Why is the Liverpool care pathway used for some dying cancer patients and not others? Healthcare professionals’ perspectives

Background: Despite evidence suggesting that the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient is a structured and proficient means of supporting care delivery in the last hours or days of life, discrepancies in uptake are widespread. This exploratory study sought to understand why patients dying of cancer in oncology wards of one hospital trust were, or were not, supported by the LCP. A purposive qualitative case study design was used; each case represented a patient who had died and their most involved nurse and doctor. In-depth interviews explored both recollections of the ‘case’ and wider experiences of using the Pathway in end-of-life care. Eleven healthcare professionals were interviewed about their involvement in the end-of-life care of six patients. For four of these patients care was supported by the LCP. Findings: Although doctors and nurses reported they preferred to use the Pathway to ensure comfortable death, an important factor influencing their decisions was time of death. Access to timely senior review was regarded as an essential preliminary to placing patients on the Pathway but delayed access ‘out of hours’ was commonly experienced and tensions arose from balancing conflicting priorities. Consequently, the needs of dying patients sometimes failed to compete with those receiving curative treatment. Conclusions: This study suggests that greater attention should be focused on ‘out of hours’ care in hospitals to ensure regular senior review of all patients at risk of dying and to support front line staff to communicate effectively and make contingency plans focused on patients’ best interests

Methylphenidate Versus Placebo for Treating Fatigue in Patients With Advanced Cancer: Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Trial

PURPOSE: To compare effects and side effects of 6 weeks of individually dose-titrated methylphenidate or placebo on fatigue in palliative care patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Eligible patients had advanced incurable cancer and fatigue >3/10. Principal exclusions were hypertension; psychiatric, cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, renal, liver, or blood disorders; substance dependency; and epilepsy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 methylphenidate or placebo starting at 5 mg twice daily. Dose of methylphenidate/placebo was titrated once per week, over 6 weeks, up to a maximum of 20 mg three times daily. Trial ended at 10 weeks. Primary outcome was the difference in Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue (FACIT-F) scores between groups at 6 ± 2 weeks. Secondary outcomes included adverse effects, quality of life, and mood. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients (73 men; mean, 65.8; standard deviation [SD], 10.3 years) were randomly assigned, and three were excluded from analysis. Seventy-seven were allocated placebo (baseline FACIT-F = 22 [SD, 10]); 82 were allocated methylphenidate (FACIT-F = 20 [SD, 9]). After 6 ± 2 weeks, FACIT-F scores were 1.97 points (95% CI, -0.95 to 4.90; P = .186) higher (better) on methylphenidate than placebo. Across 10 weeks of the study, FACIT-F was nominally higher in the methylphenidate group versus placebo (Diff, 2.20 [95% CI, 0.39 to 4.01]), but this did not reach the minimally clinically important difference (5-points). At 6 weeks, there were no differences between groups in quality-of-life or symptom domains except for depression scores (nominally reduced in the methylphenidate group: Diff, -1.35 [95% CI, -2.41 to -0.30]). There were no differences in mortality or serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: After 6 ± 2 weeks of treatment, methylphenidate was not superior to placebo for treating fatigue in advanced cancer. Methylphenidate was safe and well-tolerated

Lung cancer diagnosed following an emergency admission: mixed methods study of the management, outcomes and needs and experiences of patients and carers

Background In the UK, although 40% of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed following an emergency admission (EA), data is limited on their needs and experiences as they progress through diagnostic and treatment pathways. Methods Prospective data collection using medical records, questionnaires and in-depth interviews. Multivariate logistic regression explored associations between diagnosis following EA and aspects of interest. Questionnaire responses with 95% confidence intervals were compared with local and national datasets. A grounded theory approach identified patient and carer themes. Results Of 401 patients, 154 (38%) were diagnosed following EA; 37 patients and six carers completed questionnaires and 13 patients and 10 carers were interviewed. Compared to those diagnosed electively, EA patients adjusted results found no difference in treatment recommendation, treatment intent or place of death. Time to diagnosis, review, or treatment was 7–14 days quicker but fewer EA patients had a lung cancer nurse present at diagnosis (37% vs. 62%). Palliative care needs were high (median [IQR] 21 [13–25] distressing or bothersome symptoms/issues) and various information and support needs unmet. Interviews highlighted in particular, perceived delays in obtaining investigations/specialist referral and factors influencing success or failure of the cough campaign. Conclusions Presentation as an EA does not appear to confer any inherent disadvantage regarding progress through lung cancer diagnostic and treatment pathways. However, given the frequent combination of advanced disease, poor performance status and prognosis, together with the high level of need and reported short-fall in care, we suggest that a specialist palliative care assessment is routinely offered

Lung cancer diagnosed following emergency admission: a mixed methods study protocol to improve understanding of patients’ characteristics, needs, experiences and outcomes

Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer in England. About 40% of patients with lung cancer are diagnosed following an emergency admission (DFEA) to hospital. DFEA is more common in women, and more likely with increasing age and deprivation. Most have advanced disease and survival is poor, but little else is known about this group. The aim of this study is to obtain a detailed understanding of the characteristics, needs, experiences and outcomes of this group. Methods/Design This is a single centre study with quantitative and qualitative work packages (WP). WP1 gathers basic details about all patients diagnosed with lung cancer during a 12 month period, focusing on demographics, diagnostic and treatment pathways and selected outcomes. WP2 obtains information from those patients DFEA or, when unable, their carers, about their holistic needs and experiences, using the Sheffield Profile for Assessment and Referral to Care questionnaire and selected questions from the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. WP3 uses in-depth qualitative interviews with patients and carers to obtain detailed accounts of their symptoms, help-seeking behaviours prior to admission and subsequent experiences of care. Discussion Relatively little is known about the experiences of lung cancer patients DFEA and this study will provide detailed information about their needs, characteristics, experiences and outcomes. It should identify areas in the diagnostic and treatment pathway where there is scope to improve the care provided to this group of patients and their carers. The findings will also inform the need for further focused research

Lung cancer diagnosed following an emergency admission: exploring patient and carer perspectives on delay in seeking help

Purpose Compared to others, patients diagnosed with lung cancer following an emergency, unplanned admission to hospital (DFEA) have more advanced disease and poorer prognosis. Little is known about DFEA patients’ beliefs about cancer and its symptoms or about their help-seeking behaviours prior to admission. Methods As part of a larger single-centre, prospective mixed-methods study conducted in one University hospital, we undertook qualitative interviews with patients DFEA and their carers to obtain their understanding of symptoms and experiences of trying to access healthcare services before admission to hospital. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Framework analysis was employed. Results Thirteen patients and 10 carers plus 3 bereaved carers took part in interviews. Three patient/carer dyads were interviewed together. Participants spoke about their symptoms and why they did not seek help sooner. They described complex and nuanced experiences. Some (n = 12) had what they recalled as the wrong symptoms for lung cancer and attributed them either to a pre-existing condition or to ageing. In other cases (n = 9), patients or carers realised with hindsight that their symptoms were signs of lung cancer, but at the time had made other attributions to account for them. In some cases (n = 3), a sudden onset of symptoms was reported. Some GPs (n = 6) were also reported to have made incorrect attributions about cause. Conclusion Late diagnosis meant that patients DFEA needed palliative support sooner after diagnosis than patients not DFEA. Professionals and lay people interpret health and illness experiences differently

SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 is associated with greater disease severity among hospitalised women but not men: multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 has been associated with an increased rate of transmission and disease severity among subjects testing positive in the community. Its impact on hospitalised patients is less well documented. METHODS: We collected viral sequences and clinical data of patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 and hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs), sampled 16 November 2020 to 10 January 2021, from eight hospitals participating in the COG-UK-HOCI study. Associations between the variant and the outcomes of all-cause mortality and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission were evaluated using mixed effects Cox models adjusted by age, sex, comorbidities, care home residence, pregnancy and ethnicity. FINDINGS: Sequences were obtained from 2341 inpatients (HOCI cases=786) and analysis of clinical outcomes was carried out in 2147 inpatients with all data available. The HR for mortality of B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages was 1.01 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.28, p=0.94) and for ITU admission was 1.01 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.37, p=0.96). Analysis of sex-specific effects of B.1.1.7 identified increased risk of mortality (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.78, p=0.096) and ITU admission (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90, p=0.011) in females infected with the variant but not males (mortality HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10, p=0.177; ITU HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, p=0.086). INTERPRETATION: In common with smaller studies of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2, we did not find an overall increase in mortality or ITU admission associated with B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages. However, women with B.1.1.7 may be at an increased risk of admission to intensive care and at modestly increased risk of mortality.This report was produced by members of the COG-UK-HOCI Variant substudy consortium. COG-UK-HOCI is part of COG-UK. COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute

Physiotherapy Rehabilitation Post First Lumbar Discectomy A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Study Design. Systematic review and meta-analysis.Objective. To evaluate effectiveness of physiotherapy intervention in patients post first lumbar discectomy on clinically relevant outcomes short (3 months) and longer term (12 months).Summary of Background Data. Physiotherapy intervention is recommended post discectomy, although the most beneficial intervention and the effectiveness of physiotherapy management is unclear.Methods. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in English before December 31, 2009 investigating physiotherapy outpatient management of patients (>16 years), post first single level lumbar discectomy were included. Measurements reported on >= 1 outcome of disability, function, and health were included. Two reviewers independently searched information sources, assessed studies for inclusion, and evaluated risk of bias. Quantitative synthesis was conducted on comparable outcomes across studies with similar interventions and no clearly identified overall risk of bias.Results. Sixteen RCTs (1336 participants) from 11 countries were included. Interventions were categorized as intervention versus control/sham, and less versus more intensive comparisons. Eight of 16 trials were evaluated as high risk of bias, 7 as unclear and 1 as low. Six hundred and thirty-five participants were incorporated in the meta-analysis on eight trials. Although evidence from two trials suggested that intervention might reduce disability short-term, and more intensive intervention may be more beneficial than less intensive, the pooled effects (-0.89, 95% CI -1.84 to 0.06 for intervention vs. control/sham; -0.27, 95% CI -0.80 to 0.25 for more vs. less intensive) did not show statistically significant effects. There was no evidence that intervention changes range of movement flexion (ROM) or overall impairment short term, or disability or back pain longer term. There was no evidence that intensity of intervention affects back pain short or longer term, ROM short term, or patients' satisfaction with outcome longer term. Substantial heterogeneity was evident.Conclusion. Inconclusive evidence exists for the effectiveness of outpatient physiotherapy post first lumbar discectomy. Best practice remains unclear

Clinical trials update from the American College of Cardiology Meeting 2011: STICH, NorthStar, TARGET, and EVEREST II

This article provides information and a commentary on key trials relevant to the pathophysiology, prevention, and treatment of heart failure (HF) presented at the annual American College of Cardiology meeting held in New Orleans in 2011. Unpublished reports should be considered as preliminary, since analyses may change in the final publication. The STICH trial failed to show a benefit of revascularization on all-cause mortality in patients with HF and coronary artery disease; however, cardiovascular deaths were reduced compared with medical therapy alone. Results from the NorthStar study suggest that patients with clinically stable systolic HF, who are on optimal medical therapy, including those with elevated amino-terminal B-type natriuretic peptide levels, may not benefit from long-term follow-up in an HF clinic. Results from the TARGET study demonstrate that targeted left ventricular lead placement using speckle tracking echocardiography is feasible in patients undergoing implantation of a cardiac resynchronization therapy device and is associated with an enhanced response. Two-year follow-up data from EVEREST II show that although a catheter-based mitral valve repair procedure using the MitraClip ® system was less effective at reducing mitral regurgitation than conventional surgery, similar improvements in clinical outcomes were observed with fewer short-term adverse events