Nurs 1987 12 729 34 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x 3320139 40. Dalkey NC Brown BB Cochran S The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion 1969 Santa Monica Rand Corporation 41. Elwyn G O'Connor A Stacey D Volk R Edwards A Coulter A Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process BMJ 2006 333 431-06-9673/bmj.38926.629329.AE 16908462 42. Campbell SM Cantrill JA Roberts D Prescribing indicators for UK general practice: Delphi consultation study BMJ 2000 321 425 8 10.1136/bmj.+1-830-225-0805 10938052 43. Fitch K Bernstein SJ Aguilar MD Burnand B LaCalle JR Lazaro P The RAND/UCLA appropriateness method user's manual 2001 Santa Monica RAND 44. Guyatt GH Oxman AD Vist GE Kunz R Falck-Ytter Y Alonso-Coello P GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 2008 336 924 6 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948 45. Parker SM Clayton JM Hancock K Walder S Butow PN Carrick S A systematic review of prognostic/end-of-life communication with adults in the advanced stages of a life-limiting illness: patient/caregiver preferences for the content, style, and timing of information J Pain Symptom Manage 2007 34 81 93 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.09.035 17531434 46. Andershed B Relatives in end-of-life care--part 1: a systematic review of the literature the five last years, January 1999-February 2004 J Clin Nurs 2431-06-9673 69 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01473.x 16911057 47. Candy B Jones L Drake R Leurent B King M Interventions for supporting informal caregivers of patients in the terminal phase of a disease Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 6 CD007617 21678368 48. Davidson JE Powers K Hedayat KM Tieszen M Kon AA Shepard E Clinical practice guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004–2005 Crit Care Med 2007 35 605 22 10.1097/01.CCM.0000254067.14607.EB 17205007 49. Hudson P Remedios C Zordan R Thomas K Clifton D Crewdson M Guidelines for the psychosocial and bereavement support of family caregivers of palliative care patients J Palliat Med 2012 15 696 431-06-9673/jpm.2011.0466 22385026 50. Hudson PL Remedios C Thomas K A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for family carers of palliative care patients BMC Palliat Care 2010 9 17 10.1186/1472-684X-9-17 20687960 51. Scheunemann LP McDevitt M Carson SS Hanson LC Randomized, controlled trials of interventions to improve communication in intensive care: a systematic review Chest 2011 139 543 54 10.1378/chest.10-0595 21106660 52. Candy B Jones L Varagunam M Speck P Tookman A King M Spiritual and religious interventions for well-being of adults in the terminal phase of disease Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012 5 CD007544 22592721 53. Hardy SE Methylphenidate for the treatment of depressive symptoms, including fatigue and apathy, in medically ill older adults and terminally ill adults Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2009 7 34 59 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2009.02.006 19281939 54. Ly KL Chidgey J Addington-Hall J Hotopf M Depression in palliative care: a systematic review. Part 2. Treatment Palliat Med 2002 16 279 84 10.1191/0269216302pm570oa 12132540 55. Ostlund U Brown H Johnston B Dignity conserving care at end-of-life: a narrative review Eur J Oncol Nurs 2012 16 353 67 10.1016/j.ejon.2011.07.010 21917517 56. Rayner L Price A Evans A Valsraj K Hotopf M Higginson IJ Antidepressants for the treatment of depression in palliative care: systematic review and meta-analysis Palliat Med 2011 25 36 51 10.1177/0269216310380764 20935027 57. Rayner L Higginson I Price A Hotopf M The management of depression in palliative care: European clinical guidelines 2010 London Department of Palliative Care, Policy & Rehabilitation, European Palliative Care Research Collaborative 58. Ujeyl M Muller-Oerlinghausen B Antidepressants for treatment of depression in palliative patients: a systematic literature review Schmerz 2012 26 523 36 10.1007/s00482-012-1221-x 22968366 59. Bausewein C Booth S Gysels M Higginson I Non-pharmacological interventions for breathlessness in advanced stages of malignant and non-malignant diseases Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008 2 CD005623 18425927 60. Gallagher R Roberts D A systematic review of oxygen and airflow effect on relief of dyspnea at rest in patients with advanced disease of any cause J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2004 18 3 15 10.1080/J354v18n04_02 15760804 61. Jennings AL, Davies AN, Higgins JPT, Anzures-Cabrera J, Broadley Karen E. Opioids for the palliation of breathlessness in advanced disease and terminal illness. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012:CD002066. 62. Pan CX Morrison RS Ness J Fugh-Berman A Leipzig RM Complementary and alternative medicine in the management of pain, dyspnea, and nausea and vomiting near the end of life. A systematic review J Pain Symptom Manage 2000 20 374 87 10.1016/S0885-3924(00)00190-1 11068159 63. Booth S Wade R Johnson M Kite S Swannick M Anderson H The use of oxygen in the palliation of breathlessness. A report of the expert working group of the Scientific Committee of the Association of Palliative Medicine Respir Med 2004 98 66 77 10.1016/j.rmed.2003.08.008 14959816 64. Simon ST Higginson IJ Booth S Harding R Bausewein C Benzodiazepines for the relief of breathlessness in advanced malignant and non-malignant diseases in adults Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010 1 CD007354 20091630 65. Wiseman R Rowett D Allcroft P Abernethy A Currow D Chronic refractory dyspnoea: Evidence based management Aust Fam Physician 2013 42 431-06-96739525 66. Mahler DA Selecky PA Harrod CG Benditt JO Carrieri-Kohlman V Curtis JR American College of Chest Physicians consensus statement on the management of dyspnea in patients with advanced lung or heart disease Chest 2010 137 674 91 10.1378/chest.09-1543 20202949 67. Bradt J, Dileo C. Music therapy for end-of-life care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD007169. 68. Dy S Wilson RF Fawole OA Lau BD Martinez KA Vollenweider D Improving health care and palliative care for advanced and serious illness: closing the quality gap - revisiting the state of the science 2012 Rockville Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment 69. El-Jawahri A Greer JA Temel JS Does palliative care improve outcomes for patients with incurable illness? A review of the evidence J Support Oncol 2011 9 87 94 10.1016/j.suponc.2011.03.003 21702398 70. Lorenz KA Lynn J Dy SM Shugarman LR Wilkinson A Mularski RA Evidence for improving palliative care at the end of life: a systematic review Ann Intern Med 2008 148 147 59 10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00010 18195339 71. Qaseem A Snow V Shekelle P Casey DE Jr Cross JT Jr Owens DK Evidence-based interventions to improve the palliative care of pain, dyspnea, and depression at the end of life: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians Ann Intern Med 2008 148 141 6 10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00009 18195338 72. Gomes B Calanzani N Curiale V McCrone P Higginson IJ Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of home palliative care services for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013 6 CD007760 23744578 73. Currow DC Hegarty M Residential aged-care facility palliative care guidelines: improving care Int J Palliat Nurs 2006 12 231 3 10.12968/ijpn.230.431-06-96736 16835563 74. Plonk WM Jr Arnold RM Terminal care: the last weeks of life J Palliat Med 2005 8 1042 54 10.1089/jpm.2005.8.1042 16238518 75. Rayner L Price A Hotopf M Higginson IJ The development of evidence-based European guidelines on the management of depression in palliative cancer care Eur J Cancer 2011 47 702 12 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.11.027 21211961 76. Hudson P Remedios C Zordan R Thomas K Clifton K Crewdson M Clinical practice guidelines for
{'source': 'PubMedDataset'}