-
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Apr 2021Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed,... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Near the end of life when patients experience refractory symptoms, palliative sedation may be considered as a last treatment. Clinical guidelines have been developed, but they are mainly based on expert opinion or retrospective chart reviews. Therefore, evidence for the clinical aspects of palliative sedation is needed.
OBJECTIVES
To explore clinical aspects of palliative sedation in recent prospective studies.
METHODS
Systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered at PROSPERO. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched (January 2014-December 2019), combining sedation, palliative care, and prospective. Article quality was assessed.
RESULTS
Ten prospective articles were included, involving predominantly patients with cancer. Most frequently reported refractory symptoms were delirium (41%-83%), pain (25%-65%), and dyspnea (16%-59%). In some articles, psychological and existential distress were mentioned (16%-59%). Only a few articles specified the tools used to assess symptoms. Level of sedation assessment tools were the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Ramsay Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, and Bispectral Index monitoring. The palliative sedation practice shows an underlying need for proportionality in relation to symptom intensity. Midazolam was the main sedative used. Other reported medications were phenobarbital, promethazine, and anesthetic medication-propofol. The only study that reported level of patient's discomfort as a palliative sedation outcome showed a decrease in patient discomfort.
CONCLUSION
Assessment of refractory symptoms should include physical evaluation with standardized tools applied and interviews for psychological and existential evaluation by expert clinicians working in teams. Future research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of palliative sedation for refractory symptom relief.
Topics: Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Palliative Care; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32961218
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.09.022 -
International Journal of Environmental... Oct 2021Intensive care unit discharge is an important transition that impacts a patient's wellbeing. Nurses can play an essential role in this scenario, potentiating patient... (Review)
Review
Intensive care unit discharge is an important transition that impacts a patient's wellbeing. Nurses can play an essential role in this scenario, potentiating patient empowerment. A systematic review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (the PRISMA Statement. Embase), PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CUIDEN Plus, and LILACS databases; these were evaluated in May 2021. Two independent reviewers analyzed the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Quality of the studies included was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Of the 274 articles initially identified, eight randomized controlled trials that reported on nursing interventions had mainly focused on patients' ICU discharge preparation through information and education. The creation of ICU nurse-led teams and nurses' involvement in critical care multidisciplinary teams also aimed to support patients during ICU discharge. This systematic review provides an update on the clinical practice aimed at improving the patient experience during ICU discharge. The main nursing interventions were based on information and education, as well as the development of new nursing roles. Understanding transitional needs and patient empowerment are key to making the transition easier.
Topics: Critical Care; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Patient Discharge; Patient Participation
PubMed: 34769569
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph182111049 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Sep 2022To examine the association of physician burnout with the career engagement and the quality of patient care globally. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the association of physician burnout with the career engagement and the quality of patient care globally.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from database inception until May 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES
Observational studies assessing the association of physician burnout (including a feeling of overwhelming emotional exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from job defined as depersonalisation, and a sense of ineffectiveness and little personal accomplishment) with career engagement (job satisfaction, career choice regret, turnover intention, career development, and productivity loss) and the quality of patient care (patient safety incidents, low professionalism, and patient satisfaction). Data were double extracted by independent reviewers and checked through contacting all authors, 84 (49%) of 170 of whom confirmed their data. Random-effect models were used to calculate the pooled odds ratio, prediction intervals expressed the amount of heterogeneity, and meta-regressions assessed for potential moderators with significance set using a conservative level of P<0.10.
RESULTS
4732 articles were identified, of which 170 observational studies of 239 246 physicians were included in the meta-analysis. Overall burnout in physicians was associated with an almost four times decrease in job satisfaction compared with increased job satisfaction (odds ratio 3.79, 95% confidence interval 3.24 to 4.43, I=97%, k=73 studies, n=146 980 physicians). Career choice regret increased by more than threefold compared with being satisfied with their career choice (3.49, 2.43 to 5.00, I=97%, k=16, n=33 871). Turnover intention also increased by more than threefold compared with retention (3.10, 2.30 to 4.17, I=97%, k=25, n=32 271). Productivity had a small but significant effect (1.82, 1.08 to 3.07, I=83%, k=7, n=9581) and burnout also affected career development from a pooled association of two studies (3.77, 2.77 to 5.14, I=0%, n=3411). Overall physician burnout doubled patient safety incidents compared with no patient safety incidents (2.04, 1.69 to 2.45, I=87%, k=35, n=41 059). Low professionalism was twice as likely compared with maintained professionalism (2.33, 1.96 to 2.70, I=96%, k=40, n=32 321), as was patient dissatisfaction compared with patient satisfaction (2.22, 1.38 to 3.57, I=75%, k=8, n=1002). Burnout and poorer job satisfaction was greatest in hospital settings (1.88, 0.91 to 3.86, P=0.09), physicians aged 31-50 years (2.41, 1.02 to 5.64, P=0.04), and working in emergency medicine and intensive care (2.16, 0.98 to 4.76, P=0.06); burnout was lowest in general practitioners (0.16, 0.03 to 0.88, P=0.04). However, these associations did not remain significant in the multivariable regressions. Burnout and patient safety incidents were greatest in physicians aged 20-30 years (1.88, 1.07 to 3.29, P=0.03), and people working in emergency medicine (2.10, 1.09 to 3.56, P=0.02). The association of burnout with low professionalism was smallest in physicians older than 50 years (0.36, 0.19 to 0.69, P=0.003) and greatest in physicians still in training or residency (2.27, 1.45 to 3.60, P=0.001), in those who worked in a hospital (2.16, 1.46 to 3.19, P<0.001), specifically in emergency medicine specialty (1.48, 1.01 to 2.34, P=0.042), or situated in a low to middle income country (1.68, 0.94 to 2.97, P=0.08).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis provides compelling evidence that physician burnout is associated with poor function and sustainability of healthcare organisations primarily by contributing to the career disengagement and turnover of physicians and secondarily by reducing the quality of patient care. Healthcare organisations should invest more time and effort in implementing evidence-based strategies to mitigate physician burnout across specialties, and particularly in emergency medicine and for physicians in training or residency.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO number CRD42021249492.
Topics: Burnout, Professional; Burnout, Psychological; Emergency Medicine; Humans; Patient Care; Physicians; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 36104064
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-070442 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.
Topics: Ambulatory Care; Bias; Caregivers; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Family; Heart Failure; Home Care Services, Hospital-Based; Hospitalization; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain Management; Palliative Care; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Symptom Assessment; Terminal Care
PubMed: 32996586
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012780.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Communication about end of life (EoL) and EoL care is critically important for providing quality care as people approach death. Such communication is often complex and involves many people (patients, family members, carers, health professionals). How best to communicate with people in the period approaching death is not known, but is an important question for quality of care at EoL worldwide. This review fills a gap in the evidence on interpersonal communication (between people and health professionals) in the last year of life, focusing on interventions to improve interpersonal communication and patient, family member and carer outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of interventions designed to improve verbal interpersonal communication about EoL care between health practitioners and people affected by EoL.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL from inception to July 2018, without language or date restrictions. We contacted authors of included studies and experts and searched reference lists to identify relevant papers. We searched grey literature sources, conference proceedings, and clinical trials registries in September 2019. Database searches were re-run in June 2021 and potentially relevant studies listed as awaiting classification or ongoing.
SELECTION CRITERIA
This review assessed the effects of interventions, evaluated in randomised and quasi-randomised trials, intended to enhance interpersonal communication about EoL care between patients expected to die within 12 months, their family members and carers, and health practitioners involved in their care. Patients of any age from birth, in any setting or care context (e.g. acute catastrophic injury, chronic illness), and all health professionals involved in their care were eligible. All communication interventions were eligible, as long as they included interpersonal interaction(s) between patients and family members or carers and health professionals. Interventions could be simple or complex, with one or more communication aims (e.g. to inform, skill, engage, support). Effects were sought on outcomes for patients, family and carers, health professionals and health systems, including adverse (unintended) effects. To ensure this review's focus was maintained on interpersonal communication in the last 12 months of life, we excluded studies that addressed specific decisions, shared or otherwise, and the tools involved in such decision-making. We also excluded studies focused on advance care planning (ACP) reporting ACP uptake or completion as the primary outcome. Finally, we excluded studies of communication skills training for health professionals unless patient outcomes were reported as primary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Standard Cochrane methods were used, including dual review author study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies.
MAIN RESULTS
Eight trials were included. All assessed intervention effects compared with usual care. Certainty of the evidence was low or very low. All outcomes were downgraded for indirectness based on the review's purpose, and many were downgraded for imprecision and/or inconsistency. Certainty was not commonly downgraded for methodological limitations. A summary of the review's findings is as follows. Knowledge and understanding (four studies, low-certainty evidence; one study without usable data): interventions to improve communication (e.g. question prompt list, with or without patient and physician training) may have little or no effect on knowledge of illness and prognosis, or information needs and preferences, although studies were small and measures used varied across trials. Evaluation of the communication (six studies measuring several constructs (communication quality, patient-centredness, involvement preferences, doctor-patient relationship, satisfaction with consultation), most low-certainty evidence): across constructs there may be minimal or no effects of interventions to improve EoL communication, and there is uncertainty about effects of interventions such as a patient-specific feedback sheet on quality of communication. Discussions of EoL or EoL care (six studies measuring selected outcomes, low- or very low-certainty evidence): a family conference intervention may increase duration of EoL discussions in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting, while use of a structured serious illness conversation guide may lead to earlier discussions of EoL and EoL care (each assessed by one study). We are uncertain about effects on occurrence of discussions and question asking in consultations, and there may be little or no effect on content of communication in consultations. Adverse outcomes or unintended effects (limited evidence): there is insufficient evidence to determine whether there are adverse outcomes associated with communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list, family conference, structured discussions) for EoL and EoL care. Patient and/or carer anxiety was reported by three studies, but judged as confounded. No other unintended consequences, or worsening of desired outcomes, were reported. Patient/carer quality of life (four studies, low-certainty evidence; two without useable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on quality of life. Health practitioner outcomes (three studies, low-certainty evidence; two without usable data): interventions to improve communication may have little or no effect on health practitioner outcomes (satisfaction with communication during consultation; one study); effects on other outcomes (knowledge, preparedness to communicate) are unknown. Health systems impacts: communication interventions (e.g. structured EoL conversations) may have little or no effect on carer or clinician ratings of quality of EoL care (satisfaction with care, symptom management, comfort assessment, quality of care) (three studies, low-certainty evidence), or on patients' self-rated care and illness, or numbers of care goals met (one study, low-certainty evidence). Communication interventions (e.g. question prompt list alone or with nurse-led communication skills training) may slightly increase mean consultation length (two studies), but other health service impacts (e.g. hospital admissions) are unclear.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this review are inconclusive for practice. Future research might contribute meaningfully by seeking to fill gaps for populations not yet studied in trials; and to develop responsive outcome measures with which to better assess the effects of communication on the range of people involved in EoL communication episodes. Mixed methods and/or qualitative research may contribute usefully to better understand the complex interplay between different parties involved in communication, and to inform development of more effective interventions and appropriate outcome measures. Co-design of such interventions and outcomes, involving the full range of people affected by EoL communication and care, should be a key underpinning principle for future research in this area.
Topics: Anxiety; Communication; Humans; Physician-Patient Relations; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Terminal Care
PubMed: 35802350
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013116.pub2 -
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences Dec 2021This literature study describes caring science research on human dignity in different clinical practice. We already know a good deal about human dignity in nursing care... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This literature study describes caring science research on human dignity in different clinical practice. We already know a good deal about human dignity in nursing care but how do patients, nurses, healthcare professionals and next of kin experience human dignity in clinical practice?
AIM
To summarise studies on human dignity to gain a deeper understanding of how it can be achieved in caring science research and to gain a broader understanding of the differences and similarities across caring contexts. The aim was also to gain a broader understanding of the differences and similarities of human dignity across different clinical practice.
METHOD
The literature review re-analysed 28 empirical studies on human dignity are experienced from acute, psychiatric, elderly and rehabilitation care. The data analysis strategy was conducted in a systematic and critical way and consisted of a five-step method.
RESULT
Maintaining dignity was described when caregivers had the time and the will to see and listen to patient and had the courage to see what they did not want to see, allowing their inner powers to act with the purpose of doing good. In elderly care, it was important that elderly persons are involved as members of society and experience respect, confidence, security and charity. Indignity was described when caregivers did not allow patients to have their will and when they had unethical attitudes, ignoring patients and creating powerlessness. The feeling of being abandoned and not being taken seriously are also described in elderly care.
CONCLUSION
Findings show how caregivers fulfil their ethical responsibility by seeing, listening and being a part of the time and place. The will to do good includes the courage to preserve dignity and human value rests on being created as a human being. More research is needed about ethical and moral responsibility in clinical practice.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Nursing Care; Personhood; Qualitative Research; Respect
PubMed: 33104271
DOI: 10.1111/scs.12922 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021The policy several countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home; this is supported by surveys that indicate that the general public... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The policy several countries is to provide people with a terminal illness the choice of dying at home; this is supported by surveys that indicate that the general public and people with a terminal illness would prefer to receive end-of-life care at home. This is the fifth update of the original review.
OBJECTIVES
To determine if providing home-based end-of-life care reduces the likelihood of dying in hospital and what effect this has on patients' symptoms, quality of life, health service costs and caregivers compared with inpatient hospital or hospice care.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE(R), Embase, CINAHL, and clinical trials registries to 18 March 2020. We checked the reference lists of systematic reviews. For included studies, we checked the reference lists and performed a forward search using ISI Web of Science. We handsearched palliative care journals indexed by ISI Web of Science for online first references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of home-based end-of-life care with inpatient hospital or hospice care for people aged 18 years and older.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. When appropriate, we combined published data for dichotomous outcomes using a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel meta-analysis to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). When combining outcome data was not possible, we reported the results from individual studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four randomised trials and found no new studies from the search in March 2020. Home-based end-of-life care increased the likelihood of dying at home compared with usual care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; 2 trials, 539 participants; I = 25%; high-certainty evidence). Admission to hospital varied among the trials (range of RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79, to RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.50 to 4.55). The effect on patient outcomes and control of symptoms was uncertain. Home-based end-of-life care may slightly improve patient satisfaction at one-month follow-up, with little or no difference at six-month follow-up (2 trials; low-certainty evidence). The effect on caregivers (2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), staff (1 trial; very low-certainty evidence) and health service costs was uncertain (2 trials, very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence included in this review supports the use of home-based end-of-life care programmes for increasing the number of people who will die at home. Research that assesses the impact of home-based end-of-life care on caregivers and admissions to hospital would be a useful addition to the evidence base, and might inform the delivery of these services.
Topics: Aged; Attitude of Health Personnel; Attitude to Death; Bias; Caregivers; Female; Health Services Accessibility; Home Care Services; Hospice Care; Hospitalization; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Preference; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Residence Characteristics; Time Factors
PubMed: 33721912
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009231.pub3 -
Intensive & Critical Care Nursing Apr 2022To assess the evidence for the feasibility and effect of patient and familycentred care interventions provided in the intensive care unit, single or multicomponent,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the evidence for the feasibility and effect of patient and familycentred care interventions provided in the intensive care unit, single or multicomponent, versus usual care, for reducing delirium, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in patients and family-members.
DESIGN
A systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines and GRADE approach. A systematic literature search of relevant databases, screening and inclusion of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias according to Cochrane methodology. The study is preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42020160768).
SETTING
Adult intensive care units.
RESULTS
Nine randomised controlled trials enrolling a total of 1170 patients and 1226 family-members were included. We found moderate to low certainty evidence indicating no effect of patient and family centred care on delirium, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, in-hospital mortality, intensive care length of stay or family-members' anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. No studies looked at the effect of patient and family centred care on pain or cognitive function in patients. Evaluation of feasibility outcomes was scarce. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate, mainly due to substantial risk of bias in individual studies and imprecision due to few events and small sample size.
CONCLUSION
It remains uncertain whether patient and family centred care compared to usual care may reduce delirium in patients and psychological sequelae of intensive care admission in patients and families due to limited evidence of moderate to low certainty. Lack of systematic process evaluation of intervention feasibility as recommended by the Medical Research Council to identify barriers and facilitators of patient and family centred care in the adult intensive care unit context, further limits the conclusions that can be drawn.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Critical Care; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 34753631
DOI: 10.1016/j.iccn.2021.103156 -
Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery :... Apr 2020Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based, multimodal and patient-centred approach to optimize patient care and experience during their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are evidence-based, multimodal and patient-centred approach to optimize patient care and experience during their perioperative pathway. It has been shown to be effective in reducing length of hospital stay and improving clinical outcomes. However, evidence on its effective in liver surgery remains weak. The aim of this review is to investigate clinical benefits, cost-effectiveness and compliance to ERAS protocols in liver surgery.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted using CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed and Cochrane for randomized control trials (RCTs) and cohort studies published between 2008 and 2019, comparing effect of ERAS protocols and standard care on hospital cost, LOS, complications, readmission, mortality and compliance.
RESULTS
The search resulted in 6 RCTs and 21 cohort studies of 3739 patients (1777 in ERAS and 1962 in standard care group). LOS was reduced by 2.22 days in ERAS group (MD = -2.22; CI, -2.77 to -1.68; p < 0.00001) compared to the standard care group. Fewer patients in ERAS group experienced complications (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77; p = < 0.00001). Hospital cost was significantly lower in the ERAS group (SMD = -0.98; CI, -1.37 to - 0.58; p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Our review concluded that the introduction of ERAS protocols is safe and feasible in hepatectomies, without increasing mortality and readmission rates, whilst reducing LOS and risk of complications, and with a significant hospital cost savings. Laparoscopic approach may be necessary to reduce complication rates in liver surgery. However, further studies are needed to investigate overall compliance to ERAS protocols and its impact on clinical outcomes.
Topics: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Hospital Costs; Humans; Length of Stay; Liver; Postoperative Complications; Recovery of Function
PubMed: 31900738
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-019-04499-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Telerehabilitation offers an alternate way of delivering rehabilitation services. Information and communication technologies are used to facilitate communication between... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Telerehabilitation offers an alternate way of delivering rehabilitation services. Information and communication technologies are used to facilitate communication between the healthcare professional and the patient in a remote location. The use of telerehabilitation is becoming more viable as the speed and sophistication of communication technologies improve. However, it is currently unclear how effective this model of delivery is relative to rehabilitation delivered face-to-face or when added to usual care.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether the use of telerehabilitation leads to improved ability to perform activities of daily living amongst stroke survivors when compared with (1) in-person rehabilitation (when the clinician and the patient are at the same physical location and rehabilitation is provided face-to-face); or (2) no rehabilitation or usual care. Secondary objectives were to determine whether use of telerehabilitation leads to greater independence in self-care and domestic life and improved mobility, balance, health-related quality of life, depression, upper limb function, cognitive function or functional communication when compared with in-person rehabilitation and no rehabilitation. Additionally, we aimed to report on the presence of adverse events, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and levels of user satisfaction associated with telerehabilitation interventions.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2019), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to June 2019), Embase (1974 to June 2019), and eight additional databases. We searched trial registries and reference lists.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of telerehabilitation in stroke. We included studies that compared telerehabilitation with in-person rehabilitation or no rehabilitation. In addition, we synthesised and described the results of RCTs that compared two different methods of delivering telerehabilitation services without an alternative group. We included rehabilitation programmes that used a combination of telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation provided that the greater proportion of intervention was provided via telerehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently identified trials on the basis of prespecified inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A third review author moderated any disagreements. The review authors contacted investigators to ask for missing information. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and interpret findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 22 trials in the review involving a total of 1937 participants. The studies ranged in size from the inclusion of 10 participants to 536 participants, and reporting quality was often inadequate, particularly in relation to random sequence generation and allocation concealment. Selective outcome reporting and incomplete outcome data were apparent in several studies. Study interventions and comparisons varied, meaning that, in many cases, it was inappropriate to pool studies. Intervention approaches included post-hospital discharge support programs, upper limb training, lower limb and mobility retraining and communication therapy for people with post-stroke language disorders. Studies were either conducted upon discharge from hospital or with people in the subacute or chronic phases following stroke.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
we found moderate-quality evidence that there was no difference in activities of daily living between people who received a post-hospital discharge telerehabilitation intervention and those who received usual care (based on 2 studies with 661 participants (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to 0.15)). We found low-quality evidence of no difference in effects on activities of daily living between telerehabilitation and in-person physical therapy programmes (based on 2 studies with 75 participants: SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.48).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
we found a low quality of evidence that there was no difference between telerehabilitation and in-person rehabilitation for balance outcomes (based on 3 studies with 106 participants: SMD 0.08, 95%CI -0.30 to 0.46). Pooling of three studies with 569 participants showed moderate-quality evidence that there was no difference between those who received post-discharge support interventions and those who received usual care on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.20). Similarly, pooling of six studies (with 1145 participants) found moderate-quality evidence that there was no difference in depressive symptoms when comparing post-discharge tele-support programs with usual care (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.11). We found no difference between groups for upper limb function (based on 3 studies with 170 participants: mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI -2.17 to 4.64, low-quality evidence) when a computer program was used to remotely retrain upper limb function in comparison to in-person therapy. Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions on the effects of telerehabilitation on mobility or participant satisfaction with the intervention. No studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation; however, five of the studies reported health service utilisation outcomes or costs of the interventions provided within the study. Two studies reported on adverse events, although no serious trial-related adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
While there is now an increasing number of RCTs testing the efficacy of telerehabilitation, it is hard to draw conclusions about the effects as interventions and comparators varied greatly across studies. In addition, there were few adequately powered studies and several studies included in this review were at risk of bias. At this point, there is only low or moderate-level evidence testing whether telerehabilitation is a more effective or similarly effective way to provide rehabilitation. Short-term post-hospital discharge telerehabilitation programmes have not been shown to reduce depressive symptoms, improve quality of life, or improve independence in activities of daily living when compared with usual care. Studies comparing telerehabilitation and in-person therapy have also not found significantly different outcomes between groups, suggesting that telerehabilitation is not inferior. Some studies reported that telerehabilitation was less expensive to provide but information was lacking about cost-effectiveness. Only two trials reported on whether or not any adverse events had occurred; these trials found no serious adverse events were related to telerehabilitation. The field is still emerging and more studies are needed to draw more definitive conclusions. In addition, while this review examined the efficacy of telerehabilitation when tested in randomised trials, studies that use mixed methods to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of telehealth interventions are incredibly valuable in measuring outcomes.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Stroke Rehabilitation; Telerehabilitation
PubMed: 32002991
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3