Meaning and Purpose (MaP) therapy in advanced cancer patients: a randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the efficacy of Meaning and Purpose (MaP) Therapy in promoting posttraumatic growth and meaningful life attitudes (choices and goal seeking) in people living with advanced cancer. METHODS: Patients with a prognosis ≥ 1 year were stratified across two sites and randomised to receive MaP therapy and regular oncology/palliative care (Intervention) or usual care (Control). They completed measures at baseline (t0), post-intervention (12 weeks, t1) and 12 weeks later (t2). Our primary outcome was posttraumatic growth (PTGI); secondary outcome measures included life attitudes (LAPR), spiritual wellbeing (FACIT-Sp), anxiety, demoralization and depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12618001751268, 7 January 2019. RESULTS: We consented 107 from 404 eligible patients (26.5%) and randomised 55 to MaP Invention (35 completing t1, 25 t2) and 52 to Control (32 completing t1, 25 t2). Fidelity of the intervention was sustained. PTGI mean scores were significantly higher post-intervention on analysis by covariance (Cohen's d = 0.7 at t1 & d = 0.5 at t2). Secondary measures were significant, including LAPR (d = 0.4) and FACIT-Sp (meaning subscale d = 0.4; total d = 0.4). Participants completing six sessions achieved more noteworthy effect sizes. CONCLUSION: This brief, structured individual intervention shows promise for sustaining sense of coherence, meaning and choices in life despite living with advanced cancer.

Subcutaneous ketamine infusion in palliative patients for major depressive disorder (SKIPMDD)-Phase II single-arm open-label feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine at subanaesthetic dosages (≤0.5mg/kg) exhibits rapid onset (over hours to days) antidepressant effects against major depressive disorder in people who are otherwise well. However, its safety, tolerability and efficacy are not known for major depressive disorder in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility, safety, tolerability, acceptability and any antidepressant signal/activity to justify and inform a fully powered study of subcutaneous ketamine infusions for major depressive disorder in the palliative setting. METHODS: This was a single arm, open-label, phase II feasibility study (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number-ACTRN12618001586202). We recruited adults (≥ 18-years-old) with advanced life-limiting illnesses referred to four palliative care services in Sydney, Australia, diagnosed with major depressive disorder from any care setting. Participants received weekly subcutaneous ketamine infusion (0.1-0.4mg/kg) over two hours using individual dose-titration design. Outcomes assessed were feasibility, safety, tolerability and antidepressant activity. RESULTS: Out of ninety-nine referrals, ten participants received ketamine and were analysed for responses. Accrual rate was 0.54 participants/month across sites with 50% of treated participants achieving ≥ 50% reduction in baseline Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, meeting feasibility criteria set a priori. There were no clinically relevant harms encountered. CONCLUSIONS: A future definitive trial exploring the effectiveness of subcutaneous infusion of ketamine for major depressive disorder in the palliative care setting may be feasible by addressing identified study barriers. Individual dose-titration of subcutaneous ketamine infusions over two hours from 0.1mg/kg can be well-tolerated and appears to produce transient antidepressant signals over hours to days.

Tolerability and Efficacy of a 10:25 Preparation of Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol for Treatment of Chronic Back or Neck Pain: A Multiple-Dose Escalation Study.

Introduction: The aim was to demonstrate the safety and tolerability of cannabidiol (CBD) with Δ9-THC in patients with moderate to severe chronic back or neck pain unresponsive to over-the-counter non-opioid analgesics. Methods: This was a non-randomized, single-arm, open-label study. Participants received escalating doses of an oromucosal-administered combination containing 10 mg/mL of Δ9-THC, 25 mg/mL of CBD. On day 1, patients received once-daily 0.5 mL Cybis® 10:25 (5 mg Δ9-THC plus 12.5 mg CBD daily), escalated at days 8, 15, and 22 to 0.5 mL twice-daily (bd) (10 mg Δ9-THC plus 25 mg CBD daily), 1.0 mL bd (20 mg Δ9-THC plus 50 mg CBD daily), and 1.5 mL bd (30 mg Δ9-THC plus 75 mg CBD daily), respectively. The primary outcome was safety and tolerability, with secondary objectives including pharmacokinetic and efficacy outcomes. Results: 28 patients were enrolled in the study. Their median age was 63.3 years, and half were female. The median history of neck/back pain was 10 years. The pharmacokinetics following single doses of 0.5 mL were variable; however, there were dose-dependent increases in trough levels of CBD and Δ9-THC. Cybis® 10:25 was well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events of mild severity. The most common adverse events were nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, headache, paresthesia, and anxiety. There were dose-dependent improvements in numerical pain rating scores (p < 0.001), with clinically significant reductions in pain at 1.0 mL bd and 1.5 mL bd doses (28.8% and 34.1% reductions, respectively, p < 0.001). Depressive symptoms and stress had dose-dependent reductions (p = 0.0182, p < 0.01, respectively). Conclusion: In patients with chronic neck/back pain, CBD and Δ9-THC are well tolerated and doses of 1.0 mL bd and 1.5 mL bd showed clinically significant reductions in pain compared to baseline pain scores.

A Retrospective Medical Record Review of Adults with Non-Cancer Diagnoses Prescribed Medicinal Cannabis.

Research describing patients using medicinal cannabis and its effectiveness is lacking. We aimed to describe adults with non-cancer diagnoses who are prescribed medicinal cannabis via a retrospective medical record review and assess its effectiveness and safety. From 157 Australian records, most were female (63.7%; mean age 63.0 years). Most patients had neurological (58.0%) or musculoskeletal (24.8%) conditions. Medicinal cannabis was perceived beneficial by 53.5% of patients. Mixed-effects modelling and post hoc multiple comparisons analysis showed significant changes overtime for pain, bowel problems, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, mood, quality of life (all p < 0.0001), breathing problems (p = 0.0035), and appetite (p = 0.0465) Symptom Assessment Scale scores. For the conditions, neuropathic pain/peripheral neuropathy had the highest rate of perceived benefit (66.6%), followed by Parkinson's disease (60.9%), multiple sclerosis (60.0%), migraine (43.8%), chronic pain syndrome (42.1%), and spondylosis (40.0%). For the indications, medicinal cannabis had the greatest perceived effect on sleep (80.0%), followed by pain (51.5%), and muscle spasm (50%). Oral oil preparations of balanced delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol/cannabidiol (average post-titration dose of 16.9 mg and 34.8 mg per day, respectively) were mainly prescribed. Somnolence was the most frequently reported side effect (21%). This study supports medicinal cannabis' potential to safely treat non-cancer chronic conditions and indications.

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.

Paracentesis for cancer-related ascites in palliative care: An international, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Paracentesis is commonly undertaken in patients with cancer-related ascites. AIM: To systematically investigate the symptomatic benefits and harms experienced by patients with cancer undergoing paracentesis using real-world data in the palliative care setting. DESIGN: Prospective, multisite, observational, consecutive cohort study. Benefits and harms of paracentesis were assessed between 01/07/2018 and 31/02/2021 as part of routine clinical assessments by treating clinicians at four timepoints: (T0) before paracentesis; (T1) once drainage ceased; (T2) 24 h after T1 and (T3) 28 days after T1 or next paracentesis, if sooner. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected from 11 participating sites across five countries (Australia, England, Hong Kong, Malaysia and New Zealand) on 111 patients undergoing paracentesis via a temporary (73%) or indwelling (21%) catheter: 51% male, median age 69 years, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Score 50. RESULTS: At T1 (n = 100), symptoms had improved for most patients (81%), specifically abdominal distension (61%), abdominal pain (49%) and nausea (27%), with two-thirds experiencing improvement in ⩾2 symptoms. In the remaining patients, symptoms were unchanged (7%) or worse (12%). At least one harm occurred in 32% of patients, the most common being an ascitic leak (n = 14). By T3, 89% of patients had experienced some benefit and 36% some harm, including four patients who experienced serious harm, one of which was a fatal bowel perforation. CONCLUSION: Most patients obtained rapid benefits from paracentesis. Harms were less frequent and generally mild, but occasionally serious and fatal. Our findings help inform clinician-patient discussions about the potential outcomes of paracentesis in this frail population.

Psycho-Existential Symptom Assessment Scale (PeSAS) Screening in Palliative Care.

CONTEXT: Psycho-existential symptoms are common yet often missed or neglected in palliative care. Screening can be an effective way to recognize and respond to this need. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to implement routine use of the Psycho-existential Symptom Assessment Scale (PeSAS) as a screening tool in Australian palliative care services and discern the symptom prevalence identified. METHODS: In a multi-site rolling design, we established implementation site committees and embarked on experiential workshops to train clinicians in the tool's efficient use. Patient symptom prevalence data were collected to compare uptake across sites. Descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: Over one year, we trained 216 clinicians across six palliative care services in the use of the PeSAS as a screening tool and collected data from 1405 patients. Clinicians reported significant growth in their sense of efficacy in assessing psycho-existential wellness. Services using electronic records implemented most easily. Psycho-existential symptoms with clinically significant prevalence (scores ≥ 4/10) included anxiety 41.1%, discouragement 37.6%, hopelessness 35.8%, pointlessness 26.9%, depression 30.3%, and the wish to die 17%. The precision of measurement within 3% was found for severe ratings (score ≥ 8/10) including anxiety 10.6%, depression 10.2%, the wish to die 7.6%, and confusion 3.6%. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can be trained to screen with the Psycho-existential Symptom Assessment Scale, which serves as a valuable measure to better recognize symptoms of psycho-existential distress among palliative care patients. Implementation barriers included the prior ethos of the service, confidence in talking about these themes, electronic data entry, and perceived time pressures.

Study protocol for SKIPMDD: subcutaneous ketamine infusion in palliative care patients with advanced life limiting illnesses for major depressive disorder (phase II pilot feasibility study).

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) in people with advanced life-limiting illnesses can have significant impact on the quality-of-life of those affected. The management of MDD in the palliative care setting can be challenging as typical antidepressants may not work in time nor be tolerated due to coexisting organ dysfunctions, symptom burden and frailty. Parenteral ketamine was found to exhibit effective and rapid-onset antidepressant effect even against treatment-resistant depression in the psychiatric population. However, there is currently neither feasibility study nor available prospective study available to inform of the safety, tolerability and efficacy of such for MDD in the palliative setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an open-labelled, single arm, phase II pilot feasibility study involving adult patients with advanced life-limiting illnesses and MDD across four palliative care services in Australia. It has an individual dose-titration design (0.1-0.4 mg/kg) with weekly treatments of subcutaneous ketamine infusion over 2 hours. The primary outcome is feasibility. The secondary outcomes are related to the safety, tolerability and antidepressant efficacy of ketamine, participants' satisfaction in relation to the trial process and the reasons for not completing the study at various stages. The feasibility data will be reported using descriptive statistics. Meanwhile, side effects, tolerability and efficacy data will be analysed using change of assessment scores from baseline. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was acquired (South Western Sydney Local Health District: HREC/18/LPOOL/466). The results of this study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry Number: ACTRN12618001586202; Pre-results.

A retrospective case series of patients who have undergone coeliac plexus blocks for the purpose of alleviating pain due to intra-abdominal malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Coeliac plexus block (CPB) is an interventional pain management option for patients with pancreatic or other upper abdominal malignancy. AIMS: To assess the safety, utilization, and outcomes of CPBs in the local context. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective case series of all patients with cancer who underwent CPB at 4 Sydney teaching hospitals from March 2010 to February 2016. We recorded baseline demographic data, details of the injectate, procedural approach and survival, as well as pain scores and analgesic use at 4 time points of interest. Thirty-nine procedures were performed during the study period. Twenty-four were performed endoscopically, 14 were performed via a bilateral percutaneous posterior approach by Pain Specialists or Radiologists and 1 was performed intraoperatively by a Surgeon. Patients had experienced pain for a mean of 17 weeks prior to CPB. Prior to CPB, the mean pain score was 8.8 out of 10. The mean pain score was reduced at 48 hours, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks following CPB (P < .01). The mean oral morphine equivalent daily dose prior to CPB was 362 mg which was reduced at 48 hours and 2 weeks but increased at the 4 weeks following CPB. One patient developed a bacteremia but otherwise no complications were observed. CONCLUSION: CPB is performed by a number of approaches and is well tolerated. The approach selected appears to depend on patient anatomy, preference, and availability of local expertise. Local clinicians could consider CPB earlier in the management of malignant epigastric pain.

Factors Associated with Re-Enrollment of Patients from a Specialist Community Palliative Care Service.

Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the patterns of discharge and re-enrollment to a community palliative care service, and to identify factors associated with re-enrollment. Background: Community-based palliative care is a limited resource. The evidence base to guide discharge practices from community palliative care services is limited. Methods: A retrospective audit of the electronic medical records for all patients discharged from the Sacred Heart Community Palliative Care Service (SHCPCS), Sydney, from July 2010 to July 2016 was conducted. Patients were excluded if they were discharged due to death, transferred out of catchment area, declined the service, transferred to another hospital, or were referred inappropriately. Data extracted included sociodemographic variables, living situation, diagnoses, and discharge and re-enrollment details. Using binary logistic regression analysis, predictive factors, including socio-demographic characteristics, diagnosis and length of episode of care, were evaluated. Results: Of the 739 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 42 (5.7%) were re-enrolled to the service. The median length of the initial episode of care was 65 days and the median timeframe between discharge and re-enrollment was 216 days. Patients living in residential care facilities (odds ratio [OR] 3.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-9.28; p = 0.01) and those with malignant diagnoses (OR 2.22; 95% CI 1.00-4.93; p = 0.04) had higher rates of re-enrollment. Discussion: The proportion of patients re-enrolled to the service was low. Both patient factors and disease factors were associated with re-enrollment. Future prospective studies evaluating prognostic factors to assist with effective discharge processes and guidelines are warranted.

A Multicomponent Nonpharmacological Intervention to Prevent Delirium for Hospitalized People with Advanced Cancer: A Phase II Cluster Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial (The PRESERVE Pilot Study).

Background: Delirium is a common debilitating complication of advanced cancer. Objective: To determine if a multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention intervention was feasible for adult patients with advanced cancer, before a phase III (efficacy) trial. Design: Phase II (feasibility) cluster randomized controlled trial. All sites implemented delirium screening and diagnostic assessment. Strategies within sleep, vision and hearing, hydration, orientation, mobility, and family domains were delivered to enrolled patients at intervention site admission days 1-7. Control sites then implemented the intervention ("waitlist sites"). Setting: Four Australian palliative care units. Measurements: The primary outcome was adherence, with an a priori endpoint of at least 60% patients achieving full adherence. Secondary outcomes were interdisciplinary care delivery, delirium measures, and adverse events, analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Results: Sixty-five enrolled patients (25 control, 20 intervention, and 20 waitlist) had 98% delirium screens and 75% diagnostic assessments completed. Nurses (67%), physicians (16%), allied health (8.4%), family (7%), patients (1%), and volunteers (0.5%) delivered the intervention. There was full adherence for 5% patients at intervention sites, partial for 25%. Both full and partial adherence were higher at waitlist sites: 25% and 45%, respectively. One-third of control site patients (32%) became delirious within seven days of admission compared to one-fifth (20%) at both intervention and waitlist sites (p = 0.5). Mean (standard deviation) Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-1998 scores were 16.8 + 12.0 control sites versus 18.4 + 8.2 (p = 0.6) intervention and 18.7 + 7.8 (p = 0.5) waitlist sites. The intervention caused no adverse events. Conclusion: The intervention requires modification for optimal adherence in a phase III trial.

Understanding transdermal buprenorphine and a practical guide to its use for chronic cancer and non-cancer pain management.

Transdermal buprenorphine (TDB) has demonstrated effectiveness in treating a range of chronic pain conditions, including cancer pain, nociceptive pain, and neuropathic pain and has a favorable safety profile. Worldwide, clinical experience of its use is relatively limited. There is considerable misunderstanding about the pharmacology, mechanism of action, and safety of buprenorphine. There is also limited guidance on the appropriate use of TDB for chronic pain management. This article presents an overview of TDB and also provides practical recommendations for its use as part of a multifaceted strategy in chronic cancer and non-cancer pain.

Multicomponent non-pharmacological intervention to prevent delirium for hospitalised people with advanced cancer: study protocol for a phase II cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Delirium is a significant medical complication for hospitalised patients. Up to one-third of delirium episodes are preventable in older inpatients through non-pharmacological strategies that support essential human needs, such as physical and cognitive activity, sleep, hydration, vision and hearing. We hypothesised that a multicomponent intervention similarly may decrease delirium incidence, and/or its duration and severity, in inpatients with advanced cancer. Prior to a phase III trial, we aimed to determine if a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention is feasible and acceptable for this specific inpatient group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a phase II cluster randomised wait-listed controlled trial involving inpatients with advanced cancer at four Australian palliative care inpatient units. Intervention sites will introduce delirium screening, diagnostic assessment and a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with six domains of care: preserving natural sleep; maintaining optimal vision and hearing; optimising hydration; promoting communication, orientation and cognition; optimising mobility; and promoting family partnership. Interdisciplinary teams will tailor intervention delivery to each site and to patient need. Control sites will first introduce only delirium screening and diagnosis, later implementing the intervention, modified according to initial results. The primary outcome is adherence to the intervention during the first seven days of admission, measured for 40 consecutively admitted eligible patients. Secondary outcomes relate to fidelity and feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of the study intervention, processes and measures in this patient population, using quantitative and qualitative measures. Delirium incidence and severity will be measured to inform power calculations for a future phase III trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained for all four sites. Trial results, qualitative substudy findings and implementation of the intervention will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and reported at conferences, to study sites and key peak bodies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12617001070325; Pre-results.

Monitoring quality of care for patients with pancreatic cancer: a modified Delphi consensus.

BACKGROUND: Best practise care optimises survival and quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer (PC), but there is evidence of variability in management and suboptimal care for some patients. Monitoring practise is necessary to underpin improvement initiatives. We aimed to develop a core set of quality indicators that measure quality of care across the disease trajectory. METHODS: A modified, three-round Delphi survey was performed among experts with wide experience in PC care across three states in Australia. A total of 107 potential quality indicators were identified from the literature and divided into five areas: diagnosis and staging, surgery, other treatment, patient management and outcomes. A further six indicators were added by the panel, increasing potential quality indicators to 113. Rated on a scale of 1-9, indicators with high median importance and feasibility (score 7-9) and low disagreement (<1) were considered in the candidate set. RESULTS: From 113 potential quality indicators, 34 indicators met the inclusion criteria and 27 (7 diagnosis and staging, 5 surgical, 4 other treatment, 5 patient management, 6 outcome) were included in the final set. CONCLUSIONS: The developed indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research in PC care.

Insights from Australians with respiratory disease living in the community with experience of self-managing through an emergency department 'near miss' for breathlessness: a strengths-based qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Breathlessness 'crises' in people with chronic respiratory conditions are a common precipitant for emergency department (ED) presentations, many of which might be avoided through improved self-management and support. This study sought insights from people with experience of ED 'near misses' where they considered going to the ED but successfully self-managed instead. DESIGN AND METHODS: A qualitative approach was used with a phenomenological orientation. Participants were eligible if they reported breathlessness on most days from a diagnosed respiratory condition and experience of ≥1 ED near miss. Recruitment was through respiratory support groups and pulmonary rehabilitation clinics. Semistructured interviews were conducted with each participant via telephone or face-to-face. Questions focused on ED-related decision-making, information finding, breathlessness management and support. This analysis used an integrative approach and independent coding by two researchers. Lazarus and Cohen's Transactional Model of Stress and Coping informed interpretive themes. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 20 participants, 15 of whom had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Nineteen interviews were conducted via telephone. Analysis identified important factors in avoiding ED presentation to include perceived control over breathlessness, self-efficacy in coping with a crisis and desire not to be hospitalised. Effective coping strategies included: taking a project management approach that involved goal setting, monitoring and risk management; managing the affective dimension of breathlessness separately from the sensory perceptual and building three-way partnerships with primary care and respiratory services. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to teaching non-pharmacological and pharmacological management of breathlessness, interventions should aim to develop patients' generic self-management skills. Interventions to improve self-efficacy should ensure this is substantiated by transfer of skills and support, including knowledge about when ED presentation is necessary. Complementary initiatives are needed to improve coordinated, person-centred care. Future research should seek ways to break the cyclical relationship between affective and sensory-perceptual dimensions of breathlessness.

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: net effect of pregabalin for neuropathic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world effectiveness of many medications has been poorly researched, including in hospice/palliative care. Directly extrapolating findings from other clinical settings may not yield robust clinical advice. Pharmacovigilance studies provide an opportunity to understand better the net impact of medications. The study aimed to examine immediate and short-term benefits and harms of pregabalin in routine practice for neuropathic pain in hospice/palliative care. METHODS: A consecutive cohort of 155 patients from 62 centres in 5 countries was started on pregabalin and studied prospectively. Data were collected at three time points: baseline; day 7 (immediate, short-term harms); ad hoc reports of any harms ≤21 days; and day 21 (short-term benefits). RESULTS: Median dose for 155 patients at day 21 was 150 mg/24 h. Benefits were reported by 61 patients (39%), of whom 11 (7%) experienced complete pain resolution. Harms were reported by 51 (35%) patients at or before 7 days, the most frequent of which were somnolence, fatigue, cognitive disturbance and dizziness. 10 patients (6%) ceased pregabalin due to harms, but 82 patients (53%) were being treated at 21 days. In regression modelling, people with worse baseline pain derived more benefit (OR=8.5 (95% CI 2.5 to 28.68). CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin delivered benefit to many patients, with 4 of 10 experiencing pain reductions by 21 days. Harms, occurring in 1 in 3 patients, may be difficult to detect in clinical practice, as they mostly involve worsening of symptoms prevalent at baseline.

Measuring delirium point-prevalence in two Australian palliative care inpatient units.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, delirium prevalence in palliative care is reported to range between 26-88%, yet little is known about the occurrence of delirium in Australian palliative care inpatient populations. AIMS: To: 1) ascertain 24-hour delirium point-prevalence in an Australian palliative care inpatient population; 2) test the feasibility and acceptability of the delirium measurement methodology. METHODS: This was a prospective cross-sectional study. Delirium was measured in patients of two palliative care units using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale, Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to report patient demographics, palliative care phase, function, delirium measure completion, and proportion of patients with a positive screen and diagnosis. RESULTS: Patients (n=47) had a mean age of 74 years (SD+10) and mostly malignant diagnoses (96%). All patients were screened for delirium, but few were capable of completing the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (n=2). One-third of patients (34%) screened positive for delirium and 19% were diagnosed as delirious according to the DSM-5. CONCLUSION: The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale and physician application of DSM-5 proved feasible and acceptable, while the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale did not. Patients' advanced age and proportions screening positive for delirium and diagnosed as delirious attest to the need to rapidly recognise, assess and respond to patients experiencing this distressing disorder while being cared for in palliative care inpatient settings.

Validating self-report and proxy reports of the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire -Chronic for the evaluation of longer-term corticosteroid toxicity.

PURPOSE: In brain tumours, brain metastases or advanced cancer; treatment with corticosteroids, side effects can add to symptoms. These are best assessed by patients, complementing clinical assessment. We assessed the feasibility and validity of the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire-Chronic (DSQ-Chronic), patient and caregiver versions. METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study was conducted, collecting clinician-rated toxicity, performance status, dexamethasone dose and DSQ-Chronic (patient and caregiver versions) at baseline, then 2, 4 and 8 weeks later. Patients had a primary malignant brain tumour, brain metastases, or advanced cancer; Karnofsky Performance Status ≥40 and predicted survival ≥8 weeks. Analysis included questionnaire completion rates, frequency and severity of dexamethasone-attributable side effects, agreement between patient and caregiver ratings, comparison with clinician-rated toxicity and correlation with performance status. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were recruited (mean age 60 years), with their caregivers. Completion of questionnaires was over 90% for the dyad at baseline but dropped over time, with caregiver completion rates higher at all timepoints. Agreement between patients and proxies was fair to moderate, and while proxies systematically overestimated symptom severity on DSQ-chronic total scores, the bias was less than 10 points. Patient and clinician agreement was higher for more objective symptoms. CONCLUSION: The DSQ-Chronic is feasible when the patient is relatively well. As capacity to complete the DSQ-Chronic diminishes, caregivers can be proxy-raters. Clinicians capture corticosteroid toxicities, which may not be obvious to the patient. The DSQ-Chronic, patient and caregiver versions, are useful tools to be used with clinician assessment.

Nurse perceptions of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale in two palliative care inpatient units: a focus group study.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore nurse perceptions of the feasibility of integrating the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale into practice within the inpatient palliative care setting. BACKGROUND: Delirium occurs frequently in palliative care inpatient populations, yet is under-recognised. Exploring feasibility of delirium screening tools in this setting can provide insights into how recognition can be improved. DESIGN: This was a qualitative study using a focus group methodology. METHOD: Four semi-structured focus groups were conducted with 21 nurses working in two Australian palliative care units. Focus groups were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified: (1) Delirium screening using the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale is feasible, but then what? (2) Nuances, ambiguity and clinical complexity; and (3) Implementing structured processes requires firmer foundations. Themes describe how nurses perceived the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale to be an easy and brief screening tool which raised their awareness of delirium. They were largely willing to adopt it into practice, yet had uncertainty and misunderstandings of the tool specifically and delirium screening generally, application in a palliative care context, interventions for delirium and impact of screening on medical practice. CONCLUSION: The Nursing Delirium Screening Scale is feasible for use in a palliative care inpatient setting, but requires investigation of its psychometric properties before routine use in this patient population. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Nurses require understanding of delirium, tailored guidance and a united approach with doctors to support their effective use of a delirium screening tool in the palliative care unit. Delirium practice change in this setting will also require nurses to become more active leaders and collaborators within their interdisciplinary teams.