Search

Background: Family meetings facilitate the exploration of issues and goals of care however, there has been minimal research to determine the benefits and cost implications. Aims: To determine: (1) if family caregivers of hospitalised patients referred to palliative care who receive a structured family meeting report lower psychological distress (primary outcome), fewer unmet needs, improved quality of life; feel more prepared for the caregiving role; and receive better quality of end-of-life care; (2) if outcomes vary dependant upon site of care and; (3) the cost-benefit of implementing meetings into routine practice. Design: Pragmatic cluster randomised trial involving palliative care patients and their primary family caregivers at three Australian hospitals. Participants completed measures upon admission (Time 1); 10 days later (Time 2) and two months after the patient died (Time 3). Regression analyses, health utilisation and process evaluation were conducted. Results: 297 dyads recruited; control ( n = 153) and intervention ( n = 144). The intervention group demonstrated significantly lower psychological distress (Diff: –1.68, p Conclusions: Family meetings may be helpful in reducing family caregiver distress and enhancing their preparedness for the caregiving role and it appears they may be conducted without increased hospital health utilisation impacts; although opportunity costs need to be considered in order to routinely offer these as a standardised intervention. Additional health economic examination is also advocated to comprehensively understand the cost-benefit implications. Trial Registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12615000200583

Background: Some patients do not receive adequate pain and symptom relief at the end of life, causing distress to patients, families and healthcare professionals. It is unclear whether undertreatment of symptoms occurs, in part, because of nurses’ concerns about legal and/or disciplinary repercussions if the patient dies after medication is administered. Aim: The aim was to explore nurses’ experiences and knowledge of the law relating to the provision of end-of-life pain and symptom relief. Design: Semi-structured interviews with nurses were assessed using a six-stage hybrid thematic analysis technique. Setting/participants: Four face-to-face and 21 telephone interviews were conducted with nurses who routinely prescribed and/or administered pain and symptom relief to patients approaching the end of their lives in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Results: While many nurses had no personal experiences with legal or professional repercussions after a patient had died, the fear of hastening death and being held accountable was frequently discussed and regarded as relevant to the provision of inadequate pain and symptom relief. Concerns included potential civil or criminal liability and losing one’s job, registration or reputation. Two-thirds of participants believed that pain relief was sometimes withheld because of these legal concerns. Less than half of the interviewed nurses demonstrated knowledge of the doctrine of double effect, the legal protection for health professionals who provide end-of-life pain and symptom relief. Conclusion: Education is urgently required to strengthen nurses’ knowledge of the legal protections supporting the provision of appropriate palliative medication, thereby improving their clinical practice with end-of-life patients.

We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts. Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated.

What is already known about the topic? Paracetamol is a useful adjunct when used in combination with “weak opioids” for chronic pain in palliative care patients with advanced cancer; however, it is not certain that there is continuing benefit when used in conjunction with “strong” opioids. What this paper adds? N-of-1 trials allowed individual treatment decisions to be made for each participant: there was no added benefit for any of the participants, although no conclusion about the added benefit of paracetamol above regular opioids was possible for the group, due to insufficient numbers recruited. Implications for practice, theory, or policy Paracetamol may not provide added benefit above regular opioids; this should be assessed on a case-by-case basis to justify the extra tablet load.

Background. Driving cessation can lead to negative consequences, such as depression and reduced social activities. Purpose. The University of Queensland Driver Retirement Initiative (UQDRIVE) intensive support program is a six-week program to assist older people with driving cessation. Methods. Fifty-five participants completed a survey of satisfaction with the program, including identification of the aspects of the program that were useful and they had applied in real life. Findings. There was overall satisfaction with the program, and content analysis identified three areas that were highlighted as particularly useful: “Finding alternative means: transport and service options,” “Planning with more wisdom: thinking about driving cessation,” and “Being with people: sharing experiences with peers.” Implications. These findings indicate that program participants were satisfied with the current UQDRIVE intensive support group program and found both the psychosocial supports and practical strategies to be useful in managing driving cessation.

Needs assessment strategies can facilitate prioritisation of resources. To develop a needs assessment tool for use with advanced cancer patients and caregivers, to prompt early intervation. A convenience sample of 103 health professionals viewed three videotaped consultations involving a simulated patient, his/her caregiver and a health professional, completed the Palliative Care Needs Assessment Tool (PC-NAT) and provided feedback on clarity, content and acceptability of the PC-NAT. Face and content validity, acceptability and feasibility of the PC-NAT were confirmed. Kappa scores indicated adequate inter-rater reliability for the majority of domains; the patient spirituality domain and the caregiver physical and family and relationship domains had low reliability. The PC-NAT can be used by health professionals with a range of clinical expertise to identify individuals’ needs, thereby enabling early intervention. Further psychometric testing and an evaluation to assess the impact of the systematic use of the PC-NAT on quality of life, unmet needs and service utilisation of patients and caregivers are underway.

Australian palliative care is delivered by general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative care teams. Patient outcomes should improve if they work in formal partnership. We conducted a multi-centred randomised controlled trial of specialist- GP case conferences, with the GP participating by teleconference, or usual care and communication methods. Primary outcome measure was global Quality of Life (QoL) scores at 3 weeks from intervention. Secondary measures included subscale QoL scores and carer burden. Two a priori intention-to-treat analyses were conducted using recruitment, and time of death, as fixed time points. There was no difference between groups in the magnitude of change in global QoL measures from baseline to any time point up to 9 weeks post-case conference, or at any time before death. The case conference group showed better maintenance of some physical and mental health measures of QoL in the 35 days before death. Case conferences may improve clinical relationships and care plans at referral, which are not implemented until severe symptoms develop. Case conferences between GPs and specialist palliative care services may be warranted for palliative care patients.