Right needle, right patient, right time? A national flash-mob audit of thromboprophylaxis in palliative care.

BACKGROUND: The prevention of hospital associated thrombosis in palliative care remains controversial yet many countries recommend the documented risk assessment and where appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis of inpatients with advanced cancer. AIM: To audit adherence to national guidelines which require hospitalised patients to be risk assessed and receive appropriate thromboprophylaxis. DESIGN: A one day "flash-mob" audit across multiple clinical inpatient sites across the United Kingdom. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inpatients receiving palliative care within hospitals, hospices and specialist palliative care units across the United Kingdom. RESULTS: Data were collected from 1125 patients (514 hospital and 611 hospice/specialist palliative care units). Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was observed in 90 % of hospital and 90 % hospice/specialist palliative care units. Documented risk assessment was only found in 79 % and 71 % of patient notes respectively. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis was contraindicated in 88 % of hospice/specialist palliative care unit patients due to bleeding risk or receiving end-of-life care. Twenty-four percent of patients in hospital had contraindications due to receiving end of life care, bleeding risk and thrombocytopenia. Patients in hospice/specialist palliative care units were of poorer performance status prior to admission with a history of gradual deterioration. Hospitalised patients were more likely to have been admitted following an acute deterioration of previous good performance status. CONCLUSION: Thromboprophylaxis guidelines were followed correctly for the majority of patients. There were considerable differences in the demographics of patients according to place of admission. Patients admitted to hospice/specialist palliative care units were sicker and had more contraindications to prophylaxis than those admitted to hospital. Thromboprophylaxis focused research data conducted in hospices is unlikely to be applicable to the care of palliative care patients admitted acutely to hospital.

The impact of an integrated heart failure service in a medium-sized district general hospital.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing the impact of a new integrated heart failure service (IHFS) in a medium-sized district general hospital (DGH) on heart failure (HF) mortality, readmission rates, and provision of HF care. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study encompassing all patients admitted with a diagnosis of HF over two 12-month periods before (2012/2013), and after (2015/2016) IHFS establishment. RESULTS: Total admissions for HF increased by 40% (385 vs 540), with a greater number admitted to the cardiology ward (231 vs 121). After IHFS implementation, patients were more likely to see a cardiologist (35.1% vs 43.7%, p=0.009), undergo echocardiography (70.1% vs 81.5%, p<0.001), be initiated on all three disease modifying HF medications (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA)) in the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) group (42% vs 99%, p<0.001) and receive specialist HF input (81.6% vs 85.4%, p=0.2). Both 30-day post-discharge mortality and HF related readmissions were significantly lower in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (8.9% vs 3.1%, p=0.032, 58% reduction, p=0.043 respectively) with no-significant reductions in all other HF groups. In-patient mortality was similar. Length of stay in Cardiology wards increased from 8.4 to 12.7 days (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Establishment of an IHFS within a DGH with limited resources and only a modest service re-design has resulted in significantly improved provision of specialist in-patient care, use of HFrEF medications, early heart failure nurse follow-up, and is associated with a reduction in early mortality, particularly in the HFpEF cohort, and HF related readmissions.

Home blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive stroke patients: a prospective cohort study following a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: We found little data on long-term home blood pressure monitoring in stroke patients. OBJECTIVES: After completing a 12-month trial of home monitoring in hypertensive stroke patients, we investigated the following: 1. The proportion of 118 control patients offered a monitor at the end of the trial without nurse support who used it at least monthly after 6 months. 2. The proportion of 119 intervention patients continuing to use their monitor monthly after 18 months. 3. Possible predictors of monitoring weekly in the first month after receiving a monitor: age, gender, ethnicity, cognition, anxiety, disability, ability to monitor blood pressure unaided and smoking. METHODS: Participants (mean age 71, 34% with disability and 21% from ethnic minorities) were surveyed 1 and/or 6 months after the trial ended by postal and/or telephone questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 237 potential participants, 53 (22%) declined, 16 (6%) were lost and 9 (4%) died during follow-up. Overall, reported monthly use of the monitor without nurse support was 47% [54/114, 95% confidence interval (CI) 38.2-56.5] at 6 months and 50% (57/114, 95% CI 40.8-59.2) at 18 months. Participants who monitored weekly after 1 month were more likely than the remainder to have no disability [Rankin score ≤ 1; relative risk (RR) 1.2; 95% CI 1.0-1.5] and low anxiety levels (FEAR score = 0; RR 1.5; 95% CI 1.1-2.0). CONCLUSION: Around half of hypertensive stroke patients offered a blood pressure monitor but no support continued to use it after 6 and 18 months. Monitoring in the first month was common in those who were not anxious or disabled.