Advance care and resuscitation plans in a tertiary hospital: a multimodal approach.

OBJECTIVES: Advance care planning (ACP) is the process of documenting a person's preference for medical treatment in the event of future deterioration. This audit aimed to improve discussion and documentation of ACP in patients who die during a hospital admission. METHODS: We performed a clinical audit in 2021 of inpatients at a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia to evaluate the benefit of multimodal interventions to improve ACP compared with previous audits from 2016 and 2011. RESULTS: In 2021, 97% of audited patients had a documented ACP prior to death compared with 80% in the 2016 audit. The completion of NFR documentation on admission in 2016 was 33%, while in 2021 65% of ACPs were completed within 24 hours of admission.In 2021, 94% of patients had a paper resuscitation form filled; however, identification stickers, which are associated with risk of error, were used in 64%; and 25% of forms were only partially completed. Palliative care was consulted for 44% of patients prior to death; 33% on the day of or prior to death. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in prevalence and timing of ACP prior to death is seen in the postintervention audit. A repeat audit in 5 years will be conducted, with interventions focused on improving documentation of ACP.

Lidocaine for Neuropathic Cancer Pain (LiCPain): study protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients experience unrelieved neuropathic cancer-related pain. Most current analgesic therapies have psychoactive side effects, lack efficacy data for this indication and have potential medication-related harms. The local anaesthetic lidocaine (lignocaine) has the potential to help manage neuropathic cancer-related pain when administered as an extended, continuous subcutaneous infusion. Data support lidocaine as a promising, safe agent in this setting, warranting further evaluation in robust, randomised controlled trials. This protocol describes the design of a pilot study to evaluate this intervention and explains the pharmacokinetic, efficacy and adverse effects evidence informing the design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed-methods pilot study will determine the feasibility of an international first, definitive phase III trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an extended continuous subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine for neuropathic cancer-related pain. This study will comprise: a phase II double-blind randomised controlled parallel-group pilot of subcutaneous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride 10% w/v (3000 mg/30 mL) or placebo (sodium chloride 0.9%) over 72 hours for neuropathic cancer-related pain, a pharmacokinetic substudy and a qualitative substudy of patients' and carers' experiences. The pilot study will provide important safety data and help inform the methodology of a definitive trial, including testing proposed recruitment strategy, randomisation, outcome measures and patients' acceptability of the methodology, as well as providing a signal of whether this area should be further investigated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participant safety is paramount and standardised assessments for adverse effects are built into the trial protocol. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This study will be considered suitable to progress to a phase III study if there is a completion rate where the CI includes 80% and excludes 60%. The protocol and Patient Information and Consent Form have been approved by Sydney Local Health District (Concord) Human Research Ethics Committee 2019/ETH07984 and University of Technology Sydney ETH17-1820. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR ACTRN12617000747325.

Oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate-to-severe, chronic cancer pain: Challenges in the context of hepatic impairment.

Opioids such as oxycodone are recommended in the management of moderate-to-severe, chronic cancer pain. All opioids can potentially cause constipation, which may be a significant barrier to their use. Multiple randomised clinical trials have shown that the use of naloxone as a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist, in combination with oxycodone can prevent or reduce opioid-induced constipation while having equivalent analgesic efficacy to oxycodone alone. However, clinical experience has shown that unexpected events may occur in some patients when unrecognized liver impairment is present. We describe the underlying biological reasons and propose simple, but effective steps to avoid this unusual but potentially serious occurrence. In healthy individuals, naloxone undergoes extensive hepatic first pass metabolism resulting in low systemic bioavailability. However, in patients with hepatic impairment, porto-systemic shunting can increase systemic bioavailability of naloxone, potentially compromising the analgesic efficacy of oral naloxone-oxycodone combinations. This reduced first pass effect can occur in a range of settings that may not always be apparent to the treating clinician, including silent cirrhosis, non-cirrhotic portal hypertension and disruption of liver internal vasculature by metastases. Hepatic function test results correlate poorly with presence and extent of liver disease, and are not indicative of porto-systemic shunting. Presence of hepatic impairment should thus be considered when medication-related outcomes with oxycodone-naloxone combination are not as expected, even if liver function test results are normal.

Preparedness to Face the COVID-19 Pandemic in Hospice and Palliative Care Services in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Rapid Online Survey.

BACKGROUND: Hospice and palliative care services provision for COVID-19 patients is crucial to improve their life quality. There is limited evidence on COVID-19 preparedness of such services in the Asia-Pacific region. AIM: To evaluate the preparedness and capacity of hospice and palliative care services in the Asia-Pacific region to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: An online cross-sectional survey was developed based on methodology guidance. Asia-Pacific Hospice and Palliative Care Network subscribers (n = 1551) and organizational members (n = 185) were emailed. Descriptive analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Ninety-seven respondents completed the survey. Around half of services were hospital-based (n = 47, 48%), and public-funded (n = 46, 47%). Half of services reported to have confirmed cases (n = 47, 49%) and the majority of the confirmed cases were patients (n = 28, 61%). Staff perceived moderate risk of being infected by COVID-19 (median: 7/10). > 85% of respondents reported they had up-to-date contact list for staff and patients, one-third revealed challenges to keep record of relatives who visited the services (n = 30, 31%), and of patients visited in communities (n = 29, 30%). Majority of services (60%) obtained adequate resources for infection control except face mask. More than half had no guidance on Do Not Resuscitate orders (n = 59, 66%) or on bereavement care for family members (n = 44, 51%). CONCLUSION: Recommendations to strengthen the preparedness of palliative care services include: 1) improving the access to face mask; 2) acquiring stress management protocols for staff when unavailable; 3) reinforcing the contact tracing system for relatives and visits in the community and 4) developing guidance on patient and family care during patient's dying trajectory.

Palliative and shared care concepts in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Approximately 50% of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) will eventually die of metastatic disease. Effective palliative management can be used within a shared care model in CRC to provide optimum symptom control, psychological well-being and maintenance of quality of life for patients, their families and carers, including bereavement support. Maintenance of realistic hope and early goal setting are equally important in end-of-life discussions with patients and families. Palliative care should be incorporated early in the course of the illness, concurrent with disease-modifying therapies. Within shared care, the palliative medicine specialist, surgeon and other members of the multidisciplinary team can each bring their own expertise to provide a patient-centred approach. A case is presented that incorporates some of these principles and exemplifies the benefits of contemporary palliative care for patients with advanced CRC.

Palliative care teams in the intensive care unit: a randomised, controlled, feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether palliative care teams can improve patient, family and staff satisfaction for patients receiving end-of-life care in the intensive care unit and reduce surrogate markers of health care costs. DESIGN: Randomised controlled, feasibility study. SETTING: 14-bed general ICU over 29 months in 2006-2008. PARTICIPANTS: Patients admitted with a terminal or preterminal condition, for whom the treating intensivist considered that escalating or continuing treatment was unlikely to achieve significant improvement in the patient's clinical condition. INTERVENTION: A consultation from a palliative care team, in addition to usual ICU end-of-life care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: ICU and hospital length of stay, and changes in composite scores of satisfaction obtained from questionnaires administered to families, nursing staff and intensivists. RESULTS: The study was constrained by significant logistical and methodological problems, including low recruitment and questionnaire completion rates, and the lack of an available validated questionnaire. From a total of 2009 admissions over a 29-month period, 20 patients were enrolled, 10 in each group. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics. There were no statistically significant differences between those who had a consultation with the palliative care team and those who did not in median ICU length of stay (3 days v 5 days, P=0.97), median hospital length of stay (5 days v 11 days, P=0.44), or changes in overall composite satisfaction scores reported by families (-6% v -6%, P=0.91), nursing staff (+5% v +15%, P=0.30), and intensivists (-2% v +2%, P=0.42). CONCLUSION: This feasibility study was difficult to conduct and did not generate any robust conclusions about the utility of involving palliative care teams in end-of-life care in the ICU. Larger studies are technically possible but unlikely to be feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000110583.

Randomized controlled trial of a prompt list to help advanced cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions about prognosis and end-of-life care.

PURPOSE: To determine whether provision of a question prompt list (QPL) influences advanced cancer patients'/caregivers' questions and discussion of topics relevant to end-of-life care during consultations with a palliative care (PC) physician. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included patients randomly assigned to standard consultation or provision of QPL before consultation, with endorsement of the QPL by the physician during the consultation. Consecutive eligible patients with advanced cancer referred to 15 PC physicians from nine Australian PC services were invited to participate. Consultations were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed by blinded coders; patients completed questionnaires before, within 24 hours, and 3 weeks after the consultation. RESULTS: A total of 174 patients participated (92 QPL, 82 control). Compared with controls, QPL patients and caregivers asked twice as many questions (for patients, ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.2; P < .0001), and patients discussed 23% more issues covered by the QPL (95% CI, 11% to 37%; P < .0001). QPL patients asked more prognostic questions (ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.0; P = .004) and discussed more prognostic (ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8, P = .003) and end-of-life issues (30% v 10%; P = .001). Fewer QPL patients had unmet information needs about the future (21 = 4.14; P = .04), which was the area of greatest unmet information need. QPL consultations (average, 38 minutes) were longer (P = .002) than controls (average, 31 minutes). No differences between groups were observed in anxiety or patient/physician satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Providing a QPL and physician endorsement of its use assists terminally ill cancer patients and their caregivers to ask questions and promotes discussion about prognosis and end-of-life issues, without creating patient anxiety or impairing satisfaction.

The interface between palliative medicine and specialists in acute-care hospitals: boundaries, bridges and challenges.

Palliative care teams have made an important contribution to improving the care of patients with incurable illnesses in Australian hospitals over the past 20 years. Co-location of hospital-based palliative medicine specialists with other specialties allows communication and exchange of ideas on issues relevant to the medical care of such patients. Shared management of complex cases maximises comprehension of patient distress and optimises the support provided during hospitalisation. Tensions arising across the interface provide opportunities for both groups to improve the relief of suffering in the acute-care setting. Palliative medicine in the private sector has some advantages, but specialists also face specific challenges, including the cost of certain drugs, access to the multidisciplinary team and reimbursement issues.