Nurses' models of spiritual care: A cross-sectional survey of American nurses.

OBJECTIVES: Despite there being many models for how spiritual care should be provided, the way nurses actually provide spiritual care often differs from these models. Based on the premise that the way a person enacts their work role is related to how they understand that role, this study aims to describe the qualitatively different ways that nurses understand their spiritual care role. METHODS: A convenience sample of 66 American nurses completed an anonymous, online questionnaire about what spiritual care means for them and what they generally do to provide spiritual care. Their responses were analyzed phenomenographically. RESULTS: Four qualitatively different ways of understanding emerged: active management of the patient's experience, responsive facilitation of patient's wishes, accompaniment on the patient's dying journey, and empowering co-action with the patient. Each understanding was found to demonstrate a specific combination of 5 attributes that described the spiritual care role: nurse directivity, the cues used for spiritual assessment, and the nurse's perception of intimacy, the patient, and the task. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The findings of this study may explain why nurses vary in their spiritual care role and can be used to assess and develop competence in spiritual care.

Cost-effectiveness of clinical interventions for delirium: A systematic literature review of economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the economic value of clinical interventions for delirium. This review aims to synthesise and appraise available economic evidence, including resource use, costs, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for reducing, preventing, and treating delirium. METHODS: Systematic review of published and grey literature on full and partial economic evaluations. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). RESULTS: Fourteen economic evaluations (43% full, 57% partial) across nine multicomponent and nonpharmacological intervention types met inclusion criteria. The intervention costs ranged between US$386 and $553 per person in inpatient settings. Multicomponent delirium prevention intervention and the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) reported statistically significant cost savings or cost offsets somewhere else in the health system. Cost savings related to inpatient, outpatient, and out-of-pocket costs ranged between $194 and $6022 per person. The average CHEERS score was 74% (±SD 10%). CONCLUSION: Evidence on a joint distribution of costs and outcomes of delirium interventions was limited, varied and of generally low quality. Directed expansion of health economics towards the evaluation of delirium care is necessary to ensure effective implementation that meets patients' needs and is cost-effective in achieving similar or better outcomes for the same or lower cost.

'It's tough. It is hard': A qualitative interview study of staff and volunteers caring for hospice in-patients with delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a distressing condition often experienced by hospice in-patients. Increased understanding of current multidisciplinary care of delirium is needed to develop interventions in this setting. AIM(S): To explore hospice staff and volunteers' practice, its influences and what may need to change to improve hospice delirium care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using behaviour change theory from a critical realist stance. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven staff, including different professional groups and roles, and volunteers were purposively sampled from two in-patient hospices. RESULTS: We found that participants' practice focus was on managing hyperactive symptoms of delirium, through medication use and non-pharmacological strategies. Delirium prevention, early recognition and hypoactive delirium received less attention. Our theoretically-informed analysis identified this focus was influenced by staff and volunteers' emotional responses to the distress associated with hyperactive symptoms of delirium as well as understanding of delirium prevention, recognition and care, which varied between staff groups. Non-pharmacological delirium management was supported by adequate staffing levels, supportive team working and a culture of person-centred and family-centred care, although behaviours that disrupted the calm hospice environment challenged this. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can inform hospice-tailored behaviour change interventions that develop a shared team understanding and engage staff's emotional responses to improve delirium care. Reflective learning opportunities are needed that increase understanding of the potential to reduce patient distress through prevention and early recognition of delirium, as well as person-centred management. Organisational support for adequate, flexible staffing levels and supportive team working is required to support person-centred delirium care.

Prevalence and management of chronic nonmalignant pain in palliative care populations: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence and current approaches to clinical management of chronic nonmalignant pain in patients referred to palliative care services. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021205432). Six databases were searched on 25 August 2020 and again on 11 July 2022: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Scopus, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Search included prevalence or intervention studies with patients who had chronic nonmalignant pain and were referred to palliative care services. Screening was undertaken independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: The searches returned 417 titles; subsequent screening identified 5 eligible studies, 4 from the USA and 1 from Hong Kong, including 2 cohort and 3 cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 137 to 323, with a total of 1,056 patients. The prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain ranged from 14% to 34% across different palliative care settings. There was significant crossover of pain types; 54% of patients with chronic no-malignant pain had additional cancer-related pain or cancer treatment-related pain. Opioids were used to manage stand-alone chronic nonmalignant pain for 39% of patients compared to 58% with mixed chronic nonmalignant pain and other pain diagnoses. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Five studies have documented the prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain of 14-34% in palliative care. Further research including prevalence and treatment studies would provide clearer evidence for best practice management of chronic nonmalignant pain in the palliative care setting.

Three key areas in progressing delirium practice and knowledge: recognition and relief of distress, new directions in delirium epidemiology and developing better research assessments.

Delirium presents formidable challenges: it affects one in four of older hospitalised adults, greatly elevates the risk of multiple short- and long-term complications including dementia and causes significant distress. Delirium care remains generally poor. Yet, there are clear grounds for optimism; the last decade has seen impactful policy advances and a tripling of research output. Here, we highlight three linked areas which have strong potential to transform delirium practice and knowledge in the near term. Delirium-related distress is strikingly underrepresented in practice guidance and research. Proactive recognition combined with effective clinical responses based on good communication provides a critical and largely untapped opportunity to improve care. Delirium epidemiology research is well positioned to produce novel insights through advanced prospective designs in populations such as emergency medical patients with detailed pre-, intra- and post-delirium assessments allied with fluid, imaging and other biomarkers. Research-grade assessment of delirium currently involves a chaotic array of tools, methods and diagnostic algorithms. Areas for development: expand and analytically distinguish the range of features assessed (including distress), optimise feature assessment including use of validated neuropsychological tests where possible, produce standardised algorithms which articulate explicit pathways from features to diagnosis, and create new fine-grained approaches to the measurement of severity. Delirium practice and knowledge show accelerating growth. This is encouraging but much of the necessary progress is still to come. Innovation in these three highlighted areas, as well as many others, will open up exciting possibilities in enhancing the care of patients with this common and often devastating condition.

Risk factors for delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common and distressing for patients receiving palliative care. Interventions targetting modifiable risk factors in other settings have been shown to prevent delirium. Research on delirium risk factors in palliative care can inform context-specific risk-reduction interventions. AIM: To investigate risk factors for the development of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42019157168). DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (1980-2021) were searched for studies reporting the association of risk factors with delirium incidence/prevalence for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Study risk of bias and certainty of evidence for each risk factor were assessed. RESULTS: Of 28 included studies, 16 conducted only univariate analysis, 12 conducted multivariate analysis. The evidence for delirium risk factors was limited with low to very low certainty. POTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS: Opioids and lower performance status were positively associated with delirium, with some evidence also for dehydration, hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance, liver dysfunction and infection. Mixed, or very limited, evidence was found for some factors targetted in multicomponent prevention interventions: sensory impairments, mobility, catheter use, polypharmacy (single study), pain, constipation, nutrition (mixed evidence). NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS: Older age, male sex, primary brain cancer or brain metastases and lung cancer were positively associated with delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may usefully inform interventions to reduce delirium risk but more high quality prospective cohort studies are required to enable greater certainty about associations of different risk factors with delirium during specialist palliative care.

Stakeholder perspectives of a pilot multicomponent delirium prevention intervention for adult patients with advanced cancer in palliative care units: A behaviour change theory-based qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Theory-based and qualitative evaluations in pilot trials of complex clinical interventions help to understand quantitative results, as well as inform the feasibility and design of subsequent effectiveness and implementation trials. AIM: To explore patient, family, clinician and volunteer ('stakeholder') perspectives of the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention for adult patients with advanced cancer in four Australian palliative care units that participated in a phase II trial, the 'PRESERVE pilot study'. DESIGN: A trial-embedded qualitative study via semi-structured interviews and directed content analysis using Michie's Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine people involved in the trial: nurses (n = 17), physicians (n = 6), patients (n = 6), family caregivers (n = 4), physiotherapists (n = 3), a social worker, a pastoral care worker and a volunteer. RESULTS: Participants' perspectives aligned with the 'capability', 'opportunity' and 'motivation' domains of the applied frameworks. Of seven themes, three were around the alignment of the delirium prevention intervention with palliative care (intervention was considered routine care; intervention aligned with the compassionate and collaborative culture of palliative care; and differing views of palliative care priorities influenced perspectives of the intervention) and four were about study processes more directly related to adherence to the intervention (shared knowledge increased engagement with the intervention; impact of the intervention checklist on attention, delivery and documentation of the delirium prevention strategies; clinical roles and responsibilities; and addressing environmental barriers to delirium prevention). CONCLUSION: This theory-informed qualitative study identified multiple influences on the delivery and documentation of a pilot multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention in four palliative care units. Findings inform future definitive studies of delirium prevention in palliative care.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001070325; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373168.

Patient and carer experiences of pain care in an Australian regional comprehensive cancer care setting: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people living with cancer that requires a patient-centred approach to management. Since 2010, the Australian Government has invested heavily in developing regional cancer centres to improve cancer outcomes. This study explored patient and carer experiences of care from a regional cancer centre with specific reference to cancer pain management. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used with semi-structured telephone interviews. Participants were outpatients at a regional cancer centre in New South Wales who had reported worst pain of 2 or more on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, and their carers. Questions explored experiences of pain assessment and management, and perceptions of how these were affected by the regional setting. Researchers analysed data using a deductive approach, using Mead and Bower's (2000) framework of factors influencing patient-centred care. RESULTS: Eighteen telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients and 5 carers. Participants perceived that living in a regional setting conferred advantages to the patient-centredness of care via influences at the levels of professional context, the doctor-patient relationship, and consultation. These influences included established and ongoing relationships with a smaller number of care providers who were members of the community, and heightened accessibility in terms of travel/parking, flexible appointments, and ample time spent with each patient. The first of these factors was also perceived to contribute to continuity of care between specialist and primary care providers. However, one negative case reported disagreement between providers and a difficulty accessing specialist pain services. Several participants also reported a preference, and unmet need, for non-pharmacological rather than pharmacological pain management. CONCLUSION: While much research has focused on lack of services and poorer outcomes for people with cancer in rural areas, the Australian regional setting may offer benefits to the patient-centredness of cancer pain management and continuity of care. More research is needed to better understand the benefits and trade-offs of cancer care in regional versus urban settings, and how each can learn from the other. An unmet need for non-pharmacological rather than pharmacological pain management is among the most consistent findings of qualitative studies of patient/carer preferences across settings.

The experience of delirium in palliative care settings for patients, family, clinicians and volunteers: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in palliative care settings and is distressing for patients, their families and clinicians. To develop effective interventions, we need first to understand current delirium care in this setting. AIM: To understand patient, family, clinicians' and volunteers' experience of delirium and its care in palliative care contexts. DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018102417). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (2000-2020) for qualitative studies exploring experiences of delirium or its care in specialist palliative care services. Study selection and quality appraisal were independently conducted by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 21 papers describing 16 studies were included. In quality appraisal, trustworthiness (rigour of methods used) was assessed as high (n = 5), medium (n = 8) or low (n = 3). Three major themes were identified: interpretations of delirium and their influence on care; clinicians' responses to the suffering of patients with delirium and the roles of the family in delirium care. Nursing staff and other clinicians had limited understanding of delirium as a medical condition with potentially modifiable causes. Practice focused on alleviating patient suffering through person-centred approaches, which could be challenging with delirious patients, and medication use. Treatment decisions were also influenced by the distress of family and clinicians and resource limitations. Family played vital roles in delirium care. CONCLUSIONS: Increased understanding of non-pharmacological approaches to delirium prevention and management, as well as support for clinicians and families, are important to enable patients' multi-dimensional needs to be met.

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.

Outcomes and measures of delirium interventional studies in palliative care to inform a core outcome set: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement. AIM: To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions. DESIGN: Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: We searched six electronic databases (1980-November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions. RESULTS: From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research.

Toward best practice methods for delirium biomarker studies: An international modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a serious and distressing neurocognitive condition common in people with advanced illness. The understanding of delirium pathophysiology is limited and largely hypothetical. To accelerate empirical understanding of delirium pathophysiology, robust scientific methods for conducting and reporting delirium biomarker studies are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to develop international consensus on the core elements of high-quality delirium biomarker studies. METHODS: A three-round modified Delphi survey was conducted from February to August 2019. Participants were international researchers experienced in conducting delirium studies from a range of settings (hospital, university, research centres). Round one commenced with open-ended questions developed from results from a prior systematic review and the REMARK (REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies) checklist. Responses were qualitatively analysed, and closed statements were developed. Participants then ranked the importance of these statements using a 5-point Likert scale in rounds 2 and 3. A priori consensus was defined as ≥70% participant agreement. Descriptive statistics for each item were computed including the mean Likert scores, SD and median participant scores. RESULTS: Twenty-eight participants completed survey round one, 16 completed round two and 19 completed the final round. Consensus was achieved for a total of 60 items. CONCLUSION: The Delphi survey identified items that expert researchers agreed were important in the conduct of delirium biomarker studies. These reporting items provide a strong platform for improved methodological quality and opportunities to synthesise future delirium biomarker studies.

A systematic review of the overlap of fluid biomarkers in delirium and advanced cancer-related syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a serious and distressing neurocognitive disorder of physiological aetiology that is common in advanced cancer. Understanding of delirium pathophysiology is largely hypothetical, with some evidence for involvement of inflammatory systems, neurotransmitter alterations and glucose metabolism. To date, there has been limited empirical consideration of the distinction between delirium pathophysiology and that of the underlying disease, for example, cancer where these mechanisms are also common in advanced cancer syndromes such as pain and fatigue. This systematic review explores biomarker overlap in delirium, specific advanced cancer-related syndromes and prediction of cancer prognosis. METHODS: A systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42017068662) was conducted, using MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL and Web of Science, to identify body fluid biomarkers in delirium, cancer prognosis and advanced cancer-related syndromes of interest. Studies were excluded if they reported delirium tremens only; did not measure delirium using a validated tool; the sample had less than 75% of participants with advanced cancer; measured tissue, genetic or animal biomarkers, or were conducted post-mortem. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two authors, and data extraction and an in-depth quality assessment conducted by one author, and checked by two others. RESULTS: The 151 included studies were conducted in diverse settings in 32 countries between 1985 and 2017, involving 28130 participants with a mean age of 69.3 years. Seventy-one studies investigated delirium biomarkers, and 80 studies investigated biomarkers of an advanced cancer-related syndrome or cancer prognosis. Overall, 41 biomarkers were studied in relation to both delirium and either an advanced cancer-related syndrome or prognosis; and of these, 24 biomarkers were positively associated with either delirium or advanced cancer syndromes/prognosis in at least one study. The quality assessment showed large inconsistency in reporting. CONCLUSION: There is considerable overlap in the biomarkers in delirium and advanced cancer-related syndromes. Improving the design of delirium biomarker studies and considering appropriate comparator/controls will help to better understanding the discrete pathophysiology of delirium in the context of co-existing illness.

Delirium point prevalence studies in inpatient settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To examine the delirium point prevalence studies conducted in different inpatient settings and to discuss the implication of the findings for delirium screening, assessment, prevention and management. BACKGROUND: Delirium-a common and distressing condition manifesting as an acute decline of attention and cognition-is frequently overlooked, misdiagnosed or treated inappropriately. This neuropsychiatric syndrome manifests as changes in attention, cognition and awareness, with resultant impact on behaviour, function and emotions. Delirium is recognised as a patient management challenge in the inpatient setting, and there is a need to understand the current point prevalence and assessment practices of delirium. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic review of published delirium prevalence studies in inpatient settings was conducted and the implications of findings for delirium screening, assessment, prevention and management identified. The random-effects meta-analysis was conducted among studies measuring delirium point prevalence. The PRISMA statement was used to report systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the review, with sample sizes ranging from 47-1867. Delirium point prevalence ranged from 9%-32%. Hypoactive delirium was the most common subtype, ranging from 23%-78%. Fifteen delirium screening tools or assessment or diagnostic methods were used. Comorbid dementia was present in up to 50% of inpatients. CONCLUSIONS: Gaining a consensus on effective delirium instruments, the time windows for assessment and measurement will be crucial in driving benchmarking and quality improvement studies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Consistent identification of high-risk patients and treatment settings with elevated risk, accompanied by the implementation of effective preventive and management strategies, are critical to addressing delirium-a frequent and burdensome condition, that adversely affects patient outcomes.

Fundamental care for people with cognitive impairment in the hospital setting: A study combining positive organisational scholarship and video-reflexive ethnography.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To clarify how high-quality fundamentals of care for people with dementia and/or delirium were practised in a specialist geriatric evaluation and management unit. BACKGROUND: Older people with cognitive impairment represent a significant number of people who are admitted to hospital. They are at increased risk of dying, readmission and long hospital stays, relative to those without cognitive impairment. There is an urgent need to elucidate the conditions that underpin safe and high-quality fundamental care for these patients and their families. METHODS: Using the innovative methodologies of positive organisational scholarship in healthcare and video-reflexive ethnography, this 18-month study was conducted within an inpatient geriatric evaluation and management unit for people with dementia and/or delirium in South Australia. Patients, family members and staff members (managerial, clinical and nonclinical) participated by allowing researchers to document ethnographic fieldwork notes and film their practices and/or accounts thereof; and/or interpreting digital recordings with researchers in order to make sense of data in a process of co-analysis. This study is reported using Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research reporting guidelines. RESULTS: High-quality fundamental care for people with dementia and/or delirium in hospital and their families was associated with the special space of the hospital unit; an aptitude for people with dementia; a capacity to translate person-centred fundamentals of care from rhetoric to reality; and an appreciation for teamwork. CONCLUSION: This study clarified how teams working in hospital can practise high-quality fundamentals of care for older people with dementia and/or delirium. Delivery of high-quality fundamental care in this setting was dependent, not only on nurses, but the entire ward team working cohesively in a "weave of commitment." RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Efforts to improve fundamental care for people with cognitive impairment need to encompass values and philosophy of person-centred care, including the contributions by all staff to care delivery.

Common, Difficult Questions about Providing Nutrition at End of Life: Bedside Application of Catholic Moral Teaching.

There is much confusion surrounding how to interpret provision of artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) at the bedside in complicated clinical circumstances. The specific scenario that prompted these questions was a request by a patient and her family to remove a feeding tube that had become, in the patient's eyes and opinion, disproportionately burdensome in her particular set of clinical circumstances. This clinically relevant article can be viewed as a bedside interpretation of Catholic bioethical teachings on provision of ANH to the dying patient. Please note that this article does not address specific ethical issues that pertain to persistent vegetative state, which is beyond the scope of this particular discussion.

Inclusion, characteristics and outcomes of people requiring palliative care in studies of non-pharmacological interventions for delirium: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common, distressing, serious and under-researched in specialist palliative care settings. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether people requiring palliative care were included in non-pharmacological delirium intervention studies in inpatient settings, how they were characterised and what their outcomes were. DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017062178). DATA SOURCES: Systematic search in March 2017 for non-pharmacological delirium intervention studies in adult inpatients. Database search terms were 'delirium', 'hospitalisation', 'inpatient', 'palliative care', 'hospice', 'critical care' and 'geriatrics'. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodological checklists guided risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: The 29 included studies were conducted between 1994 and 2015 in diverse settings in 15 countries (9136 participants, mean age = 76.5 years (SD = 8.1), 56% women). Most studies tested multicomponent interventions (n = 26) to prevent delirium (n = 19). Three-quarters of the 29 included studies (n = 22) excluded various groups of people requiring palliative care; however, inclusion criteria, participant diagnoses, illness severity and mortality indicated their presence in almost all studies (n = 26). Of these, 21 studies did not characterise participants requiring palliative care or report their specific outcomes (72%), four reported outcomes for older people with frailty, dementia, cancer and comorbidities, and one was explicitly focused on people receiving palliative care. Study heterogeneity and limitations precluded definitive determination of intervention effectiveness and only allowed interpretations of feasibility for people requiring palliative care. Acceptability outcomes (intervention adverse events and patients' subjective experience) were rarely reported overall. CONCLUSION: Non-pharmacological delirium interventions have frequently excluded and under-characterised people requiring palliative care and infrequently reported their outcomes.

The incidence and prevalence of delirium across palliative care settings: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common and distressing neurocognitive condition that frequently affects patients in palliative care settings and is often underdiagnosed. AIM: Expanding on a 2013 review, this systematic review examines the incidence and prevalence of delirium across all palliative care settings. DESIGN: This systematic review and meta-analyses were prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases were examined for primary research studies published between 1980 and 2018. Studies on adult, non-intensive care and non-postoperative populations, either receiving or eligible to receive palliative care, underwent dual reviewer screening and data extraction. Studies using standardized delirium diagnostic criteria or valid assessment tools were included. RESULTS: Following initial screening of 2596 records, and full-text screening of 153 papers, 42 studies were included. Patient populations diagnosed with predominantly cancer (n = 34) and mixed diagnoses (n = 8) were represented. Delirium point prevalence estimates were 4%-12% in the community, 9%-57% across hospital palliative care consultative services, and 6%-74% in inpatient palliative care units. The prevalence of delirium prior to death across all palliative care settings (n = 8) was 42%-88%. Pooled point prevalence on admission to inpatient palliative care units was 35% (confidence interval = 0.29-0.40, n = 14). Only one study had an overall low risk of bias. Varying delirium screening and diagnostic practices were used. CONCLUSION: Delirium is prevalent across all palliative care settings, with one-third of patients delirious at the time of admission to inpatient palliative care. Study heterogeneity limits meta-analyses and highlights the future need for rigorous studies.

Protocol for a phase III pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening and guidelines with, versus without, implementation strategies for improving pain in adults with cancer attending outpatient oncology and palliative care services: the Stop Cancer PAIN trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people with cancer, but is under-recognised and under-treated. Australian guidelines for 'Cancer Pain Management in Adults' are available on the Cancer Council Australia Cancer Guideline Wiki. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a suite of guideline implementation strategies for improving pain outcomes in adults with cancer in oncology and palliative care outpatient settings. METHODS: The study will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled design, with oncology and palliative care outpatient services as the clusters. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with cancer and pain presenting to participating services during the study period. During an initial control arm, services will routinely screen patients for average and worst pain over the past 24 h using a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) and have unfettered access to online guidelines. During the intervention arm, staff at each service will be encouraged to use: 1) a patient education booklet and self-management resource; 2) an online spaced learning cancer pain education module for clinicians from different disciplines; and 3) audit and feedback of service performance on key indices of cancer pain screening, assessment and management. Service-based clinical change champions will lead implementation of these strategies. The trial's primary outcome will be the probability that patients initially screened as having moderate-severe (≥5/10 NRS) worst pain experience a clinically important improvement one week later, defined as ≥ 30% reduction. Secondary outcomes will include patient empowerment and quality of life, carer experience, and cost-effectiveness. For the main analysis, linear mixed models will be used, accounting for clustering and the longitudinal design. Eighty-two patients per service at six services (N = 492) will provide > 90% power. A qualitative sub-study and analyses of structural and process factors will explore opportunities for further refinement and tailoring of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will inform implementation of guidelines across a range of oncology and palliative care outpatient service contexts. If found effective, the implementation strategies will be made freely available on the Wiki alongside the guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered 23/01/2015 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12615000064505 ).