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]

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.)