Junior medical doctors' decision making when using advance care directives to guide treatment for people with dementia: a cross-sectional vignette study.

BACKGROUND: Junior medical doctors have a key role in discussions and decisions about treatment and end-of-life care for people with dementia in hospital. Little is known about junior doctors' decision-making processes when treating people with dementia who have advance care directives (ACDs), or the factors that influence their decisions. To describe among junior doctors in relation to two hypothetical vignettes involving patients with dementia: (1) their legal compliance and decision-making process related to treatment decisions; (2) the factors influencing their clinical decision-making; and (3) the factors associated with accurate responses to one hypothetical vignette. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey of junior doctors, including trainees, interns, registrars and residents, on clinical rotation in five public hospitals located in one Australian state. The anonymous, investigator-developed survey was conducted between August 2018 and June 2019. Two hypothetical vignettes describing patients with dementia presenting to hospital with an ACD and either: (1) bacterial pneumonia; or (2) suspected stroke were presented in the survey. Participants were asked to indicate whether they would commence treatment, given the ACD instructions described in each vignette. RESULTS: Overall, 116 junior doctors responded (35% consent rate). In Vignette 1, 58% of respondents (n = 67/116) selected the legally compliant option (i.e. not commence treatment). Participants who chose the legally compliant option perceived 'following patient wishes' (n = 32/67; 48%) and 'legal requirements to follow ACDs' (n = 32/67; 48%) as equally important reasons for complying with the ACD. The most common reason for not selecting the legally compliant option in Vignette 1 was the 'ACD is relevant in my decision-making process, but other factors are more relevant' (n = 14/37; 38%). In Vignette 2, 72% of respondents (n = 83/116) indicated they would commence treatment (i.e. not follow the ACD) and 18% (n = 21/116) selected they would not commence treatment. (i.e. follow the ACD). Similar reasons influenced participant decision-making in Vignette 2, a less legally certain scenario. CONCLUSIONS: There are critical gaps in junior doctors' compliance with the law as it relates to the implementation of ACDs. Despite there being differences in relation to the legal answer and its certainty, clinical and ethical factors guided decision-making over and above the law in both vignettes. More education and training to guide junior doctors' clinical decision-making and ensure compliance with the law is required.

Patient characteristics, short-term and long-term outcomes after incident heart failure admissions in a regional Australian setting.

AIMS: This study aims to (1) define the characteristics of patients with a first admission for heart failure (HF), stratified by type (reduced (HFrEF) vs preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction) in a regional Australian setting; (2) compare the outcomes in terms of mortality and rehospitalisation and (3) assess adherence to the treatment guidelines. METHODS: We identified all index hospitalisations with HF to John Hunter Hospital and Tamworth Rural Referral Hospital in the Hunter New England Local Health District over a 12 months. We used the recent Australian HF guidelines to classify HFrEF and HFpEF and assess adherence to guideline-directed therapy. The primary outcome of the study was to compare short-term (1 year) and long-term all-cause mortality and the composite of all-cause hospitalisation or all-cause mortality of patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. RESULTS: There were 664 patients who had an index HF admission to John Hunter and Tamworth hospitals in 2014. The median age was 80 years, 47% were female and 22 (3%) were Aboriginal. In terms of HF type, 29% had HFrEF, 37% had HFpEF, while the remainder (34%) did not have an echocardiogram within 1 year of admission and could not be classified. The median follow-up was 3.3 years. HFrEF patients were predominantly male (64%) and in 48% the aetiology was ischaemic heart disease. The 1-year all-cause mortality was 23% in HFpEF subgroup and 29% in HFrEF subgroup (p=0.15). Five-year mortality was 61% in HFpEF and HFrEF patients. Of the HFrEF patients, only 61% were on renin-angiotensin-aldosterone blockers, 74% were on ß-blockers and 39% were on aldosterone antagonist. CONCLUSION: HF patients are elderly and about evenly split between HFrEF and HFpEF. In this regional cohort, both HF types are associated with similar 1-year and 5-year mortality following incident HF hospitalisation. Echocardiography and guideline-directed therapies were underused.

Antiseptic Skin Agents to Prevent Surgical Site Infection After Incisional Surgery: A Randomized, Three-armed Combined Non-inferiority and Superiority Clinical Trial (NEWSkin Prep Study).

OBJECTIVE: To compare SSI rates between the skin preparation agents: PI-Aq, povidone-iodine with alcohol (PI-Alc), and chlorhexidine with alcohol (C-Alc). BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that alcohol-containing chlorhexidine solutions are the gold standard for skin preparation before surgery. It remains difficult to determine whether it is the chlorhexidine component or the addition of alcohol that confers the most benefit. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, combined non-inferiority (PI-Alc vs C-Alc) and superiority (PI-Alc vs PI-Aq) randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either C-Alc, PI-Alc, or PI-Aq. The primary outcome was SSI rate as defined by the Centers for Disease Control. Secondary outcomes were complication rates, length of hospital stay, readmissions, and skin reactions. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and December 2018, 3213 patients were randomized (C-Alc: 1076, PI-Alc: 1075, and PI-Aq: 1062). Mean age of participants was 57% and 55% were female. SSI rates were: C-Alc 11.09%, PI-Alc 10.88%, and PI-Aq 12.56%. PI-Alc was found to be non-inferior to C-Alc (mean difference, -0.21%; 95% confidence interval, -2.85 to 2.44; P = 0.0009 non-inferiority), whereas PI-Alc was not superior to PI-Aq (mean difference, -1.68%; 95% confidence interval, -4.40 to 1.05; P = 0.2302). There were no differences seen in secondary outcomes between groups and no treatment related adverse events or deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: PI-Alc is non-inferior to C-Alc and not superior to PI-Aq. This is at odds with current guidelines that suggest alcohol-based chlorhexidine solutions should routinely be used for surgical skin preparation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ANZCTRN12615000021571. www.anzctr.org.au.