Development of the CASH assessment tool to address existential concerns in patients with serious illness.

INTRODUCTION: Existential suffering in patients with serious illness significantly impacts quality of life, yet it remains a challenge to define, assess, and manage adequately. Improving upon understanding and practice in the existential domain is a topic of interest for palliative care providers. METHODS: As a quality improvement project, our palliative care team created an existential assessment tool utilizing a dialogue-oriented approach with four questions designed to identify sources of existential distress as well as strengths and challenges in coping with this distress. The tool utilized the mnemonic CASH, with each letter representing the core objective of the question. Providers who requested the palliative care consult were asked to evaluate the CASH assessment. On completion of the project, palliative care consultants evaluated the appropriateness of the CASH assessment tool. RESULTS: Patient responses to the CASH questions were insightful and reflected their beliefs, priorities, and concerns. Eight of nine providers found that the assessment enabled understanding of their patient. Seven noted a positive impact on their practice, and five reported an improvement in patient care after the assessment. The palliative care consultants who used the tool enjoyed using it, and half of them suggested changes to patient care based on their assessment. The most common reasons for not using the CASH assessment were inappropriateness to the consult, lack of perceived patient/caregiver receptiveness, or consultation service too busy. CONCLUSION: Our quality improvement project demonstrated that the CASH assessment tool is useful in ascertaining existential concerns of patients with serious illness. It enhances patient care by the primary team as well as the palliative care team. As a brief set of questions with an easy-to-remember mnemonic, the CASH assessment tool is feasible for a busy palliative consult service. Furthermore, the positive results of this project merit more rigorous evaluation of the CASH assessment tool in the future.

Urolithiasis associated with experimental lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus inoculation in Lewis rats.

A high frequency of struvite urolithiasis, hydronephrosis, and other urinary tract lesions developed in a group of Lewis rats inoculated intracranially with lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV). Initially, clinically ill rats were referred to necropsy: 30 rats over 3 years. These rats had high frequency of urolithiasis (8/30, 27%), hydronephrosis (12/30, 40%), cystitis (9/30, 30%), transitional cell carcinoma (4/30, 13%), and pyelonephritis (19/30, 63%). Lesions were more common in LCMV-inoculated rats. After this trend was noted, all rats on this protocol were necropsied as part of a cohort study (n = 144). Although the apparent frequency of disease was lower due to increased sampling, there still was a high number of urolithiasis (9/144, 6%) and hydronephrosis (40/144, 28%) cases. All cases of urolithiasis developed in rats inoculated with LCMV (9/44, 20%), as did most cases of hydronephrosis (31/44, 70%). Although sham-injected and uninoculated control rats also had high frequency of hydronephrosis (6/57 [11%] and 3/43 [7%], respectively), LCMV-inoculated rats had a significantly higher frequency of disease than did sham inoculated (P < 0.0001) and uninoculated (P < 0.0001) controls. These results suggest that Lewis rats may be predisposed to developing lesions of the urinary tract, and that intracranial inoculation of rats with LCMV augments this tendency, leading to formation of struvite calculi and associated urinary tract disease.

Cutaneous acariasis in the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis).

Increased mortality was observed in a single colony of 50 Xenopus laevis. The frogs were used as oocyte donors in developmental biology studies. Necropsy findings included dermal erythema and petechiation consistent with red leg syndrome; dermal ulcerations and white, filamentous growths on the skin were consistent with Saprolegnia sp. Microscopic evaluation of the skin and fungus revealed an astigmatid mite similar to those of the genus Rhizoglyphus. The mite was also found in the water and the biological filter of the tanks housing the frogs. This mite is considered not to be a parasite of X. laevis; instead, it feeds off moss, fungi, and detritus. Subsequent evaluation of the sphagnum moss used for shipping the frogs from the supplier revealed the same mite in the moss. Our hypothesis is that the mite was introduced into the tank with the shipment of new frogs in sphagnum moss. The mites lived within the biological filter, and were only found after the growth of Saprolegnia sp. attracted the mites to the frogs. Laboratory animal care and veterinary personnel should consider non-pathogenic species of mites in the differential diagnosis of acariasis in Xenopus frogs.