Communication of palliative care needs in discharge letters from hospice providers to primary care: a multisite sequential explanatory mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: The provision of palliative care is increasing, with many people dying in community-based settings. It is essential that communication is effective if and when patients transition from hospice to community palliative care. Past research has indicated that communication issues are prevalent during hospital discharges, but little is known about hospice discharges. METHODS: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study consisting of a retrospective review of hospice discharge letters, followed by hospice focus groups, to explore patterns in communication of palliative care needs of discharged patients and describe why these patients were being discharged. Discharge letters were extracted for key content information using a standardised form. Letters were then examined for language patterns using a linguistic methodology termed corpus linguistics. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the focus group transcripts. Findings were triangulated to develop an explanatory understanding of discharge communication from hospice care. RESULTS: We sampled 250 discharge letters from five UK hospices whereby patients had been discharged to primary care. Twenty-five staff took part in focus groups. The main reasons for discharge extracted from the letters were symptoms "managed/resolved" (75.2%), and/or the "patient wishes to die/for care at home" (37.2%). Most patients had some form of physical needs documented on the letters (98.4%) but spiritual needs were rarely documented (2.4%). Psychological/emotional needs and social needs were documented in 46.4 and 35.6% of letters respectively. There was sometimes ambiguity in "who" will be following up "what" in the discharge letters, and whether described patients' needs were resolved or ongoing for managing in the community setting. The extent to which patients received a copy of their discharge letter varied. Focus groups conveyed a lack of consensus on what constitutes "complexity" and "complex pain". CONCLUSIONS: The content and structure of discharge letters varied between hospices, although generally focused on physical needs. Our study provides insights into patterns associated with those discharged from hospice, and how policy and guidance in this area may be improved, such as greater consistency of sharing letters with patients. A patient-centred set of hospice-specific discharge letter principles could help improve future practice.

Homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (including coronary artery disease, stroke and congestive heart failure), is a leading cause of death worldwide. Homocysteine is an amino acid with biological functions in methionine metabolism. A postulated risk factor is elevated circulating total homocysteine levels, which are associated with cardiovascular events. This is an update of a review previously published in 2009. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of homocysteine-lowering interventions in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to Feb week 2 2012), EMBASE (1980 to 2012 week 07), and LILACS (1986 to February 2012). We also searched ISI Web of Science (1970 to February 2012). We handsearched the reference lists of included papers. We also contacted researchers in the field. There was no language restriction in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of homocysteine-lowering interventions for preventing cardiovascular events with a follow-up period of one year or longer. We considered myocardial infarction and stroke as the primary outcomes. We excluded studies in patients with end-stage renal disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed study selection, 'Risk of bias' assessment and data extraction in duplicate. We estimated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes. We measured statistical heterogeneity using I(2). We used a random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated systematic review, we identified four new randomised trials, resulting in a total of 12 randomised controlled trials involving 47,429 participants. In general terms, the trials had a low risk of bias. Homocysteine-lowering interventions compared with placebo did not significantly affect non-fatal or fatal myocardial infarction (pooled RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10, I(2) = 0%), stroke (pooled RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.0, I(2) = 11%) or death by any cause (pooled RR 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.07, I(2): 6%)). Homocysteine-lowering interventions compared with placebo did not significantly affect serious adverse events (cancer) (1 RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.13; I(2) = 0%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane review found no evidence to suggest that homocysteine-lowering interventions in the form of supplements of vitamins B6, B9 or B12 given alone or in combination should be used for preventing cardiovascular events. Furthermore, there is no evidence suggesting that homocysteine-lowering interventions are associated with an increased risk of cancer.

Human recombinant activated factor VII for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver diseases.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver disease is high. Recombinant human activated factor VII (rHuFVIIa) has been suggested for patients with liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of rHuFVIIa in patients with liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (December 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1948 to December 2011), EMBASE (1980 to December 2011), Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to December 2011), and LILACS (December 2011). We sought additional randomised trials from the reference lists of the trials and reviews identified through the electronic searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Outcome data from randomised clinical trials were extracted and were presented using random-effects model meta-analyses. Data on the risk of bias in the included trials were also extracted. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials with 493 randomised participants with various Child-Pugh scores. The trials had a low risk of bias. The rHuFVIIa administration did not reduce the risk of mortality within five days (21/288 (7.3%) versus 15/205 (7.3%); risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.64, I(2) = 49%) and within 42 days (5/286 (1.7%) versus 36/205 (17.6%); RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.87, I(2) = 55%) when compared with placebo. Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that there is sufficient evidence to exclude that rHuFVIIa decreases mortality by 80%, but there is insufficient evidence to exclude smaller effects. The rHuFVIIa did not increase the risk of adverse events by number of patients (218/297 (74%) and 164/210 (78%); RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04, I(2) = 1%), serious adverse events by adverse events reported (164/590 (28%) versus 123/443 (28%); RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11, I(2) = 0%), and thromboembolic adverse events (16/297 (5.4%) versus 14/210 (6.7%); RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.60, I(2) = 0%) when compared with placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support or reject the administration of rHuFVIIa for patients with liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Further adequately powered randomised clinical trials are needed in order to evaluate the proper role of rHuFVIIa for treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with liver disease. Although the results are based on trials with low risk of bias, the heterogeneity and the small sample size result in rather large confidence intervals that cannot exclude the possibility that the intervention has some beneficial or harmful effect. Further trials with alow risk of bias are required to make more confident conclusions about the effects of the intervention.