Search

Background: Pharmacovigilance studies in hospice/palliative care provide extra information to improve medication safety. Combination controlled release oxycodone-naloxone offers an alternative opioid with less risk of opioid-induced constipation.Objective: To examine why palliative care clinicians chose to cease oxycodone-naloxone and to explore immediate and short-term benefits and harms of this medication change.Design: A consecutive cohort study.Setting: 112 adults from 13 palliative care centers.Measurements: Reasons for ceasing medication and the harms and benefits that followed this 24 and 72 hours later. Symptom burdens were summarised by the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Toxicity Gradings. Results: Combination medication was most commonly ceased because of poor pain control or impaired hepatic function. The last median oral morphine equivalent oxycodone dose before the switch was 45 mg (range 7.5–240 mg) with 76 switched to an alternative long-acting opioid (initial median oral morphine equivalent dose being 45 mg [range 5–210 mg]). Subgroup analysis of those switched because of clinicians' concerns about hepatic dysfunction demonstrated this group were receiving significantly lower opioid doses pre-cessation compared to those switched because of other reasons( p = 0.007). Regardless of why the medication was changed, improvements in pain and constipation scores were seen, the latter associated with an attendant increase in laxatives.Conclusions: This preliminary work suggests that despite theoretical concerns regarding the effect of the naloxone on opioid doses, most people were switched safely to very similar opioid doses with attendant improvements in pain control. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background: Opioid errors have the potential to cause significant patient harm. These high-risk medications are used in high volumes in palliative care services to manage pain and other symptoms. Palliative patients are at greater risk of harm from opioid errors, as they are generally older and taking numerous medications to manage multiple comorbidities. Understanding factors contributing to opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services is a largely underexplored, yet, essential aspect of patient safety. Objective: To explore and identify the characteristics and associated contributing factors of reported opioid errors in palliative care inpatient services using a multi-incident analysis framework. Design: A multi-incident analysis of opioid errors reported over three years in two Australian specialist palliative care inpatient services. Results: A total of 78 opioid errors were reported. The majority (76%) of these errors occurred during opioid administration, primarily due to omitted dose (34%) and wrong dose (17%) errors. Eighty-five percent of reported errors reached the patient resulting in opioid underdose for over half (59%) of these patients. Over one-third (37%) of errors caused patient harm, which required clinical intervention. Error contributing factors included the following: noncompliance with policy; individual factors such as distraction; poor clinical communication systems; and workload. Conclusions: This multi-incident analysis has provided initial insights into factors contributing to opioid errors in palliative care inpatient services. Further exploration is warranted to understand palliative care clinicians' perspectives of systems, individual, and patient factors that influence safe opioid delivery processes. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background: Continuous quality improvement is fundamental in all health care, including hospice and palliative care. Identifying and systematically reducing symptomatic adverse events is limited in hospice and palliative care because these events are mostly attributed to disease progression. Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of symptomatic adverse events in hospice and palliative care and assessing their incidence. Methods: A retrospective, consecutive cohort of notes from a specialist palliative care inpatient service was surveyed by a clinical nurse consultant for symptomatic adverse events: falls, confusion, decreased consciousness, hypo- and hyperglycaemia, urinary retention, and hypotension. Demographic and clinical factors were explored for people at higher risk. Results: Data were available on the most recent admissions of 65 people, generating >900 inpatient days. Fifty people (78%) had events precipitating admission, of whom 31 (62%) had at least one further event during admission. Eleven of 15 people who were admitted without an event experienced at least one during their admissions. Only 4 did not have an adverse event. During their stay, there were 0.13 (standard deviation [SD]=0.19) events per patient per day. No drug-drug or drug-host events were noted. No clinical or demographic factors predicted groups at higher risk. Conclusions: This pilot highlights the feasibility of collecting, and ubiquity of, symptomatic adverse events, and forms a baseline against which future interventions to decrease the frequency or intensity can be measured. Given the frailty of hospice and palliative patients, any adverse event is likely to accelerate irreversibly their systemic decline. © Copyright 2011, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2011.

Introduction: Prescribing practice in hospice/palliative care is largely extrapolated from other areas of clinical practice, with few studies of net medication effects (benefits and harms) in hospice/palliative care to guide prescribing decisions. Hospice/palliative care patients differ in multiple ways from better studied participant groups, hence the applicability of studies in other participant groups is uncertain. Haloperidol, a butyrophenone derivative and dopamine antagonist, is commonly prescribed for nausea, vomiting, and delirium in hospice/palliative care. Its frequent use in delirium occurs despite little evidence of the effect of antipsychotics on the untreated course of delirium. The aim of this study was to examine the immediate and short-term clinical benefits and harms of haloperidol for delirium in hospice/palliative care patients. Method: A consecutive cohort of participants from 14 centers across four countries who had haloperidol commenced for delirium were recruited. Data were collected at three time points: baseline, 48 hours (clinical benefits), and day 10 (clinical harms). Investigators were also able to report clinical harms at any time up to 14 days after it was commenced. Results: Of the 119 participants included, the average dose was 2.1 mg per 24 hours; 42 of 106 (35.2%) reported benefit at 48 hours. Harm was reported in 14 of 119 (12%) at 10 days, the most frequent being somnolence (n=11) and urinary retention (n=6). Seven participants had their medication ceased due to harms (2 for somnolence and 2 for rigidity). Approximately half (55/119) were still being treated with haloperidol after 10 days. Conclusion: Overall, 1 in 3 participants gained net clinical benefit at 10 days. © Copyright 2013, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2013.