Search

Introduction: The COVID‐19 pandemic impacted the Foundation Programme for doctors in the United Kingdom. Foundation doctors were working under increased pressure and significant changes were made to their training. Aims: The aim of this study is to explore the educational impact the COVID‐19 pandemic had on foundation doctors and to understand how this resulted in doctors choosing to take time away from structured training programmes within the United Kingdom to make up for lost educational opportunities. Methods: In this phenomenological research, semi‐structured interviews were carried out with post‐foundation doctors who had completed their training during the pandemic. The data collected from these interviews were coded to carry out a thematic analysis. Results: All 12 participants reported that their formalised teaching had been cancelled, and due to the pandemic, many doctors felt that service provision was prioritised over their postgraduate education. Some doctors had positive experiences of informal teaching; however, many felt they missed out on educational opportunities. Doctors acknowledged that this was a contributing factor when deciding to take time out of training. This also resulted in doctors seeking educational opportunities outside of training. Discussion: The pandemic created many educational challenges for foundation doctors; this has contributed to doctors deciding to take time away from training. In some cases, due to a focus on service provision and their 'lost education', doctors are using time away from training to address their own specific educational needs. The impact of this 'lost education' requires further research and needs to be considered when doctors do apply to speciality training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is a complex condition, stressful for all involved. Although highly prevalent in palliative care settings, it remains underdiagnosed and associated with poor outcomes. Guideline-adherent delirium care may improve its detection, assessment and management. Aim: To inform a future definitive study that tests whether an implementation strategy designed to improve guideline-adherent delirium care in palliative care settings improves patient outcomes (reduced proportion of in-patient days with delirium). Design: With Patient Involvement members, we conducted a feasibility study to assess the acceptability of and engagement with the implementation strategy by hospice staff (intervention), and whether clinical record data collection of process (e.g. guideline-adherent delirium care) and clinical outcomes (evidence of delirium using a validated chart-based instrument;) pre- and 12-weeks post-implementation of the intervention would be possible. Setting/participants: In-patient admissions in three English hospices. Results: Between June 2021 and December 2022, clinical record data were extracted from 300 consecutive admissions. Despite data collection during COVID-19, target clinical record data collection (n = 300) was achieved. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a delirium episode during in-patient stay at both timepoints. A 6% absolute reduction in proportion of delirium days in those with a delirium episode was observed. Post-implementation improvements in guideline-adherent metrics include: clinical delirium diagnosis 15%–28%; delirium risk assessment 0%–16%; screening on admission 7%–35%. Conclusions: Collection of data on delirium outcomes and guideline-adherence from clinical records is feasible. The signal of patient benefit supports formal evaluation in a large-scale study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The UK has a significant and growing population of older adults with frailty and complex healthcare needs, necessitating innovative care solutions. This study aimed to explore patients' and carers' experiences of a novel integrated service that was set up to address the increasing healthcare needs of older people living with frailty. A qualitative study that combined free-text survey questions with in-depth interviews. This study is part of a larger non-randomized trial of the service, with evaluation of wellbeing and quality of life at baseline, 2 to 4 weeks, and 10 to 14 weeks. Patients (aged 65 and above) with an electronic Frailty Index in the severe range and their informal family carers participated in this study. Data were collected between April 2019 and March 2020. Free text survey responses and interview data were subjected to reflexive thematic analyses. Four themes were generated: the overall experience of the service; interactions within the service; treatment and interventions; and outcomes due to the service. Most participants wanted further follow-up and more extensive integration with other services. Most participants described their overall experience positively, especially the available time to address their full range of concerns, but opportunities to integrate the service more fully and to extend follow-up remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of review: Tapentadol is the first of a new class of analgesics, having synergistic µ-opioid receptor agonist and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitory actions. It has been widely researched in many areas of pain, often in noninferiority studies against potent opioids. This review describes all randomized and recent nonrandomized studies of tapentadol in adults with cancer pain. Recent findings: Tapentadol has been shown to be at least as effective as morphine and oxycodone in five randomized (two of which were multicenter and double-blind) and a range of nonrandomized trials, although caution is needed when interpreting these results. It is effective in both opioid-naive patients and those already taking opioids. By having a lower µ-opioid receptor binding affinity, it has fewer opioid-related toxicities such as constipation and nausea. A recent randomized trial comparing tapentadol to tapentadol plus duloxetine in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy shows similar improvement in both groups in a range of pain relieving and quality of life measures, with similar adverse effects. Summary: Tapentadol has been shown in a range of studies to be an effective analgesic and thus should be considered as an alternative to morphine and oxycodone, especially when opioid toxicities are an issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is common and distressing for patients receiving palliative care. Interventions targetting modifiable risk factors in other settings have been shown to prevent delirium. Research on delirium risk factors in palliative care can inform context-specific risk-reduction interventions. Aim: To investigate risk factors for the development of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42019157168). Data sources: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (1980-2021) were searched for studies reporting the association of risk factors with delirium incidence/prevalence for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Study risk of bias and certainty of evidence for each risk factor were assessed. Results: Of 28 included studies, 16 conducted only univariate analysis, 12 conducted multivariate analysis. The evidence for delirium risk factors was limited with low to very low certainty. Potentially modifiable risk factors: Opioids and lower performance status were positively associated with delirium, with some evidence also for dehydration, hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance, liver dysfunction and infection. Mixed, or very limited, evidence was found for some factors targetted in multicomponent prevention interventions: sensory impairments, mobility, catheter use, polypharmacy (single study), pain, constipation, nutrition (mixed evidence). Non-modifiable risk factors: Older age, male sex, primary brain cancer or brain metastases and lung cancer were positively associated with delirium. Conclusions: Findings may usefully inform interventions to reduce delirium risk but more high quality prospective cohort studies are required to enable greater certainty about associations of different risk factors with delirium during specialist palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement. Aim: To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions. Design: Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Data sources: We searched six electronic databases (1980–November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions. Results: From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life. Conclusion: The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Higher specialty trainees are expected to achieve clinical and non-clinical skills during training in preparation for a consultant role. However, evidence from many specialties from different countries suggests that new consultants are less prepared in non-clinical skills. The transition from trainee to a consultant phase can be challenging. The study aims to identify if new UK Palliative Medicine consultants, within 5 years of their appointment, feel prepared in clinical and non-clinical skills after completing specialty training and understand the support available for them., Method: An online survey, designed using previous literature, was distributed via the Association for Palliative Medicine email and social media. Five-point Likert scales and drop-down options to record preparedness were used. Ethics approval was obtained., Results: Forty-four participants from different UK regions completed the survey; 80% were female. The majority felt very/extremely prepared in audit (84%), clinical skills (71%), interaction with colleagues (70%). Majority moderate preparation was human resources (50%), organisation structure (68%) and leadership (52%). Most were not at all or slightly prepared in financial management (70%) and in complaint management (43%). The majority (75%) reported that departmental colleagues gave the most support in stressful situations but almost 49% did not have formal support., Conclusion: New palliative medicine consultants require support with some non-clinical roles such as management of complaints and finances. This is consistent with findings from other specialties. New consultants would benefit from formal support. Future research could focus on how trainees could be supported to gain more experience in non-clinical domains., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To describe the current, real-world use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain and the associated benefits and harms., Methods: A prospective, multicentre, consecutive cohort pharmacovigilance study conducted at 14 sites across Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and the UK including hospital, hospice inpatient and outpatient services. Pain scores and harms were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events at baseline, 2 days and 14 days. Ad-hoc safety reporting continued until day 28., Results: Data were collected from 92 patients between March 2018 and October 2021. Most patients had cancer (91%) and were coprescribed opioids (90%). At 14 days, 83% of patients had benefit from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and 22% had harm. The most common harms were nausea (8%), vomiting (3%), acute kidney injury (3%) and non-gastrointestinal bleeding (3%); only 2% were severe and no patients ceased their non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs due to toxicity. Overall, 65% had benefit without harm and 3% had harm without benefit., Conclusions: Most patients benefited from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with only one in five patients experiencing tolerable harm. This suggests that short-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients receiving palliative care is safer than previously thought and may be underused., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)