Palliative Medicine最新文献

Background: Shared decision-making is a key element of person-centred care and promoted as the favoured model in preference-sensitive decision-making. Limitations to implementation have been observed, and barriers and limitations, both generally and in the palliative setting, have been highlighted. More knowledge about the process of shared decision-making in palliative cancer care would assist in addressing these limitations.

Aim: To identify and synthesise qualitative data on how people with cancer, informal carers and healthcare professionals experience and perceive shared decision-making in palliative cancer care.

Design: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. We analysed data using inductive thematic analysis.

Data sources: We searched five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) from inception until June 2023, supplemented by backward searches.

Results: We identified and included 23 studies, reported in 26 papers. Our analysis produced four analytical themes; (1) Overwhelming situation of 'no choice', (2) Processes vary depending on the timings and nature of the decisions involved, (3) Patient-physician dyad is central to decision-making, with surrounding support and (4) Level of involvement depends on interactions between individuals and systems.

Conclusion: Shared decision-making in palliative cancer care is a complex process of many decisions in a challenging, multifaceted and evolving situation where equipoise and choice are limited. Implications for practice: Implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice requires (1) clarifying conceptual confusion, (2) including members of the interprofessional team in the shared decision-making process and (3) adapting the approach to the ambiguous, existential situations which arise in palliative cancer care.

Background: Psychological and existential suffering affects many people with advanced illness, and current therapeutic options have limited effectiveness. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a safe and effective therapy for refractory depression, but no previous study has used rTMS to treat psychological or existential distress in the palliative setting.

Aim: To determine whether a 5-day course of "accelerated" rTMS is feasible and can improve psychological and/or existential distress in a palliative care setting.

Design: Open-label, single arm, feasibility, and preliminary efficacy study of intermittent theta-burst stimulation to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, 600 pulses/session, 8 sessions/day (once per hour) for 5 days. The outcomes were the rates of recruitment, completion of intervention, and follow-up (Feasibility); and the proportion of participants achieving 50% improvement on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) or Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 2 weeks post-treatment (Preliminary Efficacy).

Setting/participants: Adults admitted to our academic Palliative Care Unit with advanced illness, life expectancy >1 month and psychological distress.

Results: Due to COVID-19 pandemic-related interruptions, a total of nine participants were enrolled between August 2021 and April 2023. Two withdrew before starting rTMS, one stopped due to clinical deterioration unrelated to rTMS, and six completed the rTMS treatment. Five of six participants had a >50% improvement in HDRS, HADS-Anxiety, or both between baseline and the 2 week follow up; the sixth died prior to the 2-week follow-up. In this small sample, mean depression scores decreased from baseline to 2 weeks post-treatment (HDRS 18 vs 7, p = 0.03). Side effects of rTMS included transient mild scalp discomfort.

Conclusions: Accelerated rTMS improved symptoms of depression, anxiety, or both in this small feasibility and preliminary efficacy study. A larger, sham-controlled study is warranted to determine whether rTMS could be an effective, acceptable, and scalable treatment in the palliative setting.

Trial registration: NCT04257227.

Background: There is a growing evidence-base underpinning implementation of person-centred outcome measures into adult palliative care. However evidence on how best to achieve this with children facing life-threatening and life-limiting conditions is limited.

Aim: To identify the anticipated benefits, risks, barriers and facilitators to implementing person-centred outcome measures for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions.

Design: Cross-sectional qualitative semi-structured interview study with key stakeholders analysed using Framework analysis informed by the adapted-Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Setting/participants: A total of n = 26 children with life-limiting or life-threatening conditions, n = 40 parents/carers, n = 13 siblings and n = 15 health and social care professionals recruited from six hospitals and three children's hospices and n = 12 Commissioners of health services.

Results: All participants were supportive of future implementation of person-centred outcome measures into care. Anticipated benefits included: better understanding of patient and family priorities, improved communication and collaborative working between professionals and families and standardisation in data collection and reporting. Anticipated risks included increased workload for staff and measures not being used as intended. Implementation barriers included: acceptability and usability of outcome measures by children; burden and capacity of parents/carers regarding completion; privacy concerns; and language barriers. Implementation facilitators included designing measures using language that is meaningful to children and families, ensuring potential benefits of person-centred outcome measures are communicated to encourage 'buy-in' and administering measures with known and trusted professional.

Conclusions: Implementation of person-centred outcome measures offer potential benefits for children with life-limiting and life-threatening conditions. Eight recommendations are made to maximise benefits and minimise risks in implementation.

Background: Seizures are an important palliative symptom, the management of which can be complicated by patients' capacity to swallow oral medications. In this setting, and the wish to avoid intravenous access, subcutaneous infusions may be employed. Options for antiseizure medications that can be provided subcutaneously may be limited. Subcutaneous sodium valproate may be an additional management strategy.

Aim: To evaluate the published experience of subcutaneous valproate use in palliative care, namely with respect to effectiveness and tolerability.

Design: A systematic review was registered (PROSPERO CRD42023453427), conducted and reported according to PRISMA reporting guidelines.

Data sources: The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus were searched for publications until August 11, 2023.

Results: The searches returned 429 results, of which six fulfilled inclusion criteria. Case series were the most common study design, and most studies included <10 individuals who received subcutaneous sodium valproate. There were three studies that presented results on the utility of subcutaneous sodium valproate for seizure control, which described it to be an effective strategy. One study also described it as an effective treatment for neuropathic pain. The doses were often based on presumed 1:1 oral to subcutaneous conversion ratios. Only one study described a local site adverse reaction, which resolved with a change of administration site.

Conclusions: There are limited data on the use of subcutaneous sodium valproate in palliative care. However, palliative symptoms for which subcutaneous sodium valproate have been used successfully are seizures and neuropathic pain. The available data have described few adverse effects, supporting its use with an appropriate degree of caution.