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.

Background: The global need for focused improvements in palliative care within the acute hospital setting is well noted. A large volume of evidence exists detailing what hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families note as important for high quality care. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are one mechanism that hospitals could use to inform improvement work. To date there has not been a review of PREMs available for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and/or their family, nor how they align with noted priorities for high quality care. Aim: To identify and describe PREMs designed for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families; and their alignment with patient and family identified domains for high quality care. Design: A systematic review. Data sources: A systematic search of CINAHL, Medline and PsycInfo was conducted up to September 23, 2022 and supplemented by handsearching article reference lists and internet searches. PREMs written in English and designed for patients with palliative care needs in acute hospitals were eligible for inclusion. Included PREMs were described by: summarising key characteristics; and mapping their items to domains noted to be important to hospitalised patients with palliative care needs and their families informed by outcomes from a published study completed in 2021. Evidence for psychometric properties were reviewed. Results: Forty-four PREMs with 827 items were included. Items per PREM varied from 2 to 85 (median 25, IQR 13–42). Two-thirds ( n = 534, 65%) of the items were designed for families and a third ( n = 283, 34%) for hospitalised patients, and very few ( n = 10, 1%) for both. Sixty-six percent of items measured person-centred care, 30% expert care and 4% environmental aspects of care. Available PREMs address between 1 and 11 of the 14 domains of importance for quality palliative care. PREMs had a median of 38% (IQR 25.4–56.3) of items >Grade 8 measured by the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, with Grade 8 or lower recommended to ensure health information is as accessible as possible across the population. Conclusions: Whilst 44 PREMs are available for hospitalised patients with palliative care needs or their families, a varied number of items are available for some domains of care provision that are important, compared to others. Few are suitable for people with lower levels of literacy or limited cognitive capacity due to illness.

Background: People with dementia requiring palliative care have multiple needs, which are amplified in long-term care settings. The European Association for Palliative Care White Paper offers recommendations for optimal palliative care in dementia integral for this population, providing useful guidance to inform interventions addressing their specific needs. Aim: The aim of this study is to describe the components of palliative care interventions for people with dementia in long-term care focusing on shared decision-making and examine their alignment to the European Association for Palliative Care domains of care. Design: Systematic review with narrative synthesis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095649). Data sources: Four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) were searched (earliest records – July 2019) for peer-reviewed articles and protocols in English, reporting on palliative care interventions for people with dementia in long-term care, addressing European Association for Palliative Care Domains 2 (person-centred) or 3 (setting care goals) and ⩾1 other domain. Results: Fifty-one papers were included, reporting on 32 studies. For each domain (1–10), there were interventions found aiming to address its goal, although no single intervention addressed all domains. Domain 7 (symptom management; n = 19), 6 (avoiding overly aggressive treatment; n = 18) and 10 (education; n = 17) were the most commonly addressed; Domain 5 (prognostication; n = 7) and 4 (continuity of care; n = 2) were the least addressed. Conclusion: Almost all domains were addressed across all interventions currently offered for this population to various degrees, but not within a singular intervention. Future research optimally needs to be theory driven when developing dementia-specific interventions at the end of life, with the European Association for Palliative Care domains serving as a foundation to inform the best care for this population.

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.

Background: Palliative populations are at risk for dehydration which can cause discomfort, distress and cognitive symptoms. Subcutaneous hydration (‘hypodermoclysis’) has been used as an alternative administration route to the more invasive intravenous route, but research is lacking on its net clinical effects (harms and benefits) for palliative populations, particularly in real world settings. Aim: To quantify prospectively the net clinical effects of hypodermoclysis in palliative patients with advanced disease who required supplementary fluids. Design: Multisite, multinational consecutive cohort study. Setting/participants: Patients receiving hypodermoclysis in an inpatient palliative care setting. Results: Twenty sites contributed data for 99 patients, of which 88 had complete benefits and harms data. The most common primary target symptom for infusion was generalised weakness (18.2%), and the most common non-symptom indication was supplemental hydration (31.8%). Benefits were experienced in 33% of patients in their primary target symptom, and in any symptom in 56.8%. Harms were experienced in 38.7% of patients (42% at Grade 1). Benefits increased with higher performance status, while harms were more frequent in patients with lower performance status (Australia-modified Karnofsky performance status ⩽40). Patients in the terminal phase of their illness experienced the least benefit (15.4% in any indication only) and had more frequent harms (38%). Conclusions: Hypodermoclysis may improve certain symptoms in patients in palliative care but frequency of harms and benefits may differ at certain timepoints in the illness trajectory. Further research is needed to better delineate which patients will derive the most net clinical benefit from hypodermoclysis.