Search

Introduction The adoption of specialised geriatric oncology programs in Australia remains limited despite significant evidence supporting the benefits of comprehensive geriatric assessment, screening, and intervention for older adults with cancer. Multimorbidity and geriatric syndromes are highly prevalent among this population, and supportive services beyond cancer-specific diagnosis and treatment are critical to providing optimal cancer care. Innovative models are crucial to address this growing healthcare demand and disparities in cancer care for older people. Aim To implement and evaluate a nurse-led model of care for screening and assessing geriatric needs in older adults with lung cancer. Description A nurse-led geriatric oncology model of care was co-designed with key stakeholders including consumers. The model of care involved a nurse using validated tools to screen and assess all new patients with lung cancer aged 65+ or 50+ for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Patients were subsequently discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting with clinicians and allied health. Specific triggers identified patients needing a comprehensive geriatric assessment. Results Over six months, 58 patients were assessed by the nurse. The median age was 73 (range 65-86). 82% were seen prior to their first oncology treatment. All patients were discussed at the multidisciplinary team meeting. The most frequently reported issues were polypharmacy (45%), anxiety/depression (28%), mobility (19%), and cognition (19%). 88% of patients were referred to allied health and 33% referred for comprehensive geriatric assessment. 10% were referred to a geriatrician via their general practitioner. All patients received a follow up phone call within 4-6 weeks. Conclusion Innovative nurse-led models improve access to services for older people with cancer. This intervention provides workflow processes for delivering screening and assessment of geriatric syndromes which can be tailored to individual health services worldwide. Enabling this clear pathway of care, referrals and follow ups are increased. Ongoing evaluations focus on accessibility, feasibility and scalability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospital-to-home transitions become more frequent and complex as people approach end of life. Although carers are critical to enabling these transitions, they report high levels of unmet need. A review of the interventions to assist these care transitions, along with understanding those intervention components and mechanisms that support carers of people with advanced illness, is required to inform an optimal care model for palliative care practice. Aim: To describe the characteristics and reporting quality of intervention studies aimed at improving hospital-to-home transitions for carers of people with advanced illness. Design: This is a systematic review with a narrative synthesis. (international prospective register of systematic reviews [PROSPERO] ID: CRD42020192088). Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMCare, and PsychINFO databases were searched (2000–2021) for prospective studies reporting on interventions that (1) aimed to improve hospital-to-home transitions and (2) targeted carers of people with advanced illness. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and constructs of the Care Transition Framework were used to assess the reporting quality of intervention design, delivery, and outcomes. Results: In total, 37 articles were analyzed that included a range of study designs, interventions, and outcomes. Health care utilization (n = 29) and clinical patient-related (n = 21) measures were the most reported outcome. Theoretical discussion was minimal (n = 5) with most studies using efficacy data from past research to justify intervention choice. Conclusion: Carers are critical partners in hospital-to-home transitions at end of life; yet they are largely under-represented in intervention design, delivery, and outcomes. Improving the reporting quality of carer-focused care transition interventions will inform future study design and support translation into practice and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Chronic breathlessness is common in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Regular, low-dose, extended-release morphine may relieve breathlessness, but evidence about its efficacy and dosing is needed.Objective: To determine the effect of different doses of extended-release morphine on worst breathlessness in people with COPD after 1 week of treatment.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial including people with COPD and chronic breathlessness (defined as a modified Medical Research Council score of 3 to 4) conducted at 20 centers in Australia. People were enrolled between September 1, 2016, and November 20, 2019, and followed up through December 26, 2019.Interventions: People were randomized 1:1:1 to 8 mg/d or 16 mg/d of oral extended-release morphine or placebo during week 1. At the start of weeks 2 and 3, people were randomized 1:1 to 8 mg/d of extended-release morphine, which was added to the prior week's dose, or placebo.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in the intensity of worst breathlessness on a numerical rating scale (score range, 0 [none] to 10 [being worst or most intense]) using the mean score at baseline (from days -3 to -1) to the mean score after week 1 of treatment (from days 5 to 7) in the 8 mg/d and 16 mg/d of extended-release morphine groups vs the placebo group. Secondary outcomes included change in daily step count measured using an actigraphy device from baseline (day -1) to the mean step count from week 3 (from days 19 to 21).Results: Among the 160 people randomized, 156 were included in the primary analyses (median age, 72 years [IQR, 67 to 78 years]; 48% were women) and 138 (88%) completed treatment at week 1 (48 in the 8 mg/d of morphine group, 43 in the 16 mg/d of morphine group, and 47 in the placebo group). The change in the intensity of worst breathlessness at week 1 was not significantly different between the 8 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -0.3 [95% CI, -0.9 to 0.4]) or between the 16 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -0.3 [95%, CI, -1.0 to 0.4]). At week 3, the secondary outcome of change in mean daily step count was not significantly different between the 8 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1453 [95% CI, -3310 to 405]), between the 16 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1312 [95% CI, -3220 to 596]), between the 24 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -692 [95% CI, -2553 to 1170]), or between the 32 mg/d of morphine group and the placebo group (mean difference, -1924 [95% CI, -47 699 to 921]).Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD and severe chronic breathlessness, daily low-dose, extended-release morphine did not significantly reduce the intensity of worst breathlessness after 1 week of treatment. These findings do not support the use of these doses of extended-release morphine to relieve breathlessness.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02720822. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To ascertain palliative physicians' and consultation-liaison psychiatrists' perceptions of depression care processes in patients with very poor prognoses, exploring key challenges and postulating solutions. Methods: A qualitative focus group study involving three 1-h online focus groups (2 palliative medicine and 1 psychiatry) were conducted between November-December 2020. Fellows and trainees were recruited from Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine (n = 11) and Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (n = 4). Data underwent conventional qualitative content analysis. Results: Participants perceived depression care to be complex and challenging. Perceived barriers included: inadequate palliative care psychiatry skills with variation in clinical approaches; lack of supportive health infrastructure (poor access to required interventions and suboptimal linkage between palliative care and psychiatry); lack of research support; and societal stigma. Suggested solutions included integrating care processes between palliative care and psychiatry to improve clinician training, establish supportive health systems and promote innovative research designs. Conclusions: Developing clinician training, supportive health systems and innovative research strategies centering on integrating palliative care and psychiatry care processes may be integral to optimising depression care when providing care to people with very poor prognoses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]