Search

Background: Clinicians are frequently asked 'how long' questions at end-of-life by patients and those important to them, yet predicting timeframes to death remains uncertain, even in the last weeks and days of life. Patients and families wish to know so they can ask questions, plan, make decisions, have time to visit and say their goodbyes, and have holistic care needs met. Consequently, this necessitates a more accurate assessment of empirical data to better inform prognostication and reduce uncertainty around time until death. The aims of this study were to determine the timeframes for palliative care patients (a) between becoming comatose and death, and (b) between being totally dependent and bedfast, and then comatose, or death, using Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scores. The secondary aim was to determine if covariates predicted timeframes., Method: This is a large retrospective cohort study of 2,438 patients, 18 years and over, cared for as hospice inpatients or by community palliative care services, died between January 2017 and December 2021, and who collectively had 49,842 AKPS data points. An Interval-Censored Cox Proportional Hazards regression model was used., Results: Over 53% (n = 1,306) were comatose (AKPS 10) for longer than one day before death (mean = 2 days, median = 1, SD = 2.0). On average, patients were found to be totally dependent and bedfast (AKPS 20) for 24 days, before progressing to being comatose. A difference in life expectancy was observed at AKPS 20 among people with cancer (mean = 14.4, median = 2, SD = 38.8) and those who did not have cancer (mean = 53.3, median = 5, SD = 157.1)., Conclusion: Results provide clinicians with validated data to guide communication when answering 'how long' questions at end-of-life. Knowledge of projected time to death can prompt timely conversations while the patient can understand and engage in meaningful conversations. The importance of considering covariates such as location and diagnosis in determining timeframes has been highlighted. Shared decision-making and essential person-centered end-of-life care can be planned., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Calvary Healthcare Human Research Ethics Committee approved the study (10-2022) and cross institutional approval was granted from the University of Canberra and Australian National University Ethics Committees. Routinely collected clinical data was de-identified and aggregated. Individual patient consent was not required. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Predicting length of time to death once the person is unresponsive and deemed to be dying remains uncertain. Knowing approximately how many hours or days dying loved ones have left is crucial for families and clinicians to guide decision-making and plan end-of-life care., Aim: To determine the length of time between becoming unresponsive and death, and whether age, gender, diagnosis or location-of-care predicted length of time to death., Design: Retrospective cohort study. Time from allocation of an Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) 10 to death was analysed using descriptive narrative. Interval-censored survival analysis was used to determine the duration of patient's final phase of life, taking into account variation across age, gender, diagnosis and location of death., Setting/participants: A total of 786 patients, 18 years of age or over, who received specialist palliative care: as hospice in-patients, in the community and in aged care homes, between January 1st and October 31st, 2022., Results: The time to death after a change to AKPS 10 is 2 days ( n  = 382; mean = 2.1; median = 1). Having adjusted for age, cancer, gender, the standard deviation of AKPS for the 7-day period prior to death, the likelihood of death within 2 days is 47%, with 84% of patients dying within 4 days., Conclusion: This study provides valuable new knowledge to support clinicians' confidence when responding to the 'how long' question and can inform decision-making at end-of-life. Further research using the AKPS could provide greater certainty for answering 'how long' questions across the illness trajectory., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Initial research from this study was presented in poster format at the Palliative Care Congress 2023, Edinburgh, with the abstract published in BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care 2023;13:A35.

Australia has multiple lagoviruses with differing pathogenicity. The circulation of these viruses was traditionally determined through opportunistic sampling events. In the lead up to the nationwide release of RHDVa-K5 (GI.1aP-GI.1a) in 2017, an existing citizen science program, RabbitScan, was augmented to allow members of the public to submit samples collected from dead leporids for lagovirus testing. This study describes the information obtained from the increased number of leporid samples received between 2015 and 2022 and focuses on the recent epidemiological interactions and evolutionary trajectory of circulating lagoviruses in Australia between October 2020 and December 2022. A total of 2771 samples were tested from January 2015 to December 2022, of which 1643 were lagovirus-positive. Notable changes in the distribution of lagovirus variants were observed, predominantly in Western Australia, where RHDV2-4c (GI.4cP-GI.2) was detected again in 2021 after initially being reported to be present in 2018. Interestingly, we found evidence that the deliberately released RHDVa-K5 was able to establish and circulate in wild rabbit populations in WA. Overall, the incorporation of citizen science approaches proved to be a cost-efficient method to increase the sampling area and enable an in-depth analysis of lagovirus distribution, genetic diversity, and interactions. The maintenance of such programs is essential to enable continued investigations of the critical parameters affecting the biocontrol of feral rabbit populations in Australia, as well as to enable the detection of any potential future incursions.

Introduction Remote consultation is of growing in importance and gaining popularity in both primary and secondary healthcare settings. Reduced necessity for a physical presence of the patient within the healthcare setting is of particular benefit in the current COVID-19 era. It is also of benefit to a diverse group of patients, for example: those who are geographically distant from the base hospital, those suffering from mobility issues or chronic illness, those who require chaperoning as well as those with limited access to transport. We have developed guidelines for the use of the medical telecommunications platform, Attend Anywhere, which has been utilised across the English and Scottish National Health Services, as well as with the Australian Health service, and is now available in Health Service Executive (HSE) settings. Herein we describe and recommend a process that we have found helpful, and we propose guidelines on how a Health Care Worker (HCW) might consider approaching a virtual consultation when initiating and safely executing a patient encounter on Attend Anywhere, in a secure and efficient manner. The guidelines were created following review of the literature on previous experience by others with this software, as well as recent guidance published by the Irish Medical Council. A proportion of this guidance is transferable to other platforms. Methods We also undertook a short survey of our patients and physicians in Sligo University Hospital, who used Attend Anywhere over a six-week period to gauge their satisfaction levels with the experience., We estimated distance that our patients would have travelled for their appointment had the traditional face-to-face consultation been carried out. We noted whether we considered the medium appropriate for the patient consultations. Results 53 patients took part and satisfaction was rated from satisfied to very satisfied on a 3-point scale for all stakeholders. In addition, we found that remote consultation, when compared to face-to-face consultation, alleviated an average of 144km of unnecessary travel per appointment. Remote consultation was deemed appropriate in all cases and no rescheduled face-to-face appointments were required due to failure of the consultation due to difficulties encountered. Conclusion The authors recommend the implementation of the described guidance, with suggested Checklist, Information leaflet and Consent form, as a means of ensuring the confidentiality of the consultation and to ensure that processes are adhered to that optimise protection for both the patient and the clinician, while reducing the burden of attendance to the healthcare location., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.