Delirium management by palliative medicine specialists: a survey from the association for palliative medicine of Great Britain and Ireland

Objectives Delirium is common in palliative care settings. Management includes detection, treatment of cause(s), non-pharmacological interventions and family support; strategies which are supported with varying levels of evidence. Emerging evidence suggests that antipsychotic use should be minimised in managing mild to moderate severity delirium, but the integration of this evidence into clinical practice is unknown.Methods A 21-question online anonymous survey was emailed to Association for Palliative Medicine members in current clinical practice (n=859), asking about delirium assessment, management and research priorities.Results Response rate was 39%: 70% of respondents were palliative medicine consultants. Delirium guidelines were used by some: 42% used local guidelines but 38% used none. On inpatient admission, 59% never use a delirium screening tool. Respondents would use non-pharmacological interventions to manage delirium, either alone (39%) or with an antipsychotic (58%). Most respondents (91%) would prescribe an antipsychotic and 6% a benzodiazepine, for distressing hallucinations unresponsive to non-pharmacological measures. Inpatient (57%) and community teams (60%) do not formally support family carers. Research priorities were delirium prevention, management and prediction of reversibility.Conclusion This survey of UK and Irish Palliative Medicine specialists shows that delirium screening at inpatient admission is suboptimal. Most specialists continue to use antipsychotics in combination with non-pharmacological interventions to manage delirium. More support for family carers should be routinely provided by clinical teams. Further rigorously designed clinical trials are urgently needed in view of management variability, emerging evidence and perceived priorities for research

Over a third of palliative medicine physicians meet burnout criteria: Results from a survey study during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Palliative medicine physicians may be at higher risk of burnout due to increased stressors and compromised resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Burnout prevalence and factors influencing this among UK and Irish palliative medicine physicians is unknown. Aim: To determine the prevalence of burnout and the degree of resilience among UK and Irish palliative medicine physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated factors. Design: Online survey using validated assessment scales assessed burnout and resilience: The Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey for Medical Personnel [MBI-HSS (MP)] and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Additional tools assessed depressive symptoms, alcohol use, and quality of life. Setting/participants: Association of Palliative Medicine of UK and Ireland members actively practising in hospital, hospice or community settings. Results: There were 544 respondents from the 815 eligible participants (66.8%), 462 provided complete MBI-HSS (MP) data and were analysed. Of those 181/462 (39.2%) met burnout criteria, based on high emotional exhaustion or depersonalisation subscales of the MBI-HSS (MP). A reduced odds of burnout was observed among physicians who worked ⩽20 h/week (vs 31–40 h/week, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.002–0.56) and who had a greater perceived level of clinical support (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62–0.80). Physicians with higher levels of depressive symptoms had higher odds of burnout (aOR 18.32, 95% CI 6.75–49.73). Resilience, mean (SD) CD-RISC score, was lower in physicians who met burnout criteria compared to those who did not (62.6 (11.1) vs 70.0 (11.3); p < 0.001). Conclusions: Over one-third of palliative medicine physicians meet burnout criteria. The provision of enhanced organisational and colleague support is paramount in both the current and future pandemics

Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews

Abstract Authors of Cochrane reviews are expected to update their reviews every 2 years. The updating process helps to ensure that reviews are current and include recent evidence. However, the updating process is time-consuming for authors, particularly when Cochrane methods evolve and authors are required to revisit some of the originally included studies. The Cochrane Collaboration's ‘Risk of bias’ tool is a mandatory component of Cochrane reviews, providing an assessment of the potential biases of included studies. The tool has been modified most recently in 2011, and the expectation is that new versions will continue to be produced and utilised in all Cochrane reviews. In this commentary we discuss, in the context of updating scenarios that are likely to be encountered, the potential options systematic review authors may have recourse to when the Cochrane Collaboration's ‘Risk of bias’ tool has been modified between the original review and its update. We recommend that authors who are updating reviews should revise their original assessments of included studies using the most recent version of the risk of bias tool. Despite the increased workload, use of the most recent version of the tool facilitates consistency of methods and reporting both across and within reviews, and ensures currency to the methodological rigour

Diagnosing multibacillary leprosy: A comparative evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of slit-skin smear, bacterial index of granuloma and WHO operational classification

Background: In view of the relatively poor performance of skin smears WHO adopted a purely clinical operational classification, however the poor specificity of operational classification leads to overdiagnosis and unwarranted overtreatment while the poor sensitivity leads to underdiagnosis of multibacillary (MB) cases with inadequate treatment. Bacilli are more frequently and abundantly demonstrated in tissue sections. Aims and Methods: We compared WHO classification, slit-skin smears (SSS) and demonstration of bacilli in biopsies (bacterial index of granuloma or BIG) with regards to their efficacy in correctly identifying multibacillary cases. The tests were done on 141 patients and were evaluated for their ability to diagnose true MB leprosy using detailed statistical analysis. Results: A total of 76 patients were truly MB with either positive smears, BIG positivity or with a typical histology of BB, BL or LL. Amongst these 76 true-MB patients, WHO operational classification correctly identified multibacillary status in 56 (73.68%), and SSS in 43 (56.58%), while BIG correctly identified 65 (85.53%) true-MB cases. Conclusion: BIG was most sensitive and effective of the three methods especially in paucilesional patients. We suggest adding estimation of bacterial index of granuloma in the diagnostic workup of paucilesional patients

Implementation of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (palliative version) on an inpatient palliative care unit

Abstract Background The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale – Palliative version (RASS-PAL) tool is a brief observational tool to quantify a patient’s level of agitation or sedation. The objective of this study was to implement the RASS-PAL tool on an inpatient palliative care unit and evaluate the implementation process. Methods Quality improvement implementation project using a short online RASS-PAL self-learning module and point-of-care tool. Participants were staff working on a 31-bed inpatient palliative care unit who completed the RASS-PAL self-learning module and online evaluation survey. Results The self-learning module was completed by 49/50 (98%) of regular palliative care unit staff (nurses, physicians, allied health, and other palliative care unit staff). The completion rate of the self-learning module by both regular and casual palliative care unit staff was 63/77 (82%). The follow-up online evaluation survey was completed by 23/50 (46%) of respondents who regularly worked on the palliative care unit. Respondents agreed (14/26; 54%) or strongly agreed (10/26; 38%) that the self-learning module was implemented successfully, with 100% agreement that it was effective for their educational needs. Conclusion Using an online self-learning module is an effective method to engage and educate interprofessional staff on the RASS-PAL tool as part of an implementation strategy

Managing the incidence of selective reporting bias: a survey of Cochrane review groups

Background: Selective reporting bias (SRB), the incomplete publication of outcomes measured or of analyses performed in a study, may lead to the over- or underestimation of treatment effects or harms. Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions are required to assess the risk of SRB, achieved in part by applying the Cochrane risk of bias tool to each included randomised trial. The Cochrane Handbook outlines strategies for a comprehensive risk of bias assessment, but the extent to which these are followed by Cochrane review groups (CRGs) has not been assessed to date. The objective of this study was to determine the methods which CRGs require of their authors to address SRB within systematic reviews, and how SRB risk assessments are verified. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was developed and distributed electronically to the 52 CRGs involved in intervention reviews. Results: Responses from 42 CRGs show that the majority refer their authors to the Cochrane Handbook for specific instruction regarding assessments of SRB. The handbook strategies remain variably enforced, with 57 % (24/42) of CRGs not requiring review authors to search for included trial protocols and 31 % (13/42) not requiring that contact with individual study authors be attempted. Only half (48 %, 20/42) of the groups consistently verify review authors’ assessments of the risk of SRB to ensure completeness. Conclusions: A range of practices are used by CRGs for addressing SRB, with many steps outlined in the Cochrane Handbook being encouraged but not required. The majority of CRGs do not consider their review authors to be sufficiently competent to assess for SRB, yet risk of bias assessments are not always verified by editors before publication. The implications of SRB may not be fully appreciated by all CRGs, and resolving the identified issues may require an approach targeting several steps in the systematic review process.Medicine, Faculty ofOther UBCReviewedFacult

Building a Medical Undergraduate Palliative Care Curriculum: Lessons Learned

Previous literature demonstrates that current palliative care training is in need of improvement for medical students in global, European and Canadian contexts. The training of medical undergraduates is key to ensure that the ongoing and increasing need for enhanced access to palliative care across all settings and communities is met. We describe building a comprehensive palliative and end-of-life care curriculum for medical undergraduates at our university. As with recent European and US studies, we found that the process of university curriculum renewal provided a critical opportunity to integrate palliative care content, but needed a local palliative care champion already in place as an energetic and tireless advocate. The development and integration of a substantive bilingual (English and French) palliative and end-of-life care curriculum over the 4-year medical undergraduate program at our university has occurred over the course of 14 years, and required multiple steps and initiatives. Subsequent to the development of the curriculum, there has been a 13-fold increase in students selecting our palliative care clinical rotations. Critical lessons learned speak to the importance of having a team vision, interprofessional collaboration with a focus on vision, plans and implementation, and flexibility to actively respond and further integrate new educational opportunities within the curriculum. Future directions for ou