Perceptions of trained laypersons in end-of-life or advance care planning conversations: a qualitative meta-synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Laypersons including volunteers, community health navigators, or peer educators provide important support to individuals with serious illnesses in community or healthcare settings. The experiences of laypersons in communication with seriously ill peers is unknown. METHODS: We performed an ENTREQ-guided qualitative meta-synthesis. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and AMED to include qualitative studies with data regarding communication and laypersons in advance care planning, palliative care, or end-of-life settings. Study quality was appraised using a standardized tool. The analysis identified key domains and associated themes relating specifically to laypersons' perspectives on communication. RESULTS: Of 877 articles, nine studies provided layperson quotations related to layperson-to-peer communication associated with advance care planning (n = 4) or end-of-life conversations (n = 5). The studies were conducted in United Kingdom (n = 4) or United States settings (n = 5). The synthesis of layperson perspectives yielded five main domains: 1) layperson-to-peer communication, focusing on the experience of talking with peers, 2) layperson-to-peer interpersonal interactions, focusing on the entire interaction between the layperson and peers, excluding communication-related issues, 3) personal impact on the layperson, 4) layperson contributions, and 5) layperson training. Laypersons described using specific communication skills including the ability to build rapport, discuss sensitive issues, listen and allow silence, and respond to emotions. CONCLUSIONS: Published studies described experiences of trained laypersons in conversations with peers related to advance care planning or end-of-life situations. Based on these layperson perspectives related to communication, programs should next evaluate the potential impact of laypersons in meaningful conversations.

A systematic review of phenibut withdrawal focusing on complications, therapeutic approaches, and single substance versus polysubstance withdrawal.

INTRODUCTION: Phenibut is an unregulated supplement that acts primarily as a gamma-aminobutyric acid type B receptor agonist. Use of phenibut can lead to dependence and subsequent withdrawal when use is stopped. Phenibut withdrawal can cause severe symptoms such as delirium, hallucinations, and seizures. The purpose of this systematic review is to characterize the natural history of phenibut withdrawal and summarize treatment strategies published in the literature. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses checklist. English language peer-reviewed articles or conference abstracts in humans describing phenibut withdrawal after cessation of use were included. Databases (Ovid/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Science Direct) and references of included articles were searched. Case reports were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for case reports. Patient demographics and key outcomes, including withdrawal characteristics and treatment characteristics, were collected into a predefined data collection sheet by six independent reviewers. RESULTS: Search results yielded 515 articles of which 25 were included. All articles were case reports or published conference abstracts. All of the cases (100 percent) involved male patients and the median age was 30 years, (interquartile range 23.5-34 years, range 4 days-68 years). The median daily phenibut dose prior to experiencing withdrawal was 10 g (interquartile range 4.75-21.5 g, range 1-200 g). The shortest duration of phenibut use (2-3 g daily) prior to withdrawal was one week. Withdrawal symptoms occurred as quickly as two hours after the last phenibut dose. Sixteen patients (64 percent) reported progression of withdrawal severity within the first 24 hours of healthcare contact. Seizures were reported in two patients (8 percent), intubation in six patients (24 percent), and intensive care unit admission in 11 patients (44 percent). Withdrawal patterns and outcomes were similar in those using phenibut alone and those with comorbid polysubstance use. Withdrawal treatment strategies varied widely. Only three cases (12 percent) were managed outpatient and all three utilized a phenibut tapering strategy. All patients undergoing medication-assisted abstinence were admitted inpatient for symptom management and received a drug that acts on gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors. The most commonly used medication was a benzodiazepine, reported in 17 cases (68 percent). Nineteen patients (76 percent) required at least two drug therapies to manage symptoms. Baclofen was used in 15 cases (60 percent), primarily in conjunction with gamma-aminobutyric acid type A agonists (12 of 15 cases) or as monotherapy during a phenibut taper (two of 15 cases). Two patients using baclofen monotherapy outpatient, after initial stabilization with multiple drug classes, reported adverse effects. One patient had a seizure and the other experienced recurrent withdrawal symptoms, returned to using phenibut, and was admitted to a hospital for withdrawal symptom management with benzodiazepines. LIMITATIONS: This review is subject to several limitations. Due to the manual nature of article selection, it is possible relevant articles may not have been included. As the entire data set is comprised of case reports it may suffer from publications bias. Outcomes and meaningful conclusions from specific treatment strategies were rarely available because of the heterogeneous nature of case reports. It is possible those reporting only phenibut use were actually using multiple substances. The doses of phenibut a user believed they were taking may be different from what was present in the unregulated product. CONCLUSIONS: Phenibut withdrawal appears to have a range of severity. It is important to recognize that patients undergoing phenibut abstinence may have progressive symptom worsening during early withdrawal. All published cases of abrupt phenibut abstinence were admitted inpatients for symptom management. Benzodiazepines or barbiturates with adjunctive baclofen appear to be the most commonly used drugs for moderate to severe withdrawal. Outpatient management via slow phenibut tapers with or without adjunctive gamma-aminobutyric acid agonist therapy may be successful. However, there is no standard treatment, and consultation with experts (e.g., toxicologists, addiction specialists) experienced in managing withdrawal syndromes is recommended. Significant study is warranted to develop methods of triaging phenibut withdrawal (e.g., severity scoring, inpatient versus outpatient management) and creating optimal treatment regimens.

Effectiveness of Advance Care Planning Group Visits Among Older Adults in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Group visits can support health behavior change and self-efficacy. In primary care, an advance care planning (ACP) group visit may leverage group dynamics and peer mentorship to facilitate education and personal goal setting that result in ACP engagement. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the ENgaging in Advance Care Planning Talks (ENACT) group visits intervention improves ACP documentation and readiness in older adults. METHODS: This randomized clinical trial was conducted among geriatric primary care patients from the University of Colorado Hospital Seniors Clinic, Aurora, CO, from August 2017 to November 2019. Participants randomized to ENACT group visits (n = 55) participated in two 2-hour sessions with discussions of ACP topics and use of ACP tools (i.e., Conversation Starter Kit, Medical Durable Power of Attorney form, and PREPARE videos). Participants randomized to the control arm (n = 55) received the Conversation Starter Kit and a Medical Durable Power of Attorney form by mail. The primary outcomes included presence of ACP documents or medical decision-maker documentation in the electronic health record (EHR) at 6 months, and a secondary outcome was ACP readiness (validated four-item ACP Engagement Survey) at 6 months. RESULTS: Participants were a mean of 77 years old, 60% female, and 79% white. At 6 months, 71% of ENACT participants had an advance directive in the EHR (26% higher) compared with 45% of control arm participants (P < .001). Similarly, 93% of ENACT participants had decision-maker documentation in the EHR (29% higher) compared with 73% in the control arm (P < .001). ENACT participants trended toward higher readiness to engage in ACP compared with control (4.56 vs 4.13; P = .16) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: An ACP group visit increased ACP documentation and readiness to engage in ACP behavior change. Primary care teams can explore implementation and adaptation of ACP group visits into routine care, as well as longer-term impact on patient health outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2382-2389, 2020.

Teaching Medical Students About "The Conversation": An Interactive Value-Based Advance Care Planning Session.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning (ACP) promotes care consistent with patient wishes. Medical education should teach how to initiate value-based ACP conversations. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate an ACP educational session to teach medical students a value-based ACP process and to encourage students to take personal ACP action steps. DESIGN: Groups of third-year medical students participated in a 75-minute session using personal reflection and discussion framed by The Conversation Starter Kit. The Conversation Project is a free resource designed to help individuals and families express their wishes for end-of-life care. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-seven US third-year medical students participated in the session. MEASUREMENTS: Student evaluations immediately after the session and 1 month later via electronic survey. RESULTS: More than 90% of students positively evaluated the educational value of the session, including rating highly the opportunities to reflect on their own ACP and to use The Conversation Starter Kit. Many students (65%) reported prior ACP conversations. After the session, 73% reported plans to discuss ACP, 91% had thought about preferences for future medical care, and 39% had chosen a medical decision maker. Only a minority had completed an advance directive (14%) or talked with their health-care provider (1%). One month later, there was no evidence that the session increased students' actions regarding these same ACP action steps. CONCLUSION: A value-based ACP educational session using The Conversation Starter Kit successfully engaged medical students in learning about ACP conversations, both professionally and personally. This session may help students initiate conversations for themselves and their patients.

Use of Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment for Heart Failure Patients During Postacute Care in Skilled Nursing Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with heart failure (HF) who are hospitalized and admitted to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are at high risk for rehospitalization and death. The care preferences of this high-risk population have not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To describe care preferences of patients with HF admitted to SNFs for rehabilitation based on Medical Orders for Scope of Treatment (MOST) documentation, and evaluate goal-concordant care based on MOST documentation, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospitalization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study of patients with HF in 35 SNFs enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of HF-disease management versus usual care between July 2014 and May 2016. MEASUREMENTS: Validity of MOST forms, care preference documentation, and ED visits/hospitalizations within 60 days of SNF admission. RESULTS: Of 370 patients (mean age 78.6 years, 58% women, 25% systolic HF), 278 (75%) had a MOST form in the SNF chart, of which 96 forms (35%) were invalid. The most common reason for an invalid MOST form was missing date accompanying patient or provider signature. Of 182 valid MOST forms, 47% of patients chose no cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("No CPR"), 58% selected "Full Treatment," 17% chose "Selective Treatment," and 23% chose "Comfort-Focused Treatment." Patients who were older [odds ratio (OR) = 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.25, 1.81] and female (OR = 2.33, 95% CI = 1.18, 4.59) had higher odds of choosing "No CPR." Sixty-six of 182 patients (36%) with valid MOST forms had an ED/hospital visit within 60 days of SNF admission; only 3 patients received medical care that was potentially discordant: all 3 chose "Comfort-Focused Treatment" and were hospitalized for more than symptom management. CONCLUSION: Seventy-five percent of patients with HF admitted to SNFs had care preferences documented using the MOST form, and 95% received goal-concordant care based on care preferences documented during the SNF admission. Clinicaltrials.gov # NCT01822912.