Acceptability of a virtual prostate cancer survivorship care model in rural Australia: A multi-methods, single-centre feasibility pilot.

DESIGN: A multi-methods, single-centre pilot comprising a quasi-experimental pre-/post-test design and an exploratory qualitative study. SETTING: A rural Australian hospital and health service. PARTICIPANTS: Men newly diagnosed with localised prostate cancer who were scheduled to undergo, or had undergone, radical or robotic prostatectomy surgery within the previous 3 months. INTERVENTION: The intervention comprised a 12-week virtual care program delivered via teleconference by a specialist nurse, using a pre-existing connected care platform. The program was tailored to the post-operative recovery journey targeting post-operative care, psychoeducation, problem-solving and goal setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: program acceptability. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: quality of life; prostate cancer-related distress; insomnia severity; fatigue severity; measured at baseline (T1); immediately post-intervention (T2); and 12 weeks post-intervention (T3). RESULTS: Seventeen participants completed the program. The program intervention showed very high levels (≥4/5) of acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility. At T1, 47% (n = 8) of men reported clinically significant psychological distress, which had significantly decreased by T3 (p = 0.020). There was a significant improvement in urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (p = 0.030) and a corresponding decrease in urinary function burden (p = 0.005) from T1 to T3. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot has shown that a tailored nurse-led virtual care program, incorporating post-surgical follow-up and integrated low-intensity psychosocial care, is both acceptable to rural participants and feasible in terms of implementation and impact on patient outcomes.

Acceptability of a virtual prostate cancer survivorship care model in regional Australia: A qualitative exploratory study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the acceptability of a nurse-led prostate cancer survivorship intervention adapted for virtual delivery and tailored to post-surgical care, in a regional Australian hospital and health service. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). RESULTS: Twenty-two participants took part in a semistructured interview comprising men who had completed the program (n = 16) and health professionals/service stakeholders involved in program delivery (n = 6). Acceptability of this virtual prostate cancer survivorship care program was very high across all constructs of the TFA, from the perspectives of both program recipients and those delivering the program. The quality of care received was seen as superior to what men had experienced previously (burden, opportunity costs). The time afforded by the regularly scheduled video-consultations allowed men to come to terms with the recovery process in their own time (self-efficacy), and provided an ongoing sense of support and access to care outside the consultation (ethicality). Clinically, the program improved care co-ordination, expedited identification of survivorship care needs, and met service priorities of providing quality care close to home (burden, perceived effectiveness). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest virtual post-surgical care delivered via videoconferencing is highly acceptable to prostate cancer survivors in a regional setting. Future research exploring virtual program implementation at scale and long-term patient and service outcomes is warranted.

The importance of developing palliative care quality indicators for the prison setting: why now, and next steps.

Palliative care is increasingly important in the prison setting, but information about the quality and accessibility of this care is extremely limited. Developing and implementing standardised quality indicators will provide transparency, accountability, and a platform for quality improvement at both local and national levels.

Palliative care needs and experiences of people in prison: A systematic review and meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Globally, the prison population is growing and ageing, as is the need for palliative care. Yet, little is known about how people in prison perceive palliative care provision in this setting. AIMS: To identify the: (i) perceptions of palliative care provision and dying in custody by people in prison; and (ii) perceived barriers and facilitators of person-centred palliative care provision in prison. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-synthesis was registered and undertaken in accordance with the reporting guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Keywords and MeSH headings encompassing (i) palliative care, end-of-life care, death; and (ii) prison; were used to search Pubmed, Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINCH and ProQuest Central. Articles published in English, from high income countries, and containing qualitative data exploring perceptions of people in prison of palliative care in custody were included. Findings were reporting using the ENTREQ guidelines. FINDINGS: Of the 2193 articles identified, 12 were included. Experiences of people in prison regarding palliative care related to two themes: (1) expectations versus experiences of palliative care; and (2) prison context complicates access to and provision of palliative care. People in prison with palliative care needs want to feel safe, cared for, and acknowledged as they face an expected death. The prison environment can severely restrict access to palliative care, leaving people in prison feeling isolated and powerless. CONCLUSIONS: People in prison expect to receive high-quality palliative care, but their experiences often do not match their expectations. Numerous structural and organisational challenges complicate the provision of palliative care in prisons, limiting accessibility of care.

Virtual models of care for people with palliative care needs living in their own home: A systematic meta-review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Access to palliative care in the community enables people to live in their preferred place of care, which is often home. Community palliative care services struggle to provide timely 24-h services to patients and family. This has resulted in calls for 'accessible and flexible' models of care that are 'responsive' to peoples' changing palliative care needs. Digital health technologies provide opportunities to meet these requirements 24-h a day. AIM: To identify digital health technologies that have been evaluated for supporting timely assessment and management of people living at home with palliative care needs and/or their carer(s), and the evidence-base for each. DESIGN: A systematic review of systematic reviews ('meta-review'). Systematic reviews evaluating evidence for virtual models of palliative or end-of-life care using one or more digital health technologies were included. Systematic reviews were evaluated using the Risk of Bias Tool for Systematic Reviews. A narrative approach was used to synthesise results. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Database of systematic reviews were searched for English-language reviews published between 2015 and 2020. RESULTS: The search yielded 2266 articles, of which 12 systematic reviews met criteria. Sixteen reviews were included in total, after four reviews were found via handsearching. Other than scheduled telehealth, video-conferencing, or after-hours telephone support, little evidence was found for digital health technologies used to deliver virtual models of palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: There are opportunities to test new models of virtual care, beyond telehealth and/or video conferencing, such as 24-h command centres, and rapid response teams. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero CRD42020200266.

Quality of online self-management resources for adults living with primary brain cancer, and their carers: a systematic environmental scan.

BACKGROUND: A primary brain cancer diagnosis is a distressing, life changing event. It adversely affects the quality of life for the person living with brain cancer and their families ('carers'). Timely access to evidence-based information is critical to enabling people living with brain cancer, and their carers, to self-manage the devastating impacts of this disease. METHOD: A systematic environmental scan of web-based resources. A depersonalised search for online English-language resources published from 2009 to December 2019 and designed for adults (> 25 years of age), living with primary brain cancer, was undertaken using the Google search engine. The online information was classified according to: 1) the step on the cancer care continuum; 2) self-management domains (PRISMS taxonomy); 3) basic information disclosure (Silberg criteria); 4) independent quality verification (HonCode); 5) reliability of disease and treatment information (DISCERN Sections 1 and 2); and readability (Flesch-Kincaid reading grade). RESULTS: A total of 119 online resources were identified, most originating in England (n = 49); Australia (n = 27); or the USA (n = 27). The majority of resources related to active treatment (n = 76), without addressing recurrence (n = 3), survivorship (n = 1) or palliative care needs (n = 13). Few online resources directly provided self-management advice for adults living with brain cancer or their carers. Just over a fifth (n = 26, 22%) were underpinned by verifiable evidence. Only one quarter of organisations producing resources were HonCode certified (n = 9, 24%). The median resource reliability as measured by Section 1, DISCERN tool, was 56%. A median of 8.8 years of education was required to understand these online resources. CONCLUSIONS: More targeted online information is needed to provide people affected by brain cancer with practical self-management advice. Resources need to better address patient and carer needs related to: rehabilitation, managing behavioural changes, survivorship and living with uncertainty; recurrence; and transition to palliative care. Developing online resources that don't require a high level of literacy and/or cognition are also required.

Clinicians' perceptions of opioid error-contributing factors in inpatient palliative care services: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Opioid errors are a leading cause of patient harm and adversely impact palliative care inpatients' pain and symptom management. Yet, the factors contributing to opioid errors in palliative care are poorly understood. Identifying and better understanding the individual and system factors contributing to these errors is required to inform targeted strategies. OBJECTIVES: To explore palliative care clinicians' perceptions of the factors contributing to opioid errors in Australian inpatient palliative care services. DESIGN: A qualitative study using focus groups or semi-structured interviews. SETTINGS: Three specialist palliative care inpatient services in New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient palliative care clinicians who are involved with, and/or have oversight of, the services' opioid delivery or quality and safety processes. METHODS: Deductive thematic content analysis of the qualitative data. The Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework was applied to identify error-contributing factors. FINDINGS: A total of 58 clinicians participated in eight focus groups and 20 semi-structured interviews. Nine key error contributory factor domains were identified, including: active failures; task characteristics of opioid preparation; clinician inexperience; sub-optimal skill mix; gaps in support from central functions; the drug preparation environment; and sub-optimal clinical communication. CONCLUSION: This study identified multiple system-level factors contributing to opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services. Any quality and safety initiatives targeting safe opioid delivery in specialist palliative care services needs to consider the full range of contributing factors, from individual to systems/latent factors, which promote error-causing conditions.

Effectiveness of the spaced education pedagogy for clinicians' continuing professional development: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Ensuring clinical practice reflects current evidence is challenging given the rapid proliferation of new knowledge. Changing entrenched clinical behaviours and facilitating the adoption of best practice evidence requires a range of strategies, including affordable, scalable and effective continuing professional development (CPD). Yet, identifying the CPD delivery method most likely to effectively change and improve patient outcomes is difficult given the variability in the evidence for different learning approaches. Although there is moderate level evidence for outreach education, audit and feedback, and face-to-face or online learning, little is known about the capacity of spaced education to change ineffective clinical practice(s). Spaced education harnesses the power of spacing, repetition and testing learning content to increase topic-specific knowledge. Although spaced education is widely used in undergraduate and postgraduate medical programmes, its effectiveness as a CPD delivery method that improves patient outcomes is less certain. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of the spaced education CPD programmes to change targeted clinical knowledge and practice(s) to improve patient outcomes. METHOD: A systematic review, appraising the spaced education CPD evidence generated from searching six specialist medical and psychosocial databases. Studies published in English peer-reviewed journals from 1 January, 2000 to 31 August, 2018 were eligible for inclusion. A modified Kirkpatrick four levels of evaluation framework assisted with appraising the effect of spaced education CPD interventions on clinicians and patients. RESULTS: Of the 2396 studies identified, 17 met the inclusion criteria, involving 2701 practising clinicians from multiple disciplines and specialties. Five randomised controlled trials generated level II evidence, with the remaining 12 studies generating lower levels of evidence. The majority of studies (n = 14) involved the delivery of online spaced education. All studies were evaluated using the modified Kirkpatrick four levels of evaluation framework with: 10 studies demonstrating significant increases in participants' knowledge; seven studies reporting significant changes in clinician behaviour; four studies showing significant increases in clinician confidence; and three studies identifying significant and sustained increases in participants' clinical skills. Only two studies reported positive improvements in patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Spaced education via an online platform offers a scalable CPD format that can increase clinical knowledge and change practice. However, further adequately powered randomised controlled trials are required to confirm that spaced education CPD can impact positively on patients' reported outcomes.

Self-Perceived Pain Assessment Knowledge and Confidence (Self-PAC) Scale for Cancer and Palliative Care Nurses: A Preliminary Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is highly prevalent in all health care settings, and frequently poorly managed. Effective pain management is predicated on a continuous cycle of screening, assessing, intervening and evaluating. Identifying gaps in nurses' self-perceived pain assessment competencies is an essential first step in the design of tailored interventions to embed effective pain assessment into routine clinical practice, and improve patient reported pain outcomes. Yet, few validated instruments focus on the competencies required for undertaking a comprehensive pain assessment, with most focusing on clinician's pain management competencies. AIM: To examine the validity of the 'Self-Perceived Pain Assessment Knowledge and Confidence' (Self-PAC) Scale. DESIGN: Preliminary instrument validation. SETTING: Two Australian cancer and palliative care services. PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS: 186 cancer and palliative care nurses. METHODS: The Self-PAC Scale was administered to participants online. Factor Analyses, including Exploratory and Confirmatory, were applied to examine the structural validity, Cronbach's alpha was calculated for internal consistency. Criterion validity was investigated by comparing responses from experienced and non-experienced nurses. RESULTS: Two components resulted with a single factor structure for pain assessment confidence and a two-factor structure for the knowledge of pain assessment. The factor loading for the subscales ranged from 0.653 to 0.969, with large proportions of the variances explained by the factors. Cronbach's alpha of the subscales ranged from 0.87-0.92 and significant difference in responses were found between experienced and non-experienced nurses. CONCLUSION: Preliminary validation of the Self-PAC Scale suggests that it is a helpful instrument for assessing cancer and palliative care nurse' pain assessment competencies.

Can A Complex Online Intervention Improve Cancer Nurses' Pain Screening and Assessment Practices? Results from a Multicenter, Pre-post Test Pilot Study.

Unrelieved cancer pain has an adverse impact on quality of life. While routine screening and assessment forms the basis of effective cancer pain management, it is often poorly done, thus contributing to the burden of unrelieved cancer pain. The aim of this study was to test the impact of an online, complex, evidence-based educational intervention on cancer nurses' pain assessment capabilities and adherence to cancer pain screening and assessment guidelines. Specialist inpatient cancer nurses in five Australian acute care settings participated in an intervention combining an online spaced learning cancer pain assessment module with audit and feedback of pain assessment practices. Participants' self-perceived pain assessment competencies were measured at three time points. Prospective, consecutive chart audits were undertaken to appraise nurses' adherence with pain screening and assessment guidelines. The differences in documented pre-post pain assessment practices were benchmarked and fed back to all sites post intervention. Data were analyzed using inferential statistics. Participants who completed the intervention (n = 44) increased their pain assessment knowledge, assessment tool knowledge, and confidence undertaking a pain assessment (p < .001). The positive changes in nurses' pain assessment capabilities translated into a significant increasing linear trend in the proportion of documented pain assessments in patients' charts at the three time points (χ2 trend = 18.28, df = 1, p < .001). There is evidence that learning content delivered using a spaced learning format, augmented with pain assessment audit and feedback data, improves inpatient cancer nurses' self-perceived pain screening and assessment capabilities and strengthens cancer pain guideline adherence.

Quantifying the burden of opioid medication errors in adult oncology and palliative care settings: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are the primary pharmacological treatment for cancer pain and, in the palliative care setting, are routinely used to manage symptoms at the end of life. Opioids are one of the most frequently reported drug classes in medication errors causing patient harm. Despite their widespread use, little is known about the incidence and impact of opioid medication errors in oncology and palliative care settings. AIM: To determine the incidence, types and impact of reported opioid medication errors in adult oncology and palliative care patient settings. DESIGN: A systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases and the grey literature were searched from 1980 to August 2014. Empirical studies published in English, reporting data on opioid medication error incidence, types or patient impact, within adult oncology and/or palliative care services, were included. Popay's narrative synthesis approach was used to analyse data. RESULTS: Five empirical studies were included in this review. Opioid error incidence rate was difficult to ascertain as each study focussed on a single narrow area of error. The predominant error type related to deviation from opioid prescribing guidelines, such as incorrect dosing intervals. None of the included studies reported the degree of patient harm resulting from opioid errors. CONCLUSION: This review has highlighted the paucity of the literature examining opioid error incidence, types and patient impact in adult oncology and palliative care settings. Defining, identifying and quantifying error reporting practices for these populations should be an essential component of future oncology and palliative care quality and safety initiatives.

Impact of a novel online learning module on specialist palliative care nurses' pain assessment competencies and patients' reports of pain: Results from a quasi-experimental pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a complex multidimensional phenomenon moderated by consumer, provider and health system factors. Effective pain management cuts across professional boundaries, with failure to screen and assess contributing to the burden of unrelieved pain. AIM: To test the impact of an online pain assessment learning module on specialist palliative care nurses' pain assessment competencies, and to determine whether this education impacted positively on palliative care patients' reported pain ratings. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental pain assessment education pilot study utilising 'Qstream©', an online methodology to deliver 11 case-based pain assessment learning scenarios, developed by an interdisciplinary expert panel and delivered to participants' work emails over a 28-day period in mid-2012. The 'Self-Perceived Pain Assessment Competencies' survey and chart audit data, including patient-reported pain intensity ratings, were collected pre-intervention (T1) and post-intervention (T2) and analysed using inferential statistics to determine key outcomes. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Nurses working at two Australian inpatient specialist palliative care services in 2012. RESULTS: The results reported conform to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Guidelines. Participants who completed the education intervention ( n = 34) increased their pain assessment knowledge, assessment tool knowledge and confidence to undertake a pain assessment ( p < 0.001). Participants were more likely to document pain intensity scores in patients' medical records than non-participants (95% confidence interval = 7.3%-22.7%, p = 0.021). There was also a significant reduction in the mean patient-reported pain ratings between the admission and audit date at post-test of 1.5 (95% confidence interval = 0.7-2.3) units in pain score. CONCLUSION: This pilot confers confidence of the education interventions capacity to improve specialist palliative care nurses' pain assessment practices and to reduce patient-rated pain intensity scores.

Effectiveness of educational and psychological survivorship interventions to improve health-related quality of life outcomes for men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), a common treatment for prostate cancer, has debilitating impacts on physical and psychological quality of life. While some interventions focus on managing the physical side effects of ADT, there is a paucity of interventions that also address psychosocial and educational needs. The objective of this systematic review was to identify psychological and educational survivorship interventions targeting health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in men on ADT. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, Cochrane, EBSCO Host, PubMed, SCOPUS from inception (1984) to 28 January 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Psychological and/or educational survivorship interventions targeting HRQoL outcomes for men on ADT; minimum 80% of participants on ADT; used a validated HRQoL outcome measure; published in English in a peer-reviewed journal. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction using pre-specified study criteria was conducted. Heterogeneity of eligible studies precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3381 publications were identified with eight meeting the criteria. Interventions were either psychological with a cognitive behavioural approach (n=4), or educational with (n=2) or without (n=2) psychoeducational components.Two studies reported a statistically significant improvement using a specific HRQoL measure. Most studies were not adequately powered and/or included small sample sizes limiting the conclusions that can be drawn on effectiveness. The most effective interventions were (i) individually based, (ii) educational with a psychoeducational component, (iii) supplemented with information packages and/or homework and (iv) included personalised needs assessments. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of literature reporting psychological and educational survivorship interventions targeting HRQoL outcomes for men on ADT. What is urgently needed are person-centred survivorship interventions that are flexible enough to identify and address individual needs, taking into account the impact ADT has on both physical and psychological quality of life. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD4202230809.

Prostate Cancer Survivorship Essentials for men with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a tele-based nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials Hormone Therapy Study).

INTRODUCTION: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) is commonly used to treat men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer. Men receiving ADT experience numerous side effects and frequently report unmet supportive care needs. An essential part of quality cancer care is survivorship care. To date, an optimal effective approach to survivorship care for men with prostate cancer on ADT has not been described. This protocol describes a randomised trial of tele-based nurse-led survivorship that addresses this knowledge gap: (1) determine the effectiveness of a nurse-led survivorship care intervention (PCEssentials), relative to usual care, for improving health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in men with prostate cancer undergoing ADT and (2) evaluate PCEssentials implementation strategies and outcomes, including cost-effectiveness, compared with usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 1) trial with participants randomised to one of two arms: (1) minimally enhanced usual care and (2) nurse-led prostate cancer survivorship essentials (PCEssentials) delivered over four tele-based sessions, with a booster session 5 months after session 1. Eligible participants are Australian men with prostate cancer commencing ADT and expected to be on ADT for a minimum of 12 months. Participants are followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months postrecruitment. Primary outcomes are HR-QoL and self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes are psychological distress, insomnia, fatigue and physical activity. A concurrent process evaluation with participants and study stakeholders will be undertaken to determine effectiveness of delivery of PCEssentials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Metro South Health HREC (HREC/2021/QMS/79429). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. Outcomes of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals. The findings will be presented at conferences and meetings, local hospital departments, participating organisations/clinical services, and university seminars, and communicated at community and consumer-led forums. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622000025730.

A Vanguard Approach to the Design and Delivery of Nurse-Led Survivorship Care.

OBJECTIVES: Survivorship care is an essential component of quality cancer care. Although nurses are uniquely positioned to deliver effective and efficient nurse-led survivorship care, they report that their experiences of survivorship care provision are fragmented, under-resourced, and often distressing for the patient. DATA SOURCES: Here we report the culmination of a 4-year program of research and more than a decade of nurse-led work, to improve the survivorship care experience for men with prostate cancer comprising of: (1) the evolution of a national specialist prostate cancer nursing service; (2) a nursing Delphi study to determine prostate cancer survivorship care experiences and priorities; (3) the development of the Prostate Cancer Survivorship Essentials Framework, which provides a road map for improving quality prostate cancer survivorship care across a variety of settings; and (4) the translation of the framework into nursing practice through the development of My Personal Plan, a person-centered, evidence-informed survivorship care plan. CONCLUSION: Through the leadership of a national prostate cancer specialist nursing service, the provision of a coordinated, evidence-informed person-centered survivorship care service is now achievable. This program of work has demonstrated that irrespective of the setting or mode of delivery, specialist nurses involved in the care of men with prostate cancer and their families are leading best practice through the translation of evidence into everyday clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: There is an urgent need to address the significant challenges that a prostate cancer diagnosis can bring, and nurses are at the forefront and lead survivorship care delivery, which includes: (1) routine distress screening and referral to tailored evidence-based psychological care; (2) the provision of person-centered care that connects to effective symptom management; (3) self-management support; and (4) signposting to additional services which extend beyond the acute care setting.

Psychological Interventions Prior to Cancer Surgery: a Review of Reviews.

Purpose of Review: Patients with cancer who have high levels of psychological distress have poor treatment compliance and worse outcomes. This "review of reviews" provides a narrative synthesis of the impact of psychological prehabilitation interventions on individuals awaiting cancer surgery. Recent Findings: Twenty reviews of prehabilitation with psychological interventions were identified. There is a trend towards improved psychological outcomes following intervention, particularly when psychologist-led. However, there was considerable heterogeneity within interventions, outcome measures, and timing of assessment precluding numeric synthesis. Methodological limitations including non-blinding, absence of stratification, and underpowered studies were also pervasive. Summary: Providing psychological support early in the cancer pathway and prior to surgery has the potential to improve psychological health and outcomes. The application of existing knowledge in psycho-oncology, including distress screening, is needed in the prehabilitation setting. Consistent outcome assessments, accurate reporting of intervention components and delivery methods, and a consideration of effective systems and economical implementation strategies would facilitate advancements in this field. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40140-021-00505-x.

Risk of opioid misuse in people with cancer and pain and related clinical considerations: a qualitative study of the perspectives of Australian general practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) concerning the risk of opioid misuse in people with cancer and pain and related clinical considerations. DESIGN: A qualitative approach using semistructured telephone interviews. Analysis used an integrative approach. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Australian GPs with experience of prescribing opioids for people with cancer and pain. RESULTS: Twenty-two GPs participated, and three themes emerged. Theme 1 (Misuse is not the main problem) contextualised misuse as a relatively minor concern compared with pain control and toxicity, and highlighted underlying systemic factors, including limitations in continuity of care and doctor expertise. Theme 2 ('A different mindset' for cancer pain) captured participants' relative comfort in prescribing opioids for pain in cancer versus non-cancer contexts, and acknowledgement that compassion and greater perceived community acceptance were driving factors, in addition to scientific support for mechanisms and clinical efficacy. Participant attitudes towards prescribing for people with cancer versus non-cancer pain differed most when cancer was in the palliative phase, when they were unconcerned by misuse. Participants were equivocal about the risk-benefit ratio of long-term opioid therapy in the chronic phase of cancer, and were reluctant to prescribe for disease-free survivors. Theme 3 ('The question is always, 'how lazy have you been?') captured participants' acknowledgement that they sometimes prescribed opioids for cancer pain as a default, easier option compared with more holistic pain management. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the role of specific clinical considerations in distinguishing risk of opioid misuse in the cancer versus non-cancer population, rather than diagnosis per se. Further efforts are needed to ensure continuity of care where opioid prescribing is shared. Greater evidence is needed to guide opioid prescribing in disease-free survivors and the chronic phase of cancer, especially in the context of new treatments for metastatic disease.

A phase III wait-listed randomised controlled trial of novel targeted inter-professional clinical education intervention to improve cancer patients' reported pain outcomes (The Cancer Pain Assessment (CPAS) Trial): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Variations in care models contribute to cancer pain being under-recognised and under-treated in half of all patients with cancer. International and national cancer pain management guidelines are achievable with minimal investment but require practice changes. While much of the cancer pain research over the preceding decades has focused on management interventions, little attention has been given to achieving better adherence to recommended cancer pain guideline screening and assessment practices. This trial aims to reduce unrelieved cancer pain by improving cancer and palliative doctors' and nurses' ('clinicians') pain assessment capabilities through a targeted inter-professional clinical education intervention delivered to participants' mobile devices ('mHealth'). METHODS: A wait-listed, randomised control trial design. Cancer and/or palliative care physicians and nurses employed at one of the six participating sites across Australia will be eligible to participate in this trial and, on enrolment, will be allocated to the active or wait-listed arm. Participants allocated to the active arm will be invited to complete the mHealth cancer pain assessment intervention. In this trial, mHealth is defined as medical or public health practice supported by mobile devices (i.e. phones, patient monitoring devices, personal digital assistants and other wireless devices). This mHealth intervention integrates three evidence-based elements, namely: the COM-B theoretical framework; spaced learning pedagogy; and audit and feedback. This intervention will be delivered via the QStream online platform to participants' mobile devices over four weeks. The trial will determine if a tailored mHealth intervention, targeting clinicians' cancer pain assessment capabilities, is effective in reducing self-reported cancer pain scores, as measured by a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). DISCUSSION: If this mHealth intervention is found to be effective, in addition to improving cancer pain assessment practices, it will provide a readily transferable evidence-based framework that could readily be applied to other evidence practice gaps and a scalable intervention that could be administered simultaneously to multiple clinicians across diverse geographical locations. Moreover, if found to be cost-effective, it will help transform clinical continuing professional development. In summary, this mHealth intervention will provide health services with an opportunity to offer an evidence-based, pedagogically robust, cost-effective, scalable training alternative. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12618001103257 . Registered on 3 July 2018.

Exploring Factors Contributing to Medication Errors with Opioids in Australian Specialist Palliative Care Inpatient Services: A Multi-Incident Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Opioid errors have the potential to cause significant patient harm. These high-risk medications are used in high volumes in palliative care services to manage pain and other symptoms. Palliative patients are at greater risk of harm from opioid errors, as they are generally older and taking numerous medications to manage multiple comorbidities. Understanding factors contributing to opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services is a largely underexplored, yet, essential aspect of patient safety. OBJECTIVE: To explore and identify the characteristics and associated contributing factors of reported opioid errors in palliative care inpatient services using a multi-incident analysis framework. DESIGN: A multi-incident analysis of opioid errors reported over three years in two Australian specialist palliative care inpatient services. RESULTS: A total of 78 opioid errors were reported. The majority (76%) of these errors occurred during opioid administration, primarily due to omitted dose (34%) and wrong dose (17%) errors. Eighty-five percent of reported errors reached the patient resulting in opioid underdose for over half (59%) of these patients. Over one-third (37%) of errors caused patient harm, which required clinical intervention. Error contributing factors included the following: noncompliance with policy; individual factors such as distraction; poor clinical communication systems; and workload. CONCLUSIONS: This multi-incident analysis has provided initial insights into factors contributing to opioid errors in palliative care inpatient services. Further exploration is warranted to understand palliative care clinicians' perspectives of systems, individual, and patient factors that influence safe opioid delivery processes.