Search

Aims It is recommended that patients and clinicians discuss end-of-life deactivation of their implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) prior to device implantation and throughout the illness trajectory to facilitate shared decision-making. However, such discussions rarely occur, and little is known about patients' openness to this discussion. The purpose of this study was to explore factors associated with patients' openness to discussing end-of-life ICD deactivation with clinicians. Methods and results This cross-sectional study recruited 293 patients with an ICD from outpatient clinics in the USA, Australia, and South Korea. Patients were classified into an open or resistant group based on their desire to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore factors related to patients' openness to this discussion. About half of the participants (57.7%) were open to discussing such issues with their clinicians. Factors related to patients' openness to discussing device deactivation at end of life were living with someone, not having severe comorbid conditions (cancer and/or chronic kidney disease), greater ICD knowledge, and more experience discussing end-of-life issues with clinicians (odds ratio: 0.479, 0.382, 1.172, 1.332, respectively). Conclusion Approximately half of the ICD recipients were reluctant to discuss device deactivation at end of life with clinicians. Unmodifiable factors were their living arrangement and severe comorbidity. ICD knowledge and prior experience discussing end-of-life issues were potentially modifiable factors in the future. These factors should be addressed when assessing patients' readiness for a shared discussion about device deactivation at end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To describe a virtual clinical pharmacy service as a model of care to support rural and remote Australian hospitals that otherwise would not have access to onsite pharmacists. Summary Many small hospitals in Australia do not have an onsite hospital pharmacist and struggle to support and optimize patient care. To increase access to a hospital pharmacist's specialized skills and medication knowledge, a virtual clinical pharmacy service was designed and implemented in 8 hospitals across rural New South Wales, Australia in 2020. The virtual clinical pharmacy service focuses on the core role of hospital pharmacists, including obtaining a best possible medication history, medication reconciliation at transitions of care, medication review, interprofessional team meetings, provision of patient-friendly medication lists, antimicrobial stewardship, and patient and clinician education. The model is aligned with recognized standards of practice for the delivery of clinical pharmacy services in Australian hospitals. This article details a model of care for translation across other settings. It provides the necessary details on clinical services, processes, supporting structures, an evaluation framework, and other important considerations for implementing virtual pharmacy services. Conclusion This research provides policymakers, health service planners, and practitioners with a model for providing comprehensive clinical pharmacy services virtually to increase the safe and effective use of medicines. Future publication of the findings of a formal evaluation of the model's acceptability and effectiveness is planned. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Good primary care for people with substance use disorders (SUDs) is crucial given the high prevalence of SUDs and overdose deaths.Objective: To explore general practice care for people with a history of SUDs from the perspectives of women involved with the criminal justice system.Methods: Qualitative interview study with pre- and postrelease interviews, undertaken in Australian prisons and community settings. We utilized thematic analysis informed by constructivist grounded theory.Results: We undertook 65 interviews with 39 women. Access to and experience of general practitioner (GP) care was affected by perceived welcomeness, decisions around disclosure, and consultation experiences related to medication prescription. Participants reported that they were not as welcome as other patients, welcome could be conditional on not disclosing SUDs or only requesting unrelated healthcare, and GPs did not always differentiate between past and current drug use. Participants perceived difficulty finding general practices where the potential benefit of disclosing SUDs outweighed the risks of stigmatized reactions and lack of GP skills and interest. Participants did not always recognize that care beyond physical health could occur in general practice. The pejorative implications of labelling patients as "doctor shoppers" were challenged by participants, as they considered it could be necessary to attend multiple GPs to find a welcoming practice.Conclusions: People with histories of SUDs do not uniformly experience welcomeness in general practice, perpetuating poor engagement in healthcare and poor outcomes related to SUDs. Programmes targeting prescription drug misuse through general practice should also promote welcomeness for people with SUDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]