"Beyond Feasibility": A Qualitative Study of Patients, Their Whanau (Family) and Staff Perspectives and Experiences of a Non- Pharmacological Delirium-Prevention Intervention in Two Aotearoa/New Zealand Hospices.

CONTEXT: Delirium is prevalent in the hospice population. Despite causing significant distress to patients and families, delirium is under-recognised. There is a need to better understand delirium prevention and outcomes in this population including people's experiences of delirium-prevention strategies in different cultural contexts. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the "PRESERVE Aotearoa" delirium prevention intervention was feasible and acceptable for Maori (indigenous peoples of Aotearoa/ New Zealand) and non-Maori patients with advanced cancer, their families (called whanau in this paper), and clinical staff. METHODS: A qualitative semistructured interview substudy of a cohort PRESERVE Aotearoa feasibility study codesigned with a Maori partner to ensure inclusion of Maori-centred values. The study was underpinned conceptually by He Awa Whiria (braided rivers)-combining Western and Maori knowledges. Data were analysed using Hopwood and Srivasta's framework. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients and their whanau, 21 clinical staff and five researchers from two stand-alone hospices in the North Island, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Finding showed that, for the most part, participants considered the study interventions feasible and acceptable. Inductive analysis resulted in four themes highlighting the importance to whanau of their participation in the study: benefits of learning about delirium; the affirmation of the caregiver role and whanau-centred care; valuing fundamentals of care; and research as legacy. CONCLUSION: This qualitative study found that it is feasible and acceptable to study multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium-prevention interventions in Aotearoa/New Zealand hospice inpatient units. The study also highlights the value of Maori-centred approaches and whanau involvement in these settings.

Timely Assessment of Breathing-Related Distress in Community Palliative Care: A Multidisciplinary Collaborative Quality Improvement Project.

Background: Breathlessness is a common symptom for palliative patients that can cause distress and decrease function and quality of life. Palliative care services in Australia aim to routinely assess patients for breathing-related distress, but timely reassessment is not always achieved. Objective: To improve the timeliness of breathlessness reassessment in a home-based community palliative care service in New South Wales for people with moderate-to-severe breathing-related distress. Breathing-related distress was defined as a Symptom Assessment Score for "breathing problems" of four or more. Methods: This collaborative quality improvement (QI) project between SPHERE Palliative Care CAG, Stanford University mentors, and a Sydney metropolitan specialist palliative care service included a: (1) retrospective chart audit; (2) cause and effect analyses using a fishbone diagram; (3) development and implementation of key drivers and interventions; and (4) a pre-and-post evaluation of the timeliness of reassessment of breathing-related distress and changes in Symptom Assessment Scale scores for "breathing problems." Results: Key interventions included multidisciplinary education sessions to facilitate buy-in, with nurses as case managers responsible for breathlessness reassessment and documentation of scores, access and training in electronic palliative care data entry software, fortnightly monitoring and reporting of breathing-related distress scores, and development of an educational flowchart. The proportion of patients reassessed within seven days of an initial nursing assessment of moderate-to-severe breathing-related distress increased from 34% at baseline to 92% at six months. Conclusion: A local QI project increased the proportion of patients with a timely reassessment of their breathing-related distress in a community palliative care service.

The COVID-19 Pandemic: Bereavement Experiences Between Hospital and Home Deaths in Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Australian COVID-19 public health measures reduced opportunities for people to communicate with healthcare professionals and be present at the death of family members/friends. AIM: To understand if pandemic-specific challenges and public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic impacted end-of-life and bereavement experiences differently if the death, supported by palliative care, occurred in a hospital or at home. DESIGN: A cross-sectional online survey was completed by bereaved adults during 2020-2022. Analyses compared home and in-patient palliative care deaths and bereavement outcomes. Additional analyses compared health communication outcomes for those identified as persons responsible or next of kin. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Of 744 bereaved people; 69% (n = 514) had a death in hospital and 31% (n = 220) at home. RESULTS: The COVID-19 public health measures influenced people's decision to die at home. Compared to hospital deaths, the home death group had higher levels of grief severity and grief-related functional impairment. Only 37% of bereaved people received information about bereavement and support services. 38% of participants who were at least 12 months postdeath scored at a level suggestive of possible prolonged grief disorder. Levels of depression and anxiety between the two groups were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the need for health services to recognize bereavement as fundamental to palliative and health care and provide pre- and post death grief and bereavement care to ensure supports are available particularly for those managing end-of-life at home, and that such supports are in place prior to as well as at the time of the death.

Nurses' models of spiritual care: A cross-sectional survey of American nurses.

OBJECTIVES: Despite there being many models for how spiritual care should be provided, the way nurses actually provide spiritual care often differs from these models. Based on the premise that the way a person enacts their work role is related to how they understand that role, this study aims to describe the qualitatively different ways that nurses understand their spiritual care role. METHODS: A convenience sample of 66 American nurses completed an anonymous, online questionnaire about what spiritual care means for them and what they generally do to provide spiritual care. Their responses were analyzed phenomenographically. RESULTS: Four qualitatively different ways of understanding emerged: active management of the patient's experience, responsive facilitation of patient's wishes, accompaniment on the patient's dying journey, and empowering co-action with the patient. Each understanding was found to demonstrate a specific combination of 5 attributes that described the spiritual care role: nurse directivity, the cues used for spiritual assessment, and the nurse's perception of intimacy, the patient, and the task. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The findings of this study may explain why nurses vary in their spiritual care role and can be used to assess and develop competence in spiritual care.

'It's tough. It is hard': A qualitative interview study of staff and volunteers caring for hospice in-patients with delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a distressing condition often experienced by hospice in-patients. Increased understanding of current multidisciplinary care of delirium is needed to develop interventions in this setting. AIM(S): To explore hospice staff and volunteers' practice, its influences and what may need to change to improve hospice delirium care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using behaviour change theory from a critical realist stance. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven staff, including different professional groups and roles, and volunteers were purposively sampled from two in-patient hospices. RESULTS: We found that participants' practice focus was on managing hyperactive symptoms of delirium, through medication use and non-pharmacological strategies. Delirium prevention, early recognition and hypoactive delirium received less attention. Our theoretically-informed analysis identified this focus was influenced by staff and volunteers' emotional responses to the distress associated with hyperactive symptoms of delirium as well as understanding of delirium prevention, recognition and care, which varied between staff groups. Non-pharmacological delirium management was supported by adequate staffing levels, supportive team working and a culture of person-centred and family-centred care, although behaviours that disrupted the calm hospice environment challenged this. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can inform hospice-tailored behaviour change interventions that develop a shared team understanding and engage staff's emotional responses to improve delirium care. Reflective learning opportunities are needed that increase understanding of the potential to reduce patient distress through prevention and early recognition of delirium, as well as person-centred management. Organisational support for adequate, flexible staffing levels and supportive team working is required to support person-centred delirium care.

Patient safety for people experiencing advanced dementia in hospital: A video reflexive ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety for people experiencing dementia in acute hospitals is a global priority. Despite national strategies as well as safety and quality guidelines, how safety practices are enacted within the complexities of everyday work are poorly understood and articulated. METHODS: Using video reflexive ethnography, this 18-month study was conducted within an inpatient geriatric evaluation and management unit for people experiencing dementia and/or delirium in Australia. Patients, family members, and staff members participated by: allowing researchers to document fieldwork notes and video-record their practices and/or accounts thereof; and/or interpreting video-recordings with researchers to co-analyse and make sense of the data. RESULTS: Safe care for people experiencing advanced dementia involved: negotiating risk via leadership, teamwork, and transparency; practice-based learning through situated adaptation; managing personhood versus protocols by doing the 'right' thing; joyful and meaningful work; as well as incorporating patient and family voices to do safety together. CONCLUSION: Patient safety for people experiencing dementia requires continuous responsiveness and prioritising in the context of multiple risks by a staff collective with a shared purpose. Ongoing research to better understand how the nuances of patient safety unfold in everyday complex clinical realities in diverse contexts and with key stakeholders is required.

Prevalence and management of chronic nonmalignant pain in palliative care populations: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence and current approaches to clinical management of chronic nonmalignant pain in patients referred to palliative care services. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021205432). Six databases were searched on 25 August 2020 and again on 11 July 2022: PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Scopus, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Search included prevalence or intervention studies with patients who had chronic nonmalignant pain and were referred to palliative care services. Screening was undertaken independently by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: The searches returned 417 titles; subsequent screening identified 5 eligible studies, 4 from the USA and 1 from Hong Kong, including 2 cohort and 3 cross-sectional studies. Sample sizes ranged from 137 to 323, with a total of 1,056 patients. The prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain ranged from 14% to 34% across different palliative care settings. There was significant crossover of pain types; 54% of patients with chronic no-malignant pain had additional cancer-related pain or cancer treatment-related pain. Opioids were used to manage stand-alone chronic nonmalignant pain for 39% of patients compared to 58% with mixed chronic nonmalignant pain and other pain diagnoses. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Five studies have documented the prevalence of chronic nonmalignant pain of 14-34% in palliative care. Further research including prevalence and treatment studies would provide clearer evidence for best practice management of chronic nonmalignant pain in the palliative care setting.

Symptom Assessment for Mechanically Ventilated Patients: Principles and Priorities: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Mechanically ventilated patients experience many adverse symptoms, such as anxiety, thirst, and dyspnea. However, these common symptoms are not included in practice guideline recommendations for routine assessment of mechanically ventilated patients. An American Thoracic Society-sponsored workshop with researchers and clinicians with expertise in critical care and symptom management was convened for a discussion of symptom assessment in mechanically ventilated patients. Members included nurses, physicians, a respiratory therapist, a speech-language pathologist, a critical care pharmacist, and a former intensive care unit patient. This report summarizes existing evidence and consensus among workshop participants regarding 1) symptoms that should be considered for routine assessment of adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation; 2) key symptom assessment principles; 3) strategies that support symptom assessment in nonvocal patients; and 4) areas for future clinical practice development and research. Systematic patient-centered assessment of multiple symptoms has great potential to minimize patient distress and improve the patient experience. A culture shift is necessary to promote ongoing holistic symptom assessment with valid and reliable instruments. This report represents our workgroup consensus on symptom assessment for mechanically ventilated patients. Future work should address how holistic, patient-centered symptom assessment can be embedded into clinical practice.

Cost-effectiveness of clinical interventions for delirium: A systematic literature review of economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the economic value of clinical interventions for delirium. This review aims to synthesise and appraise available economic evidence, including resource use, costs, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for reducing, preventing, and treating delirium. METHODS: Systematic review of published and grey literature on full and partial economic evaluations. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). RESULTS: Fourteen economic evaluations (43% full, 57% partial) across nine multicomponent and nonpharmacological intervention types met inclusion criteria. The intervention costs ranged between US$386 and $553 per person in inpatient settings. Multicomponent delirium prevention intervention and the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) reported statistically significant cost savings or cost offsets somewhere else in the health system. Cost savings related to inpatient, outpatient, and out-of-pocket costs ranged between $194 and $6022 per person. The average CHEERS score was 74% (±SD 10%). CONCLUSION: Evidence on a joint distribution of costs and outcomes of delirium interventions was limited, varied and of generally low quality. Directed expansion of health economics towards the evaluation of delirium care is necessary to ensure effective implementation that meets patients' needs and is cost-effective in achieving similar or better outcomes for the same or lower cost.

Three key areas in progressing delirium practice and knowledge: recognition and relief of distress, new directions in delirium epidemiology and developing better research assessments.

Delirium presents formidable challenges: it affects one in four of older hospitalised adults, greatly elevates the risk of multiple short- and long-term complications including dementia and causes significant distress. Delirium care remains generally poor. Yet, there are clear grounds for optimism; the last decade has seen impactful policy advances and a tripling of research output. Here, we highlight three linked areas which have strong potential to transform delirium practice and knowledge in the near term. Delirium-related distress is strikingly underrepresented in practice guidance and research. Proactive recognition combined with effective clinical responses based on good communication provides a critical and largely untapped opportunity to improve care. Delirium epidemiology research is well positioned to produce novel insights through advanced prospective designs in populations such as emergency medical patients with detailed pre-, intra- and post-delirium assessments allied with fluid, imaging and other biomarkers. Research-grade assessment of delirium currently involves a chaotic array of tools, methods and diagnostic algorithms. Areas for development: expand and analytically distinguish the range of features assessed (including distress), optimise feature assessment including use of validated neuropsychological tests where possible, produce standardised algorithms which articulate explicit pathways from features to diagnosis, and create new fine-grained approaches to the measurement of severity. Delirium practice and knowledge show accelerating growth. This is encouraging but much of the necessary progress is still to come. Innovation in these three highlighted areas, as well as many others, will open up exciting possibilities in enhancing the care of patients with this common and often devastating condition.

Stakeholder perspectives of a pilot multicomponent delirium prevention intervention for adult patients with advanced cancer in palliative care units: A behaviour change theory-based qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Theory-based and qualitative evaluations in pilot trials of complex clinical interventions help to understand quantitative results, as well as inform the feasibility and design of subsequent effectiveness and implementation trials. AIM: To explore patient, family, clinician and volunteer ('stakeholder') perspectives of the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention for adult patients with advanced cancer in four Australian palliative care units that participated in a phase II trial, the 'PRESERVE pilot study'. DESIGN: A trial-embedded qualitative study via semi-structured interviews and directed content analysis using Michie's Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine people involved in the trial: nurses (n = 17), physicians (n = 6), patients (n = 6), family caregivers (n = 4), physiotherapists (n = 3), a social worker, a pastoral care worker and a volunteer. RESULTS: Participants' perspectives aligned with the 'capability', 'opportunity' and 'motivation' domains of the applied frameworks. Of seven themes, three were around the alignment of the delirium prevention intervention with palliative care (intervention was considered routine care; intervention aligned with the compassionate and collaborative culture of palliative care; and differing views of palliative care priorities influenced perspectives of the intervention) and four were about study processes more directly related to adherence to the intervention (shared knowledge increased engagement with the intervention; impact of the intervention checklist on attention, delivery and documentation of the delirium prevention strategies; clinical roles and responsibilities; and addressing environmental barriers to delirium prevention). CONCLUSION: This theory-informed qualitative study identified multiple influences on the delivery and documentation of a pilot multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention in four palliative care units. Findings inform future definitive studies of delirium prevention in palliative care.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001070325; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373168.

Patient and carer experiences of pain care in an Australian regional comprehensive cancer care setting: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is a common and distressing symptom in people living with cancer that requires a patient-centred approach to management. Since 2010, the Australian Government has invested heavily in developing regional cancer centres to improve cancer outcomes. This study explored patient and carer experiences of care from a regional cancer centre with specific reference to cancer pain management. METHODS: A qualitative approach was used with semi-structured telephone interviews. Participants were outpatients at a regional cancer centre in New South Wales who had reported worst pain of 2 or more on a 0-10 numerical rating scale, and their carers. Questions explored experiences of pain assessment and management, and perceptions of how these were affected by the regional setting. Researchers analysed data using a deductive approach, using Mead and Bower's (2000) framework of factors influencing patient-centred care. RESULTS: Eighteen telephone interviews were conducted with 13 patients and 5 carers. Participants perceived that living in a regional setting conferred advantages to the patient-centredness of care via influences at the levels of professional context, the doctor-patient relationship, and consultation. These influences included established and ongoing relationships with a smaller number of care providers who were members of the community, and heightened accessibility in terms of travel/parking, flexible appointments, and ample time spent with each patient. The first of these factors was also perceived to contribute to continuity of care between specialist and primary care providers. However, one negative case reported disagreement between providers and a difficulty accessing specialist pain services. Several participants also reported a preference, and unmet need, for non-pharmacological rather than pharmacological pain management. CONCLUSION: While much research has focused on lack of services and poorer outcomes for people with cancer in rural areas, the Australian regional setting may offer benefits to the patient-centredness of cancer pain management and continuity of care. More research is needed to better understand the benefits and trade-offs of cancer care in regional versus urban settings, and how each can learn from the other. An unmet need for non-pharmacological rather than pharmacological pain management is among the most consistent findings of qualitative studies of patient/carer preferences across settings.

Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling. Objectives: To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021. Interventions: Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4. Results: Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low. Conclusions and Relevance: A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Older Persons' and Their Caregivers' Perspectives and Experiences of Research Participation With Impaired Decision-Making Capacity: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Human research ethics statements support the equitable inclusion of diverse groups. Yet older people are underrepresented in clinical research, especially those with impaired decision-making capacity. The aim of this study was to identify the perspectives and experiences of older persons and their caregivers of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Scoping review of the literature and online sources in January-February 2019 (updated June 2020) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. English-language peer-reviewed research articles and Australian online narratives were included. Data were tabulated and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: From 4,171 database records and 93 online resources, 22 articles (2000-2019, 82% United States, 16 first authors) and one YouTube webinar (2018) were initially included; updated searches yielded an additional article (2020) and YouTube webinar (2020). Studies were heterogeneous in terminology, methods, and foci, with hypothetical scenarios, quantitative analyses, and examination of proxy consent predominating. Participants (N = 7,331) were older persons (71%), caregivers of older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (23%), and older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (6%). Synthesis identified 2 themes: willingness to participate and decision-making approaches. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Research participation by older persons with dementia may be optimized through reducing risks and burdens and increasing benefits for participants, greater consumer input into study development, and shared and supported decision-making. Older persons' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity require investigation in a greater range of countries and conditions other than dementia, and dissemination through more varied media.

Risk factors for delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common and distressing for patients receiving palliative care. Interventions targetting modifiable risk factors in other settings have been shown to prevent delirium. Research on delirium risk factors in palliative care can inform context-specific risk-reduction interventions. AIM: To investigate risk factors for the development of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42019157168). DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (1980-2021) were searched for studies reporting the association of risk factors with delirium incidence/prevalence for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Study risk of bias and certainty of evidence for each risk factor were assessed. RESULTS: Of 28 included studies, 16 conducted only univariate analysis, 12 conducted multivariate analysis. The evidence for delirium risk factors was limited with low to very low certainty. POTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS: Opioids and lower performance status were positively associated with delirium, with some evidence also for dehydration, hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance, liver dysfunction and infection. Mixed, or very limited, evidence was found for some factors targetted in multicomponent prevention interventions: sensory impairments, mobility, catheter use, polypharmacy (single study), pain, constipation, nutrition (mixed evidence). NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS: Older age, male sex, primary brain cancer or brain metastases and lung cancer were positively associated with delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may usefully inform interventions to reduce delirium risk but more high quality prospective cohort studies are required to enable greater certainty about associations of different risk factors with delirium during specialist palliative care.

Postoperative delirium in older patients with cancer: the role of psychological distress and social support.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Delirium is a common and important adverse event in the perioperative period. Older people with cancer are at significant risk, and outcomes are poor. There is increasing awareness of the effect of psychological distress and social support on pathogenesis and outcomes of delirium in this setting. This review aimed to describe recent research in this evolving area. RECENT FINDINGS: Across six recent studies of postoperative delirium in older people with cancer, delirium incidence ranged from 8 to 19.8%. Poor social support and high levels of distress are implicated in the development of postoperative delirium. Distress can be related to negative emotional reaction to diagnosis, preconception of cancer diagnosis and interactions with the healthcare system. Prevention of delirium is key, and multicomponent interventions show evidence of effectiveness. 'Emotional distress' has been included in a new core outcome set for studies of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium. SUMMARY: Postoperative delirium in older adults with cancer is common and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Psychological distress and social support play an important role, but there are many unmet research needs in this area.

Outcomes and measures of delirium interventional studies in palliative care to inform a core outcome set: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement. AIM: To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions. DESIGN: Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: We searched six electronic databases (1980-November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions. RESULTS: From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research.

Delirium-related distress in the ICU: A qualitative meta-synthesis of patient and family perspectives and experiences.

BACKGROUND: Better understanding of patient and family member experiences of delirium and related distress during critical care is required to inform the development of targeted nonpharmacologic interventions. OBJECTIVE: To examine and synthesize qualitative data on patient and family member delirium experiences and relieving factors in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis. Eligible studies contained adult patient or family quotes about delirium during critical care, published in English in a peer-reviewed journal since 1980. Data sources included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane and Clinicaltrials.gov. METHODS: Systematic searches yielded 3238 identified articles, of which 14 reporting 13 studies were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Qualitative meta-synthesis was performed through line-by-line coding of relevant quotes, organization of codes into descriptive themes, and development of analytical themes. Five patients/family members with experience of ICU delirium contributed to the thematic analysis. RESULTS: Qualitative meta-synthesis resulted in four major themes and two sub-themes. Key new patient and family-centric insights regarding delirium-related distress in the ICU included articulation of the distinct emotions experienced during and after delirium (for patients, predominantly fear, anger and shame); its 'whole-person' nature; and the value that patients and family members placed on clinicians' compassion, communication, and connectedness. CONCLUSIONS: Distinct difficult emotions and other forms of distress are experienced by patients and families during ICU delirium, during which patients and families highly value human kindness and empathy. Future studies should further explore and address the many facets of delirium-related distress during critical care using these insights and include patient-reported measures of the predominant difficult emotions.