What is the experience of people living with breathlessness due to medical conditions, those caring for them and those treating them, with regard to quality of life and the nature of clinical interactions?Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) were searched (January 1987 to October 2017; English language), for qualitative studies exploring the experience of chronic breathlessness (patients, carers and clinicians). Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and papers retrieved against inclusion criteria. Disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. Primary qualitative data were extracted and synthesised using thematic synthesis.Inclusion and synthesis of 101 out of 2303 international papers produced four descriptive themes: 1) widespread effects of breathlessness; 2) coping; 3) help-seeking behaviour; and 4) clinicians’ responsiveness to the symptom of breathlessness. The themes were combined to form the concept of “breathing space”, to show how engaged coping and appropriate help-seeking (patient) and attention to symptom (clinician) helps maximise the patient's quality of living with breathlessness.Breathlessness has widespread impact on both patient and carer and affects breathing space. The degree of breathing space is influenced by interaction between the patient's coping style, their help-seeking behaviour and their clinician's responsiveness to breathlessness itself, in addition to managing the underlying disease.

Breathlessness is a frequently occurring symptom of cardiorespiratory conditions and is a common cause of emergency department presentation. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of acute-on-chronic breathlessness as a cause for presentation to the major emergencies area of the emergency department. A prospective patient self-report survey and clinical record review of consecutive attendees to the major emergencies area of the emergency department in a single tertiary hospital between 12/5/14 and 29/5/14 was conducted. Eligible patients were clinically stable and had mental capacity to provide data. There were 2,041 presentations during the study period, of whom 1,345 (66%) were eligible. There was a 90% survey response rate (1,212/1,345); 424/1,212 (35%) self-reported breathlessness most days over the past month of whom 245 gave breathlessness as a reason for this presentation. Therefore, the prevalence of acute-on-chronic breathlessness as a reason to present to the major emergencies area was 20.2% (245/1,212, 95% CI 17.9% to 22.5%). During this period there were 4,692 major and minor presentations; breathlessness was therefore a cause of at least 5.2% (245/4,692, 95% CI 4.6 to 5.9%) of all emergency department presentations. This study found that one in five ambulance presentations to the ED were due to acute-on-chronic breathlessness. Most patients had non-malignant underlying conditions, had experienced considerable breathlessness for an extended period, had discussed breathlessness with their GP and presented out of daytime hours. Others were often involved in their decision to present. This represents clinically significant burden for patients, their family carers and the emergency health services.

Psychological distress is prevalent in people with COPD and relates to a worse course of disease. It often remains unrecognised and untreated, intensifying the burden on patients, carers and healthcare systems. Nonpharmacological management strategies have been suggested as important elements to manage psychological distress in COPD. Therefore, this review presents instruments for detecting psychological distress in COPD and provides an overview of available nonpharmacological management strategies together with available scientific evidence for their presumed benefits in COPD. Several instruments are available for detecting psychological distress in COPD, including simple questions, questionnaires and clinical diagnostic interviews, but their implementation in clinical practice is limited and heterogeneous. Moreover, various nonpharmacological management options are available for COPD, ranging from specific cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) to multi-component pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) programmes. These interventions vary substantially in their specific content, intensity and duration across studies. Similarly, available evidence regarding their efficacy varies significantly, with the strongest evidence currently for CBT or PR. Further randomised controlled trials are needed with larger, culturally diverse samples and long-term follow-ups. Moreover, effective nonpharmacological interventions should be implemented more in the clinical routine. Respective barriers for patients, caregivers, clinicians, healthcare systems and research need to be overcome.

Cancer patients have a four- to fivefold greater risk of thrombosis than the general population. Recommended treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis is 3–6 months of low-molecular-weight heparin. The ‘select-d’ trial is an open-label, randomised, multi-centre pilot trial in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis, utilising dalteparin (low-molecular-weight heparin) versus rivaroxaban (a direct oral anticoagulant), to assess effectiveness and safety. To explore patient and informal carers’ experiences of cancer-associated thrombosis and their experience and understanding of the risk–benefit of thrombosis treatment. Qualitative substudy of the select-d trial, using semi-structured interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. Participants were purposively sampled (n = 37 patients; 46% male; age 40–89; 9 with carer present). Three themes were found: experience of cancer-associated thrombosis, experience of anticoagulation and risk–benefit balance of the two modes of administration. Some were shocked by their thrombosis diagnosis (most were unaware of their risk), but others found it insignificant compared with cancer. Most patients found tablets more convenient, but injections were acceptable in the context of having cancer. While most were happy to follow medical advice, others weighed preference on the basis of effectiveness. Lack of awareness of thrombosis risk is concerning; cancer patients must be informed to enable prompt help-seeking. Tablets could provide a welcome choice for patients if there is equivalent risk–benefit to injected anticoagulants. Patients trust their clinicians to tailor their treatment. Future research could explore the effect of routine information giving about the risk of thrombosis.

Background: Spirometry services to diagnose and monitor lung disease in primary care were identified as a priority in the NHS Long Term Plan, and are restarting post-COVID-19 pandemic in England; however, evidence regarding best practice is limited.Aim: To explore perspectives on spirometry provision in primary care, and the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) decision support software to aid quality and interpretation.Design and setting: Semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in spirometry services across England.Method: Participants were recruited by snowball sampling. Interviews explored the pre- pandemic delivery of spirometry, restarting of services, and perceptions of the role of AI. Transcripts were analysed thematically.Results: In total, 28 participants (mean years’ clinical experience = 21.6 [standard deviation 9.4, range 3–40]) were interviewed between April and June 2022. Participants included clinicians (n= 25) and commissioners (n= 3); eight held regional and/or national respiratory network advisory roles. Four themes were identified: 1) historical challenges in provision of spirometry services; 2) inequity in post- pandemic spirometry provision and challenges to restarting spirometry in primary care; 3) future delivery closer to patients’ homes by appropriately trained staff; and 4) the potential for AI to have supportive roles in spirometry.Conclusion: Stakeholders highlighted historic challenges and the damaging effects of the pandemic contributing to inequity in provision of spirometry, which must be addressed. Overall, stakeholders were positive about the potential of AI to support clinicians in quality assessment and interpretation of spirometry. However, it was evident that validation of the software must be sufficiently robust for clinicians and healthcare commissioners to have trust in the process.