Adaptation, implementation, and mixed methods evaluation of an interprofessional modular clinical practice guideline for delirium management on an inpatient palliative care unit.

BACKGROUND: Using delirium clinical guidelines may align interprofessional clinical practice and improve the care of delirious patients and their families. The aim of this project was to adapt, implement and evaluate an interprofessional modular delirium clinical practice guideline for an inpatient palliative care unit. METHODS: The setting was a 31-bed adult inpatient palliative care unit within a university-affiliated teaching hospital. Participants for the evaluation were interprofessional team members. Using integration of guideline adaptation and an education initiative, an interprofessional guideline adaptation group developed a face-to-face 'starter kit' module and four online self-learning modules. The mixed methods evaluation comprised pre-and post-implementation review of electronic patient records, an online survey, and analysis of focus groups/ interviews using an iterative, inductive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Guideline implementation took 12 months. All palliative care unit staff attended a 'starter kit' session. Overall completion rate of the four e-Learning modules was 80.4%. After guideline implementation, nursing documentation of non-pharmacological interventions occurring before medication administration was observed. There was 60% less scheduled antipsychotic use and an increase in 'as needed' midazolam use. The online survey response rate was 32% (25/77). Most participants viewed the guideline's implementation favourably. Six key themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups with ten participants: prior delirium knowledge or experiences, challenges of facilitating change, impacts on practice, collaborative effort of change, importance of standardized guidelines, and utility of guideline elements. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline implementation warrants concerted effort, time, and management support. Interprofessional team support facilitates the modular approach of guideline adaptation and implementation, leading to a change in clinical practice.

Melatonin to prevent delirium in patients with advanced cancer: a double blind, parallel, randomized, controlled, feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is highly problematic in palliative care (PC). Preliminary data indicate a potential role for melatonin to prevent delirium, but no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are reported in PC. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years, with advanced cancer, admitted to an inpatient Palliative Care Unit (PCU), having a Palliative Performance Scale rating ≥ 30%, and for whom consent was obtained, were included in the study. Patients with delirium on admission were excluded. The main study objectives were to assess the feasibility issues of conducting a double-blind RCT of exogenous melatonin to prevent delirium in PC: recruitment, retention, procedural acceptability, appropriateness of outcome measures, and preliminary efficacy and safety data. Study participants were randomized in a double-blind, parallel designed study to receive daily melatonin 3 mg or placebo orally at 21:00 over 28 days or less if incident delirium, death, discharge or withdrawal occurred earlier. Delirium was diagnosed using the Confusion Assessment Method. Efficacy endpoints in the melatonin and placebo groups were compared using time-to-event analysis: days from study entry to onset of incident delirium. RESULTS: Over 16 months, 60/616 (9.7%; 95% CI: 7.5-12.4%) screened subjects were enrolled. The respective melatonin (n = 30) vs placebo (n = 30) outcomes were: incident delirium in 11/30 (36.7%; 95%CI: 19.9-56.1%) vs 10/30 (33%; 95% CI: 17.3-52.8%); early discharge (6 vs 5); withdrawal (6 vs 3); death (0 vs 1); and 7 (23%) vs 11 (37%) reached the 28-day end point. The 25th percentile time-to-event were 9 and 18 days (log rank, χ2 = 0.62, p = 0.43) in melatonin and placebo groups, respectively. No serious trial medication-related adverse effects occurred and the core study procedures were acceptable. Compared to those who remained delirium-free during their study participation, those who developed delirium (n = 21) had poorer functional (p = 0.036) and cognitive performance (p = 0.013), and in particular, poorer attentional capacity (p = 0.003) at study entry. CONCLUSIONS: A larger double-blind RCT is feasible, but both subject accrual and withdrawal rates signal a need for multisite collaboration. The apparent trend for shorter time to incident delirium in the melatonin group bodes for careful monitoring in a larger trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on July 21st 2014 with ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02200172 .

A Scoping Review to Map Empirical Evidence Regarding Key Domains and Questions in the Clinical Pathway of Delirium in Palliative Care.

CONTEXT: Based on the clinical care pathway of delirium in palliative care (PC), a published analytic framework (AF) formulated research questions in key domains and recommended a scoping review to identify evidence gaps. OBJECTIVES: To produce a literature map for key domains of the published AF: screening, prognosis and diagnosis, management, and the health-related outcomes. METHODS: A standard scoping review framework was used by an interdisciplinary study team of nurse- and physician-delirium researchers, an information specialist, and review methodologists to conduct the review. Knowledge user engagement provided context in refining 19 AF questions. A peer-reviewed search strategy identified citations in Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL databases between 1980 and 2018. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion using explicit study eligibility criteria for the population, design, delirium diagnosis, and investigational intent. RESULTS: Of 104 studies reporting empirical data and meeting eligibility criteria, most were conducted in patients with cancer (73.1%) and in inpatient PC units (52%). The most frequent study design was a one or more group, nonrandomized trial or cohort (67.3%). Evidence gaps were identified: delirium risk prediction; comparative effectiveness and harms of prevention, variability in delirium management across PC settings, advanced directive and substitute decision-maker input, and transition of care location; and estimating delirium reversibility. Future rigorous primary studies are required to address these gaps and preliminary concerns regarding the quality of extant literature. CONCLUSION: Substantial evidence gaps exist, providing opportunities for future research regarding the assessment, prognosis, and management of delirium in PC settings.