Care of older people and people requiring palliative care with COVID-19: guidance from the Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce.

INTRODUCTION: Older people living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment who have coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) experience higher rates of critical illness. There are also people who become critically ill with COVID-19 for whom a decision is made to take a palliative approach to their care. The need for clinical guidance in these two populations resulted in the formation of the Care of Older People and Palliative Care Panel of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce in June 2020. This specialist panel consists of nursing, medical, pharmacy and allied health experts in geriatrics and palliative care from across Australia. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The panel was tasked with developing two clinical flow charts for the management of people with COVID-19 who are i) older and living with frailty and/or cognitive impairment, and ii) receiving palliative care for COVID-19 or other underlying illnesses. The flow charts focus on goals of care, communication, medication management, escalation of care, active disease-directed care, and managing symptoms such as delirium, anxiety, agitation, breathlessness or cough. The Taskforce also developed living guideline recommendations for the care of adults with COVID-19, including a commentary to discuss special considerations when caring for older people and those requiring palliative care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: The practice points in the flow charts emphasise quality clinical care, with a focus on addressing the most important challenges when caring for older individuals and people with COVID-19 requiring palliative care. The adult recommendations contain additional considerations for the care of older people and those requiring palliative care.

Use of Dexamethasone for Severe Fatigue in the Advanced Cancer Population: A Brief Report.

Background: Fatigue is a common and distressing symptom for palliative care patients. Although the current literature emphasizes nonpharmacological management, dexamethasone is reportedly used in clinical practice. This study helps to characterize its use, efficacy, and adverse effects in a real-world setting. Objective: To improve the evidence base by exploring the use, efficacy, and side effect profile of dexamethasone for fatigue management. Methods: This international multisite prospective observational case series assessed the benefit and adverse effects of dexamethasone at baseline (T0) and at five to seven days postbaseline (T1). Fatigue scores were assessed using the symptom assessment scale (SAS) and visual analogue fatigue scale (VAFS). Adverse events were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE). The related samples Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare before and after scores. Results: All 18 patients (male-female, 11:7) had advanced metastatic cancer with most in the deteriorating palliative care phase (56%). The most common dose of dexamethasone was 4 mg daily orally. At T1 (n = 12), improvement was seen in all measures of fatigue; the median SAS scores decreased from 7 to 5.5 (p = 0.007), the median VAFS scores increased from 3 to 5 (p = 0.126), and the median NCI-CTCAE fatigue scores were reduced from 3 to 2.5 (p = 0.18). Dexamethasone was well tolerated; one participant experienced grade 3 delirium. Conclusion: The small number of participants recruited for this study suggests that dexamethasone is not widely used specifically for fatigue. Our results suggest an improvement in fatigue scores from T0 to T1.

Evaluating Adherence of Evidence-Based Post-Operative Discharge Opioid Prescribing Guidelines and Patient Outcomes Two Weeks Post-Discharge.

Introduction: There is a growing public health concern regarding inappropriate prescribing practices of discharge analgesia. A tertiary Australian hospital first developed its Postoperative Inpatients Discharge Analgesia Guidelines after an initial audit in 2015. Adherence to the guidelines were evaluated in 2016 and 2017 which show reduced compliance from 93.5% in 2016 to 83.4% in 2017. Aim: To assess ongoing compliance with the guidelines five years following its implementation and to evaluate patient outcome in terms of its clinical impact and minimization of harmful events. Methods: Prescribing data were obtained for discharge analgesic medication for 200 surgical patients from August 2019 to April 2020. Records were assessed against the hospital's Postoperative Inpatients Discharge Analgesia Guidelines and compared with equivalent data from the previous 2015, 2016, and 2017 audits. Patients were interviewed by telephone two weeks after hospital discharge. Results: Prescribing of analgesia was most compliant with overall guidelines for paracetamol (100% unchanged from 2017), followed by celecoxib (98%, up from 96% in 2017), tramadol IR (89% up from 74% in 2017), and pregabalin (89% up from 50% in 2017). Two weeks after discharge, 112 (56%) patients were surveyed and reported a mean pain-score of 2 (95% CI 1.5-2.5) out of 10 at that time. Thirty-two (29%) patients interviewed were still taking pain medication, with 17 (53%) taking medication supplied from the hospital. Seventy-eight (88%) patients stored their pain medication in an unlocked location. Among those no longer taking analgesia, 28 (43%) had unused pain medications, and only two (6%) had returned these to a community pharmacist. Conclusion: This study found that compliance with hospital discharge analgesia prescribing guidelines has increased, although there is room for improvement. Follow-up of the participants reveals high rates of unused opioids, improper storage and disposal of their pain medication.

Subcutaneous patient-controlled analgesia in palliative care.

Subcutaneous patient-controlled analgesia (SCPCA) is an underutilized method of pain management in palliative care patients. In a select group of patients, including patients in whom enteral analgesia is ineffective or undeliverable, and in patients with limited access to healthcare due to geographical or other logistic issues, SCPCA can provide an effective and safe alternative.

The effect of guideline implementation on discharge analgesia prescribing (two years on).

The provision of appropriate discharge analgesia can be challenging and is often prescribed by some of the most junior members of the medical team. Opioid abuse has been considered a growing public health crisis and physician overprescribing is a major contributor. In 2015 an initial audit of discharge analgesia at the Royal Perth Hospital led to the development of discharge analgesia guidelines. Compliance with these guidelines was assessed by a follow-up audit in 2016, which showed improved practice. This audit assesses discharge analgesia prescribing practices two years following guideline implementation. Dispensing data were obtained for analgesic medication over a three-month period from April to July 2017 and 100 unique patients were chosen using computer generated randomisation. Patients' medical records were assessed against the hospital's Postoperative Inpatients Discharge Analgesia Guidelines. The data collected were then compared with equivalent data from the previous 2015 and 2016 audits. Overall 83.4% of the 170 discharge analgesia prescriptions written were compliant with guidelines. The highest overall compliance rates were achieved for paracetamol (100%, up from 95.9% in 2016), celecoxib (96%, down from 100% in 2016), and oxycodone immediate release (IR) (74%, down from 88.9% in 2016). The quantity of oxycodone IR given on discharge complied with quantity guidelines in only 56% of cases. Overall there has been a significant and sustained improvement in appropriateness of discharge analgesia prescribing since 2015, though the results from 2017 show less compliance than 2016 and that achieving compliance with quantity guidelines is an ongoing challenge. This demonstrates the challenge of obtaining high adherence to guidelines over a longer time period.

What are the essential medications in pallative care? - a survey of Australian palliative care doctors.

BACKGROUND: There is a disparity of availability and cost of drugs in the community for palliative care patients through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) compared to those available to inpatients in public hospitals. METHODS: The Joint Therapeutics Committee of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Palliative Medicine, Palliative Care Australia and the Clinical Oncological Society of Australia surveyed palliative care practitioners in Australia to compile a list of drugs they considered essential. RESULTS: Drugs nominated generally had good levels of evidence for use in palliative care, although many practitioners still used some without evidence of benefit. DISCUSSION: We are now working with the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing to agree on a list of drugs for specific palliative care indications. As a result, the first ever section in the PBS for a specific patient population has been created. There is a need for high quality studies in palliative care to determine the best drugs to add to the list.

Community pharmacists' attitudes toward palliative care: an Australian nationwide survey.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists are among the most accessible health care professionals in the community, yet are often not involved in community palliative care teams. OBJECTIVE: We investigated community pharmacists' attitudes, beliefs, feelings, and knowledge about palliative care as a first step towards determining how best to facilitate the inclusion of community pharmacists on the palliative care team. METHOD: A cross-sectional descriptive survey design was used. SUBJECTS: Community pharmacists around Australia were invited to participate; 250 completed surveys were returned. MEASUREMENTS: A survey was constructed to measure pharmacists' knowledge and experience, emotions and beliefs about palliative care. RESULTS: Pharmacists were generally positive about providing services and supports for palliative care patients, yet they also reported negative beliefs and emotions about palliative care. In addition, pharmacists had good knowledge of some aspects of palliative care, but misconceptions about other aspects. Pharmacists' beliefs and knowledge about palliative care predicted--and therefore underpinned--a positive attitude towards palliative care and the provision of services and supports for palliative care patients. CONCLUSION: The results provide evidence that pharmacists need training and support to facilitate their involvement in providing services and supports for palliative care patients, and highlight areas that training and support initiatives should focus on.