Impaired Orthostatic Blood Pressure Recovery is associated with Unexplained and Injurious Falls

Background/Objectives: Cardiovascular disorders are recognised as important modifiable risk factors for falls. However the association between falls and orthostatic hypotension (OH) remains ambivalent, particularly because of poor measurement methods of previous studies. Our goal was to determine for the first time to what extent OH (and variants) are risk factors for incident falls, unexplained falls (UF), injurious falls (IF) and syncope using dynamic blood pressure (BP) measurements in a population study. Design: Nationally Representative Longitudinal Cohort Study - The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA) – wave 1 (2009-2011) with 2 year follow-up at wave 2 (2012-2013). Setting: Community dwelling adults. Participants: 4127 participants were randomly sampled from the population of older adults aged ≥50 years resident in Ireland. Measurements: Continuous BP recordings measured during active stands were analysed. OH and variants (initial OH and impaired orthostatic BP stabilisation OH(40)) were defined using dynamic BP measurements. Associations with the number of falls, UF, IF and syncope reported two years later were assessed using negative binomial and modified Poisson regression. Results: Participants had a mean age 61.5(8.2) years (54.2% female). OH(40) was associated with increased relative risk of UF (RR:1.52 95%CI:1.03-2.26). OH was associated with all-cause falls (IRR:1.40 95%CI:1.01-1.96), UF(RR:1.81 95%CI:1.06-3.09), and IF(RR:1.58 95%CI:1.12-2.24). IOH was not associated with any outcome. Conclusion: With the exception of initial orthostatic hypotension, beat-to-beat measures of impaired orthostatic BP recovery (delayed or incomplete stabilisation) are independent risk factors for future falls, unexplained falls, and injurious falls

Inpatient hospice admissions. Who is admitted and why: a mixed-method prospective study

From SAGE Publishing via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2022-11-02, accepted 2023-06-01, epub 2023-07-10Peer reviewed: TruePublication status: PublishedErna Haraldsdottir - ORCID: 0000-0003-4891-0743 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4891-0743Background:: Over the next two decades, the numbers of people who will need palliative care in the United Kingdom and Ireland is projected to increase. Hospices play a vital role supporting people who require specialist palliative care input through community-based and inpatient palliative care services. Evidence is needed to understand the role of these different services to inform future service development. Objectives:: To describe the reasons for admission, and outcomes at the end of the stay, for patients admitted to two hospice inpatient units (IPUs). Design:: This was a mixed-methods study using a convergent, parallel mixed-methods design. Methods:: We reviewed the case notes of all patients admitted to two hospice inpatient units from July to November 2019; conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and families; as well as brief structured interviews with inpatient unit staff. Results:: Two hundred fifty-nine patients were admitted to a hospice IPU, accounting for 276 admissions in total. Overall, 53% were female; median age was 71 years (range: 26–95 years). Most patients (95%) were White British or Scottish, and 95% had a cancer diagnosis. Most patients were admitted from the community, under one-third were admitted from hospital. Most (85%) had previous palliative care involvement. Nearly, half had district nurse support (48%). Worry and anxiety was frequently reported as a reason for admission, alongside physical concerns. Median length of stay was 12 days, and 68% died during their stay. Hospice was recorded as the preferred place of care for 56% of those who died there. Conclusions:: Sustained efforts to promote the hospice as place of care for people with conditions other than cancer are needed alongside greater clarity regarding of the role of the hospice IPU, and who would benefit most from IPU support.pubpu

The 4AT, a rapid delirium detection tool, in hospice inpatient units:Findings from a validation study

Background: Delirium is a serious neuropsychiatric syndrome with adverse outcomes, which is common but often undiagnosed in terminally ill people. The 4 ‘A’s test or 4AT (www.the4AT.com), a brief delirium detection tool, is widely used in general settings, but validation studies in terminally ill people are lacking. Aim: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT in detecting delirium in terminally ill people, who are hospice inpatients.Design: A diagnostic test accuracy study in which participants underwent the 4AT and a reference standard based on the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The reference standard was informed by Delirium Rating Scale Revised-98 and tests assessing arousal and attention. Assessments were conducted in random order by pairs of independent raters, blinded to the results of the other assessment.Setting/participants: Two hospice inpatient units in Scotland, UK. Participants were 148 hospice inpatients aged ≥18. Results: 137/148 participants completed both assessments. Three participants had an indeterminate reference standard diagnosis and were excluded, yielding a final sample of 134. Mean age was 70.3 (SD 10.6) years. 33% (44/134) had reference standard delirium. The 4AT had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI 79-98%) and a specificity of 94% (95% CI 90-99%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-1).Conclusion: The results of this validation study support use of the 4AT as a delirium detection tool in hospice inpatients, and adds to the literature evaluating methods of delirium detection in palliative care settings.Trial registry: ISCRTN 97417474<br/

Changes in mortality patterns and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic:A descriptive analysis of mortality data across four nations

Background: Understanding patterns of mortality and place of death during the COVID-19 pandemic is important to help provide appropriate services and resources. Aims: To analyse patterns of mortality including place of death in the United Kingdom (UK) (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) during the COVID-19 pandemic to date. Design: Descriptive analysis of UK mortality data between March 2020 and March 2021. Weekly number of deaths was described by place of death, using the following definitions: (1) expected deaths: average expected deaths estimated using historical data (2015–19); (2) COVID-19 deaths: where COVID-19 is mentioned on the death certificate; (3) additional non-COVID-19 deaths: above expected but not attributed to COVID-19; (4) baseline deaths: up to and including expected deaths but excluding COVID-19 deaths. Results: During the analysis period, 798,643 deaths were registered in the UK, of which 147,282 were COVID-19 deaths and 17,672 were additional non-COVID-19 deaths. While numbers of people who died in care homes and hospitals increased above expected only during the pandemic waves, the numbers of people who died at home remained above expected both during and between the pandemic waves, with an overall increase of 41%. Conclusions: Where people died changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increase in deaths at home during and between pandemic waves. This has implications for planning and organisation of palliative care and community services. The extent to which these changes will persist longer term remains unclear. Further research could investigate whether this is reflected in other countries with high COVID-19 mortality

Drug therapy for delirium in terminally ill adults.

BACKGROUND:Delirium is a syndrome characterised by an acute disturbance of attention and awareness which develops over a short time period and fluctuates in severity over the course of the day. It is commonly experienced during inpatient admission in the terminal phase of illness. It can cause symptoms such as agitation and hallucinations and is distressing for terminally ill people, their families and staff. Delirium may arise from any number of causes and treatment should aim to address these causes. When this is not possible, or treatment is unsuccessful, drug therapy to manage the symptoms may become necessary. This is the second update of the review first published in 2004. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of drug therapies to manage delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. SEARCH METHODS:We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019, reference lists of retrieved papers, and online trial registries. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomised controlled trials of drug therapies in any dose by any route, compared to another drug therapy, a non-pharmacological approach, placebo, standard care or wait-list control, for the management of delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults (18 years or older). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were delirium symptoms; agitation score; adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: use of rescue medication; cognitive status; survival. We applied the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome and we include eight 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS:We included four studies (three new to this update), with 399 participants. Most participants had advanced cancer or advanced AIDS, and mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Meta-analysis was not possible because no two studies examined the same comparison. Each study was at high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most evidence was low to very low quality, downgraded due to very serious study limitations, imprecision or because there were so few data. Most studies reported delirium symptoms; two reported agitation scores; three reported adverse events with data on extrapyramidal effects; and none reported serious adverse events. 1. Haloperidol versus placebo There may be little to no difference between placebo and haloperidol in delirium symptoms within 24 hours (mean difference (MD) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.07 to 0.75; 133 participants). Haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo at 48 hours (MD 0.49, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol may reduce agitation slightly compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.14, 95% -0.28 to -0.00; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Haloperidol probably increases extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.79, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.41; 123 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 2. Haloperidol versus risperidone There may be little to no difference in delirium symptoms with haloperidol compared with risperidone within 24 hours (MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.06; 126 participants) or 48 hours (MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.20; 106 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 3. Haloperidol versus olanzapine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with olanzapine within 24 hours (MD 2.36, 95% CI -0.75 to 5.47; 28 participants) or 48 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI -1.50 to 5.30, 24 participants). Agitation scores and adverse events were not reported for this comparison. 4. Risperidone versus placebo Risperidone may slightly worsen delirium symptoms compared with placebo within 24 hours (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.22; 129 participants); and at 48 hours (MD 0.85, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.38; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). There may be little to no difference in agitation with risperidone compared with placebo between 24 and 48 hours (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). Risperidone may increase extrapyramidal adverse effects compared with placebo (MD 0.73 95% CI 0.09 to 1.37; 111 participants with mild- to moderate-severity delirium). 5. Lorazepam plus haloperidol versus placebo plus haloperidol We are uncertain whether lorazepam plus haloperidol compared with placebo plus haloperidol improves delirium symptoms within 24 hours (MD 2.10, 95% CI -1.00 to 5.20; 50 participants with moderate to severe delirium), reduces agitation within 24 hours (MD 1.90, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.80; 52 participants), or increases adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI -0.19 to 2.63; 31 participants with moderate to severe delirium). 6. Haloperidol versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 0.37, 95% CI -4.58 to 5.32; 24 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with chlorpromazine (MD 0.46, 95% CI -4.22 to 5.14; 24 participants). 7. Haloperidol versus lorazepam We are uncertain whether haloperidol reduces delirium symptoms compared with lorazepam at 48 hours (MD -4.88, 95% CI -9.70 to 0.06; 17 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. We are uncertain whether haloperidol increases adverse events compared with lorazepam (MD -6.66, 95% CI -14.85 to 1.53; 17 participants). 8. Lorazepam versus chlorpromazine We are uncertain whether lorazepam reduces delirium symptoms compared with chlorpromazine at 48 hours (MD 5.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 10.12; 19 participants), or increases adverse events (MD 7.12, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.32; 18 participants). Agitation scores were not reported. SECONDARY OUTCOMES:use of rescue medication, cognitive impairment, survival There were insufficient data to draw conclusions or assess GRADE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:We found no high-quality evidence to support or refute the use of drug therapy for delirium symptoms in terminally ill adults. We found low-quality evidence that risperidone or haloperidol may slightly worsen delirium symptoms of mild to moderate severity for terminally ill people compared with placebo. We found moderate- to low-quality evidence that haloperidol and risperidone may slightly increase extrapyramidal adverse events for people with mild- to moderate-severity delirium. Given the small number of studies and participants on which current evidence is based, further research is essential

How many people will need palliative care in Scotland by 2040? A mixed-method study of projected palliative care need and recommendations for service delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate future palliative care need and complexity of need in Scotland, and to identify priorities for future service delivery. DESIGN: We estimated the prevalence of palliative care need by analysing the proportion of deaths from defined chronic progressive illnesses. We described linear projections up to 2040 using national death registry data and official mortality forecasts. An expert consultation and subsequent online consensus survey generated recommendations on meeting future palliative care need. SETTING: Scotland, population of 5.4 million. PARTICIPANTS: All decedents in Scotland over 11 years (2007 to 2017). The consultation had 34 participants; 24 completed the consensus survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Estimates of past and future palliative care need in Scotland from 2007 up to 2040. Multimorbidity was operationalised as two or more registered causes of death from different disease groups (cancer, organ failure, dementia, other). Consultation and survey data were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: We project that by 2040, the number of people requiring palliative care will increase by at least 14%; and by 20% if we factor in multimorbidity. The number of people dying from multiple diseases associated with different disease groups is projected to increase from 27% of all deaths in 2017 to 43% by 2040. To address increased need and complexity, experts prioritised sustained investment in a national digital platform, roll-out of integrated electronic health and social care records; and approaches that remain person-centred. CONCLUSIONS: By 2040 more people in Scotland are projected to die with palliative care needs, and the complexity of need will increase markedly. Service delivery models must adapt to serve growing demand and complexity associated with dying from multiple diseases from different disease groups. We need sustained investment in secure, accessible, integrated and person-centred health and social care digital systems, to improve care coordination and optimise palliative care for people across care settings.Marie Curie small gran