Doctors' understanding of consent law.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining informed consent is an important responsibility of all doctors and is a major component of their day-to-day practice. However, little is known regarding practising doctors' understanding of consent in relation to medical law. AIMS: To gain insights into current doctors' understanding of the legal requisites that underpin the consent of patients to medical procedures in Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of Western Australian medical practitioners was conducted. A 15-question online questionnaire (SurveyMonkey, USA) was developed and distributed to Western Australia medical practitioners via social media, hospital-based Junior doctor society pages and through the email accounts of practitioners registered with MDA National - a large medical defence organisation. Doctors were questioned on their understanding of medicolegal responsibilities, informed consent practice and knowledge of a historically significant Australian medicolegal case (Rogers v Whitaker, 1992). RESULTS: A total of 172 responses was received during the survey period. The respondents came from various levels of seniority and from a variety of subspecialist areas. The survey demonstrated that among the respondents, the understanding of their medicolegal responsibilities around the issues of informed consent was deficient. Only 31% of respondents were aware that it is a court of law that defines the reasonable standard of care in relation to obtaining informed consent. Less than half of the respondents (48%) were aware of the High Court of Australia's definition by which the standard of reasonable care is defined. CONCLUSION: The results from our survey suggest that there is a requirement to enhance the education of medical practitioners to meet the medicolegal requirements and optimise consent.

Management of neutropenic fever in a private hospital oncology unit.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic fever is a medical emergency, which poses a significant morbidity and mortality risk to cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. National guidelines recommend that patients presenting with suspected neutropenic fever receive appropriate intravenous antibiotics within 60 min of admission. AIM: We aimed to investigate the management of neutropenic fever in a large private oncology centre. METHODS: A retrospective audit of all patients who presented to St John of God Hospital, Subiaco, in the 2017 calendar year, with a known solid organ malignancy and a recorded diagnosis of neutropenic fever was conducted. Patients were identified through the hospitals Patient Administration System and ICD-10 codes. Information was collected from the hospital medical records using a standardised data collection tool. RESULTS: There were 98 admissions relating to 88 patients with neutropenic fever during the study period. The median age was 64 years (range: 23-85 years) with 57 (65%) females. Antibiotic selections consistent with the Australian guidelines were made in 88 (89%) admissions. The mean time to antibiotic administration was 279 min, with a median of 135 min (range: 15-5160 min). Antibiotics were administered within the recommended time frame in only eight (11%) admissions. CONCLUSION: Clinicians prescribed antibiotics in accordance with national guidelines; however, there were systemic inefficiencies which resulted in delayed antibiotic initiation. This has resulted in implementation of strategies to minimise delay.

Dilemmas in anticoagulation and use of inferior vena cava filters in venous thromboembolism; a survey of Respiratory Physicians, Haematologists and Medical Oncologists and a review of the literature.

Twenty percent of patients with Cancer Associated Thrombosis receive an inferior vena cava filter annually. Insertion is guided by practice guidelines, which do not specify or discuss the use of inferior vena cava filters in malignancy. Adherence to these guidelines is known to be variable. We aimed to see if there was consistent management of venous thromboembolism among Medical Oncologists/Haematologists and Respiratory Physicians, with respect to inferior vena cava filter use in the setting of suspected and confirmed malignancy. Medical Oncologists, Haematologists and Respiratory Physicians were surveyed with four theoretical cases. Case 1 concerns a patient who develops a pulmonary embolism following spinal surgery. Cases 2 and 4 explore the use of inferior vena cava filters in the setting of malignancy. Case 3 covers the role of inferior vena cava filters in recurrent thrombosis despite systemic anticoagulation. There were 56 responses, 32 (57%) Respiratory Physicians and 24 (43%) Haematologists/Oncologists. Respiratory Physicians were significantly more likely to insert an inferior vena cava filter in case 1 (p = 0.04) whilst Haematologists/Medical Oncologists were more likely to insert an inferior vena cava filter in case 3 (p = 0.03). No significant differences were found in cases 2 and 4. There were significant disparities in terms of type and timing of anticoagulation. Consistency of recommendations with guidelines was variable likely in part because guidelines are themselves inconsistent. The heterogeneity in responses highlights the variations in venous thromboembolism management, especially in Cancer Associated Thrombosis. International Societies should consider addressing inferior vena cava filter use specifically in the setting of Cancer Associated Thrombosis. Collaboration between interested specialities would assist in developing consistent, evidence-based guidelines for the use of inferior vena cava filters in the management of venous thromboembolism.

Patterns of immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy has become an efficacious option in the management of solid organ malignancies. Immune-related adverse events including pneumonitis are well described and may be particularly of concern in patients receiving immunotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. CASE PRESENTATIONS: In this paper, we describe three cases of immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis occurring in the management of lung malignancy. Our cases include a 54-year-old Caucasian woman with squamous cell lung cancer who was successfully rechallenged with immunotherapy after prior significant pneumonitis, a 65-year-old Caucasian man with metastatic squamous cell lung cancer who developed pneumonitis after multiple cycles of uneventful immunotherapy, and a 73-year-old Caucasian man with squamous cell lung cancer who developed early-onset pneumonitis with rebound on steroid taper. CONCLUSIONS: This case series has provided further insight into the presentation and risk factors for pneumonitis in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Each of the cases of immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis illustrates the different potential patterns that may arise when immunotherapy-induced pneumonitis develops. This case series provides key learning points that may assist physicians managing non-small-cell lung cancer with immunotherapy.

Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs): a review of uses and application to international guidelines at a single Australian center; implications of venous thromboembolism associated with malignancy.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially lethal event. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone of treatment. Inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) may be used in circumstances when anticoagulation is contraindicated or as an adjunct to anticoagulation. IVCF use is not without controversy due to concerns over their safety profile, differences in guidelines from international societies, and a limited randomized control trial evidence. We retrospectively undertook a review of IVCF use over a three-year period (2014-2016) at our center, which has a large oncology service but no trauma unit. There were 44 patients with successful IVCF insertion and one patient with an unsuccessful attempt. Indications for insertion included: a contraindication to anticoagulation (n = 28); recurrent VTE on anticoagulation (n = 10); and extensive VTE (n = 7). There were 13 retrieval attempts, of which ten were successful. There were five documented IVCF complications (tilting: n = 2, IVC thrombus: n = 3) with one episode of IVCF failure and two episodes of deep vein thrombosis during the follow-up period. Of the patients, 71% had an active malignancy (of whom 71% had metastatic disease). Seventeen patients died due to progressive malignancy during the study period. There were no life-threatening VTEs or IVCF-associated mortalities. Adherence with published international guidelines was variable. Patients with malignancy were less likely to undergo IVCF retrieval and had a reduced rate of retrieval success. None of the international guidelines comment on the use of IVCFs in patients with malignancy despite being commonly used. IVCF use may be an underappreciated tool in this group.