Mucormycosis in Australia: Contemporary epidemiology and outcomes

Mucormycosis is the second most common cause of invasive mould infection and causes disease in diverse hosts, including those who are immuno-competent. We conducted a multicentre retrospective study of proven and probable cases of mucormycosis diagnosed between 2004–2012 to determine the epidemiology and outcome determinants in Australia. Seventy-four cases were identified (63 proven, 11 probable). The majority (54.1%) were caused by Rhizopus spp. Patients who sustained trauma were more likely to have non-Rhizopus infections relative to patients without trauma (OR 9.0, p 0.001, 95% CI 2.1–42.8). Haematological malignancy (48.6%), chemotherapy (42.9%), corticosteroids (52.7%), diabetes mellitus (27%) and trauma (22.9%) were the most common co-morbidities or risk factors. Rheumatological/autoimmune disorders occurred in nine (12.1%) instances. Eight (10.8%) cases had no underlying co-morbidity and were more likely to have associated trauma (7/8; 87.5% versus 10/66; 15.2%; p <0.001). Disseminated infection was common (39.2%). Apophysomyces spp. and Saksenaea spp. caused infection in immuno-competent hosts, most frequently associated with trauma and affected sites other than lung and sinuses. The 180-day mortality was 56.7%. The strongest predictors of mortality were rheumatological/autoimmune disorder (OR = 24.0, p 0.038 95% CI 1.2–481.4), haematological malignancy (OR = 7.7, p 0.001, 95% CI 2.3–25.2) and admission to intensive care unit (OR = 4.2, p 0.02, 95% CI 1.3–13.8). Most deaths occurred within one month. Thereafter we observed divergence in survival between the haematological and non-haematological populations (p 0.006). The mortality of mucormycosis remains particularly high in the immuno-compromised host. Underlying rheumatological/autoimmune disorders are a previously under-appreciated risk for infection and poor outcome

Learning from the public:citizens describe the need to improve end-of-life care access, provision and recognition across Europe

Background: Despite ageing populations and increasing cancer deaths, many European countries lack national policies regarding palliative and end-of-life care. The aim of our research was to determine public views regarding end-of-life care in the face of serious illness. Methods: Implementation of a pan-European population-based survey with adults in England, Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Three stages of analysis were completed on open-ended question data: (i) inductive analysis to determine a category-code framework; (ii) country-level manifest deductive content analysis; and (iii) thematic analysis to identify cross-country prominent themes. Results: Of the 9344 respondents, 1543 (17%) answered the open-ended question. Two prominent themes were revealed: (i) a need for improved quality of end-of-life and palliative care, and access to this care for patients and families and (ii) the recognition of the importance of death and dying, the cessation of treatments to extend life unnecessarily and the need for holistic care to include comfort and support. Conclusions: Within Europe, the public recognizes the importance of death and dying; they are concerned about the prioritization of quantity of life over quality of life; and they call for improved quality of end-of-life and palliative care for patients, especially for elderly patients, and families. To fulfil the urgent need for a policy response and to advance research and care, we suggest four solutions for European palliative and end-of-life care: institute government-led national strategies; protect regional research funding; consider within-and between-country variance; establish standards for training, education and service delivery

'Burden to others' as a public concern in advanced cancer:a comparative survey in seven European countries

Background: Europe faces an enormous public health challenge with aging populations and rising cancer incidence. Little is known about what concerns the public across European countries regarding cancer care towards the end of life. We aimed to compare the level of public concern with different symptoms and problems in advanced cancer across Europe and examine factors influencing this. Methods: Telephone survey with 9,344 individuals aged >= 16 in England, Flanders, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. Participants were asked about nine symptoms and problems, imagining a situation of advanced cancer with less than one year to live. These were ranked and the three top concerns examined in detail. As 'burden to others' showed most variation within and between countries, we determined the relative influence of factors on this concern using GEE and logistic regression. Results: Overall response rate was 21%. Pain was the top concern in all countries, from 34% participants (Italy) to 49% (Flanders). Burden was second in England, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and Spain. Breathlessness was second in Flanders and the Netherlands. Concern with burden was independently associated with age (70+ years, OR 1.50; 95%CI 1.24-1.82), living alone (OR 0.82, 95%CI 0.73-0.93) and preferring quality rather than quantity of life (OR 1.43, 95%CI 1.14-1.80). Conclusions: When imagining a last year of life with cancer, the public is not only concerned about medical problems but also about being a burden. Public education about palliative care and symptom control is needed. Cancer care should include a routine assessment and management of social concerns, particularly for older patients with poor prognosis

Improving primary palliative care in Scotland:lessons from a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Since 2012, all GP practices across Scotland have been supported to take a systematic approach to end-of-life care, by helping them to identify more patients for palliative care through a Palliative Care Directed Enhanced Service (DES). We aimed to understand the impact of this initiative. METHODS: Routine quantitative data from the 2012/13, and 2013/14 DES were collected from regional health boards, analysed and discussed. Qualitative data were collected from a sample of 2012/13 DES returns and analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: Data were received from 512 practices in nine Scottish Health boards for the 2012-13 DES and 638 practices in 11 Health boards for 2013-14. A sample of 90 of the returns for 2012-13 was selected for qualitative analysis. In 2012-13, 72 % of patients who died of cancer were listed on the palliative care register (PCR) before death while 27 % of patients who died as a result of non-malignant conditions were listed on the PCR. In 2013-14, cancer identification remained the same but identification of people dying with other long-term conditions had improved to 32.5 %. We identified several key issues needed to improve palliative care in the community. The need for training to identify patients with palliative care needs (particularly non-cancer); communication skills training; improvements in sharing information across the NHS; under-resource of and lack of coordination with district nurses; improvements in information technology; and tools for working with enlarged palliative care registers. CONCLUSIONS: The DES helped more patients with long-term conditions (LTC) receive generalist palliative care. Approaching generalist palliative care as anticipatory care could facilitate communication between GPs and patients/families and remove some barriers to early identification of palliative care needs. Improvement of information technology and use of identification tools like the SPICT™ may improve professionals’ communication with each other and help may make identification and management of patients easier. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0391-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Public preferences and priorities for end-of-life care in Kenya:a population-based street survey

BACKGROUND: End-of-life care needs are great in Africa due to the burden of disease. This study aimed to explore public preferences and priorities for end-of-life care in Nairobi, Kenya. METHODS: Population-based street survey of Kenyans aged ≥18; researchers approached every 10th person, alternating men and women. Structured interviews investigated quality vs. quantity of life, care priorities, preferences for information, decision-making, place of death (most and least favourite) and focus of care in a hypothetical scenario of serious illness with <1 year to live. Descriptive analysis examined variations. RESULTS: 201 individuals were interviewed (100 women) representing 17 tribes (n = 90 44.8%, Kikuyu). 56.7% (n = 114) said they would always like to be told if they had limited time left. The majority (n = 121, 61.4%) preferred quality of life over quantity i.e. extending life (n = 47, 23.9%). Keeping a positive attitude and ensuring relatives/friends were not worried were prioritised above having pain/discomfort relieved. The three most concerning problems were pain (45.8%), family burden (34.8%) and personal psychological distress (29.8%). Home was both the most (51.1% n = 98) and least (23.7% n = 44) preferred place of death. CONCLUSION: This first population-based survey on preferences and priorities for end-of-life care in Africa revealed that psycho-social domains were of greatest importance to the public, but also identified variations that require further exploration. If citizens’ preferences and priorities are to be met, the development of end-of-life care services to deliver preferences in Kenya should ensure an holistic model of palliative care responsive to individual preferences across care settings including at home

Recommendations to reduce inequalities for LGBT people facing advanced illness : ACCESSCare national qualitative interview study

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans (LGBT) people have higher risk of certain life-limiting illnesses and unmet needs in advanced illness and bereavement. ACCESSCare is the first national study to examine in depth the experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness. AIM: To explore health-care experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness to elicit views regarding sharing identity (sexual orientation/gender history), accessing services, discrimination/exclusion and best-practice examples. DESIGN: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In total, 40 LGBT people from across the United Kingdom facing advanced illness: cancer ( n = 21), non-cancer ( n = 16) and both a cancer and a non-cancer conditions ( n = 3). RESULTS: In total, five main themes emerged: (1) person-centred care needs that may require additional/different consideration for LGBT people (including different social support structures and additional legal concerns), (2) service level or interactional (created in the consultation) barriers/stressors (including heteronormative assumptions and homophobic/transphobic behaviours), (3) invisible barriers/stressors (including the historical context of pathology/criminalisation, fears and experiences of discrimination) and (4) service level or interactional facilitators (including acknowledging and including partners in critical discussions). These all shape (5) individuals' preferences for disclosing identity. Prior experiences of discrimination or violence, in response to disclosure, were carried into future care interactions and heightened with the frailty of advanced illness. CONCLUSION: Despite recent legislative change, experiences of discrimination and exclusion in health care persist for LGBT people. Ten recommendations, for health-care professionals and services/institutions, are made from the data. These are simple, low cost and offer potential gains in access to, and outcomes of, care for LGBT people.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio