A revision of JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements.

OBJECTIVE: The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer have recently revised the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the revised guidelines and summarizes the recommendations made. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multi-disciplinary members, created three new clinical questions: non-pharmacological intervention and antipsychotics for the prevention of delirium and trazodone for the management of delirium. In addition, systematic reviews of nine existing clinical questions have been updated. Two independent reviewers reviewed the proposed articles. The certainty of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommended statements. RESULTS: This article provides a compendium of the recommendations along with their rationales, as well as a short summary. CONCLUSIONS: These revised guidelines will be useful for the prevention, assessment and management of delirium in adult cancer patients in Japan.

JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements.

BACKGROUND: The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer recently launched the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. The aim of the guidelines was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the clinical assessment and management of delirium in cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the guideline and summarizes the recommendations made. METHODS: The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multidisciplinary members, formulated nine clinical questions. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify relevant articles published prior to through 31 May 2016. Each article was reviewed by two independent reviewers. The level of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommendation statements. RESULTS: This article provides a summary of the recommendations with rationales for each, as well as a short summary. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines will support the clinical assessment and management of delirium in cancer patients. However, additional clinical studies are warranted to further improve the management of delirium.

Japanese physicians' attitudes toward end-of-life discussion with pediatric patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: We explored pediatricians' practices and attitudes concerning end-of-life discussions (EOLds) with pediatric patients with cancer, and identified the determinants of pediatricians' positive attitude toward having EOLds with pediatric patients. METHODS: A multicenter questionnaire survey was conducted with 127 pediatricians specializing in the treatment of pediatric cancer. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of participants reported that EOLds should be held with the young group of children (6-9 years old), 68% with the middle group (10-15 years old), and 93% with the old group (16-18 years old). Meanwhile, 6, 20, and 35% of participants answered that they "always" or "usually" discussed the incurability of the disease with the young, middle, and old groups, respectively; for the patient's imminent death, the rates were 2, 11, and 24%. Pediatricians' attitude that they "should have" EOLds with the young group was predicted by more clinical experience (odds ratio [OR] 1.077; p = 0.007), more confidence in addressing children's anxiety after EOLd (OR 1.756; p = 0.050), weaker belief in the demand for EOLd (OR 0.456; p = 0.015), weaker belief in the necessity of the EOLd for children to enjoy their time until death (OR, 0.506; p = 0.021), and weaker belief in the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the parents (OR 0.381; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: While pediatricians nearly reached consensus on EOLds for the old group, EOLds with the young group remain a controversial subject. While pediatricians who supported EOLds believed in their effectiveness or necessity, those who were against EOLds tended to consider the benefits of not engaging in them.

Barriers of healthcare providers against end-of-life discussions with pediatric cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: End-of-life discussions with patients can be one of the most difficult and stressful tasks for the oncologist. However, little is known about the discussions that healthcare providers have with patients in such situations and the difficulties they face. The primary end points of this study were to describe the contents of end-of-life discussion in the pediatric setting and the barriers to end-of-life discussion for pediatric patients, as perceived by pediatric healthcare providers. METHODS: Participants were 10 healthcare providers. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and the KJ method was performed to analyze the data. RESULTS: We found 23 barriers against end-of-life discussion with pediatric cancer patients. These barriers were classified as follows: healthcare provider factors, patient factors, parent factors and institutional or cultural factors. In addition to barriers found in previous studies, some unique barriers were uncovered such as, 'Lack of confidence to face the patient after the discussion', 'Uncertain responsibility for treatment decision-making' and 'No compelling reason to discuss'. Healthcare providers actively discussed the purpose of treatment and the patients' wishes and concerns; however, they were reluctant to deal with the patients' own impending death and their estimated prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: End-of-life discussion with pediatric patients differs from that with adult patients. Further studies are required to analyze pediatric cases associated with end-of-life discussion and carefully discuss its adequacy, pros and cons.