Search

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2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials.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.

Background: Access to palliative care in the community enables people to live in their preferred place of care, which is often home. Community palliative care services struggle to provide timely 24-h services to patients and family. This has resulted in calls for 'accessible and flexible' models of care that are 'responsive' to peoples' changing palliative care needs. Digital health technologies provide opportunities to meet these requirements 24-h a day., Aim: To identify digital health technologies that have been evaluated for supporting timely assessment and management of people living at home with palliative care needs and/or their carer(s), and the evidence-base for each., Design: A systematic review of systematic reviews ('meta-review'). Systematic reviews evaluating evidence for virtual models of palliative or end-of-life care using one or more digital health technologies were included. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool for Systematic Reviews. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results., Data Sources: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were searched for English-language reviews published between 2015 and 2020., Results: The search yielded 2266 articles, of which 12 systematic reviews met criteria. Sixteen reviews were included in total, after four reviews were found via handsearching. Other than scheduled telehealth, video-conferencing, or after-hours telephone support, little evidence was found for digital health technologies used to deliver virtual models of palliative care., Conclusions: There are opportunities to test new models of virtual care, beyond telehealth and/or video conferencing, such as 24-h command centres, and rapid response teams., Systematic Review Registration Number: Prospero CRD42020200266.