Activities forgone because of chronic breathlessness: a cross-sectional, population prevalence study

BackgroundChronic breathlessness is a prevalent, disabling syndrome affecting many people for years. Identifying the impact of chronic breathlessness on people’s activities in the general population is pivotal for designing symptom management strategies. ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the association between chronic breathlessness and activities respondents identify can no longer be undertaken (‘activities foregone’). DesignThis population-based, cross sectional, online survey used a market research company’s database of 30,000 registrants for each sex, generating the planned sample size - 3,000 adults reflecting Australia’s 2016 Census by sex, age group, state of residence and rurality. Setting/Subjects The population of focus (n=583) reported a modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) breathlessness scale >1 and experienced this breathlessness for >3 months. MeasurementsActivities forgone were categorised by mMRC using coding derived from the Dyspnea Management Questionnaire domains. Activities were classified as ‘higher/lower intensity’ using Human Energy Expenditure scale.ResultsRespondents were: male 50.3%; median age 50.0 (IQR 29.0); with 66% living in metropolitan areas; reporting 1,749 activities forgone. For people with mMRC 1 (n=533), 35% had not given up any activity, decreasing to 9% for mMRC 2 (n=38) and 3% for mMRC 3-4 (n=12). Intense sport (e.g. jogging, bike riding) was the top activity forgone: 42% (mMRC 1); 32% (mMRC 2); and 36% (mMRC 3-4). For respondents with mMRC 3-4, the next most prevalent activities foregone were ‘sexual activities’ (14%); ‘lower intensity sports’ (11%) and ‘other activities’ (11%).ConclusionsPeople progressively reduce a wide range of activities because of their chronic breathlessness

Clinicians\u27 delirium treatment practice, practice change, and influences: A national online survey

Background: Recent studies cast doubt on the net effect of antipsychotics for delirium. Aim: To investigate the influence of these studies and other factors on clinicians’ delirium treatment practice and practice change in palliative care and other specialties using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Design: Australia-wide online survey of relevant clinicians. Setting/participants: Registered nurses (72%), doctors (16%), nurse practitioners (6%) and pharmacists (5%) who cared for patients with delirium in diverse settings, recruited through health professionals’ organisations. Results: Most of the sample (n=475): worked in geriatrics/aged (31%) or palliative care (30%); in hospitals (64%); and saw a new patient with delirium at least weekly (61%). More (59%) reported delirium practice change since 2016, mostly by increased non-pharmacological interventions (53%). Fifty-five percent reported current antipsychotic use for delirium, primarily for patient distress (79%) and unsafe behaviour (67%). Common Theoretical Domains Framework categories of influences on respondents’ delirium practice were: emotion (54%); knowledge (53%) and physical (43%) and social (21%) opportunities. Palliative care respondents more often reported: awareness of any named key study of antipsychotics for delirium (73% vs 39%, p\u3c0.001); decreased pharmacological interventions (60% vs 15%, p\u3c0.001); off-label medication use (86% vs 51%, p\u3c0.001); antipsychotics 79% vs 44%, p\u3c0.001); benzodiazepines 61% vs 26%, p\u3c0.001); and emotion as an influence (82% vs 39%, p\u3c0.001). Conclusion: Clinicians’ use of antipsychotic during delirium remains common and is primarily motivated by distress and safety concerns for the patient and others nearby. Supporting clinicians to achieve evidence-based delirium practice requires further work

Clinicians’ delirium treatment practice, practice change, and influences: A national online survey

Background: Recent studies cast doubt on the net effect of antipsychotics for delirium. Aim: To investigate the influence of these studies and other factors on clinicians’ delirium treatment practice and practice change in palliative care and other specialties using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Design: Australia-wide online survey of relevant clinicians. Setting/participants: Registered nurses (72%), doctors (16%), nurse practitioners (6%) and pharmacists (5%) who cared for patients with delirium in diverse settings, recruited through health professionals’ organisations. Results: Most of the sample (n = 475): worked in geriatrics/aged (31%) or palliative care (30%); in hospitals (64%); and saw a new patient with delirium at least weekly (61%). More (59%) reported delirium practice change since 2016, mostly by increased non-pharmacological interventions (53%). Fifty-five percent reported current antipsychotic use for delirium, primarily for patient distress (79%) and unsafe behaviour (67%). Common Theoretical Domains Framework categories of influences on respondents’ delirium practice were: emotion (54%); knowledge (53%) and physical (43%) and social (21%) opportunities. Palliative care respondents more often reported: awareness of any named key study of antipsychotics for delirium (73% vs 39%, p < 0.001); changed delirium treatment (73% vs 53%, p = 0.017); decreased pharmacological interventions (60% vs 15%, p < 0.001); off-label medication use (86% vs 51%, p < 0.001: antipsychotics 79% vs 44%, p < 0.001; benzodiazepines 61% vs 26%, p < 0.001) and emotion as an influence (82% vs 39%, p < 0.001). Conclusion: Clinicians’ use of antipsychotic during delirium remains common and is primarily motivated by distress and safety concerns for the patient and others nearby. Supporting clinicians to achieve evidence-based delirium practice requires further work.</p