Delirium management by palliative medicine specialists: a survey from the association for palliative medicine of Great Britain and Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Delirium is common in palliative care settings. Management includes detection, treatment of cause(s), non-pharmacological interventions and family support; strategies which are supported with varying levels of evidence. Emerging evidence suggests that antipsychotic use should be minimised in managing mild to moderate severity delirium, but the integration of this evidence into clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: A 21-question online anonymous survey was emailed to Association for Palliative Medicine members in current clinical practice (n=859), asking about delirium assessment, management and research priorities. RESULTS: Response rate was 39%: 70% of respondents were palliative medicine consultants. Delirium guidelines were used by some: 42% used local guidelines but 38% used none. On inpatient admission, 59% never use a delirium screening tool. Respondents would use non-pharmacological interventions to manage delirium, either alone (39%) or with an antipsychotic (58%). Most respondents (91%) would prescribe an antipsychotic and 6% a benzodiazepine, for distressing hallucinations unresponsive to non-pharmacological measures. Inpatient (57%) and community teams (60%) do not formally support family carers. Research priorities were delirium prevention, management and prediction of reversibility. CONCLUSION: This survey of UK and Irish Palliative Medicine specialists shows that delirium screening at inpatient admission is suboptimal. Most specialists continue to use antipsychotics in combination with non-pharmacological interventions to manage delirium. More support for family carers should be routinely provided by clinical teams. Further rigorously designed clinical trials are urgently needed in view of management variability, emerging evidence and perceived priorities for research.

CPR decision-making conversations in the UK: an integrative review.

OBJECTIVES: Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) discussions with patients and their caregivers have been subjected to intense ethical and legal debate in recent years. Legal cases and national guidelines have tried to clarify the best approach to DNACPR discussions; however, there is little evidence of how best to approach them from the patient, family or caregiver perspective. This paper describes published accounts of patient, family and caregiver experiences of discussions about advance cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) decision making. METHODS: An integrative review of the UK literature between 2000 and 2016 including qualitative and quantitative studies was conducted. Worldwide, 773 abstracts were identified, and 20 papers from the UK were included in the final analysis. RESULTS: Patient, family and caregivers prefer discussions to be initiated by someone trusted, and wishes for family involvement vary depending on the context. Timing of discussions should be individualised, though discussions earlier in the illness are often preferable. Discussions held in the acute setting are suboptimal. CPR decisions should be part of a wider discussion about future care and adequate communication skills training is important. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review are at odds with the current statutory framework and potentially challenging for medical professionals who are working in a stretched health service, with pressure to discuss DNACPR decisions at the earliest opportunity. With increasing focus on person-centred care and realistic medicine, patient narratives must be considered by doctors and policy makers alike, to minimise harm.

Improving access to the KIS in secondary care.

BackgroundEffective communication of anticipatory care planning (ACP) discussions between patients and general practitioners across different healthcare settings is vital. In Scotland, the Key Information Summary (KIS) is a new piece of software that allows clinical data for selected patients to be shared electronically across the wider National Health Service from the primary care record. This can include details of ACP discussions and decisions. The KIS is now routinely accessible in secondary care and is available through the hospital electronic record in two formats (abbreviated and full versions). AimThe primary aim of this project was to significantly improve clinician access to the full KIS record within secondary care. MethodsFour Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles were undertaken in total to improve access to the full KIS between October 2014 and March 2016 in the Medical Admissions Unit of a Scottish hospital. ResultsBaseline data showed poor awareness and use of available KIS information by clinicians for patients admitted to hospital. Most were unaware the KIS was available and only 19% had seen the KIS for their patient. Where a KIS existed for a patient, clinicians felt the information contained within it was useful in 75% of cases, and one in every five KIS could alter clinical management. Data collection following the first 3 PDSA cycles revealed a significant increase in access to the full KIS after 5 months (from 4% to 45%). However 1 year on after after a fourth PDSA cycle to implement sustainable interventions this level of access was not maintained. ConclusionsReasons for these results are discussed, as well as limitations to certain interventions. Access to the full KIS at the point of hospital admission can be significantly improved using a quality improvement approach. Improved access to this information may influence the clinical management of selected patients. However sustainable, system-wide strategies are needed to maintain these changes in the longer term.

A quality improvement approach to cognitive assessment on hospice admission: could we use the 4AT or Short CAM?

Background Prevalence studies show that 13%-42% of patients admitted to specialist palliative care inpatient units have delirium. Symptoms of delirium are often subtle and easily missed, or misdiagnosed as fatigue or depression, and so the use of a screening tool could improve early identification and management of delirium and lead to improved outcomes. Patients admitted to hospices are often frail and tired, therefore a quick and easy-to-use method of cognitive assessment is essential. Methods A quality improvement (QI) approach (PDSA: Plan, Do, Study, Act) was used to improve screening for delirium on admission to a hospice unit. A baseline measure was taken of the rate of performance of cognitive assessment on admission. Five PDSA cycles were then undertaken which involved implementing change and then evaluating results through auditing case notes and interviewing staff. Results The first cycle determined staff preference between two cognitive assessment methods: the Short Confusion Assessment Method and the four 'A's Test (4AT). Two further PDSA cycles embedded the 4AT (the preferred tool) into the admission process, establishing it as a usable tool in the hospice setting for up to 92% of admissions. A subsequent cycle showing poor sustainability prompted staff education and changes to admission documentation, resulting in an increase in cognitive assessment being performed, from 50% to 76%. Conclusion The 4AT is a usable tool in the hospice inpatient setting to assess patients' cognitive state on admission and can easily be incorporated into the admission process. The QI approach highlighted the need to link staff awareness of their use of the screening tool with perceived improvements in the treatment of delirium, which prompted the creation and implementation of a 'Delirium Checklist'. Some initial lack of sustainability was addressed by staff education and changes to the admission paperwork to ensure compliance with the use of the 4AT and sustained improvement in screening for cognitive impairment.

'Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' discussions at the point of discharge: a case note review of hospice practice following local integrated policy implementation.

BACKGROUND: An integrated 'Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation' (DNACPR) policy was implemented across Lothian in 2006 (for ease of reading the terminology 'DNACPR' has been used throughout the paper where the original Lothian Policy used 'DNAR'). Patients were, for the first time, able to be discharged home with their DNACPR form after discussion about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). AIMS: To ascertain the number of patients who, following a discussion, were discharged with a DNACPR form and the reasons for not holding discussions with certain patients. METHODS: Two retrospective case note reviews of 50 patients discharged over two 4-month periods (2007 and 2009). RESULTS: There was a high proportion (78-80%) of CPR discussions for patients discharged from the hospice. Reasons for not discussing CPR were: potential for excess distress (10-12% 2007 and 2009) and lack of time (4% both years). Of those discussing CPR on discharge, 90% took forms home in both years. The reasons patients did not take forms home were: form not taken in error (two patients in 2007); patients refusing a form at home (one and three patients in 2007 and 2009); form to be arranged by general practitioner and one incomplete discussion. The proportion of patients with forms already at home increased from 10% (2007) to 28% (2009). CONCLUSION: It is possible to discuss CPR with a high proportion of hospice patients prior to discharge from a hospice. Following the introduction of an integrated policy, more patients have DNACPR forms prior to admission. Most patients receiving specialist palliative care find DNACPR discussions acceptable and understand the benefits of having a DNACPR form.