ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Clinically assisted hydration (CAH) can be provided in the last days of life as drinking declines. The impact of this practice on quality of life or survival in the last days of life is unclear. Practice varies worldwide concerning this emotive issue. METHOD: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis of studies evaluating the impact of, or attitudes toward, CAH in the last days of life. Databases were searched up to December 2019. Studies were included if the majority of participants were in the last 7 days of life, and were evaluated using Gough's 'Weight of Evidence' framework. Review protocol registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42019125837. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the synthesis. None were judged to be both of high quality and relevance. No evidence was found that the provision of CAH has an impact on symptoms or survival. Patient and family carer attitudes toward assisted hydration were diverse. CONCLUSION: There is currently insufficient evidence to draw firm conclusions on the impact of CAH in the last days of life. Future research needs to focus on patients specifically in the last days of life, include those with non-malignant diagnoses, and evaluate best ways to communicate effectively about this complex topic with patients and their families.
Subject(s)
Advance Care Planning , Clinical Decision-Making , Fluid Therapy/psychology , Quality of Life , Terminal Care/psychology , Communication , Fluid Therapy/methods , Humans , Patient Preference/psychology , Professional-Family Relations , Terminal Care/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Anticipatory prescribing (AP) of injectable medications in advance of clinical need is established practice in community end-of-life care. Changes to prescribing guidelines and practice have been reported during the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To investigate UK and Ireland clinicians' experiences concerning changes in AP during the COVID-19 pandemic and their recommendations for change. METHODS: Online survey of participants at previous AP national workshops, members of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland and other professional organisations, with snowball sampling. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-one replies were received between 9 and 19 April 2020 from clinicians in community, hospice and hospital settings across all areas of the UK and Ireland. Changes to AP local guidance and practice were reported: route of administration (47%), drugs prescribed (38%), total quantities prescribed (35%), doses and ranges (29%). Concerns over shortages of nurses and doctors to administer subcutaneous injections led 37% to consider drug administration by family or social caregivers, often by buccal, sublingual and transdermal routes. Clinical contact and patient assessment were more often remote via telephone or video (63%). Recommendations for regulatory changes to permit drug repurposing and easier community access were made. CONCLUSIONS: The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic for UK community palliative care has stimulated rapid innovation in AP. The extent to which these are implemented and their clinical efficacy need further examination.
Subject(s)
Caregivers , Drug Administration Routes , Palliative Care/methods , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Terminal Care/methods , Administration, Buccal , Administration, Sublingual , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Fentanyl/administration & dosage , General Practitioners , Hospice Care/methods , Hospices , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Ireland/epidemiology , Lorazepam/administration & dosage , Methotrimeprazine/administration & dosage , Muscarinic Antagonists/administration & dosage , Nurse Specialists , Palliative Medicine , Pandemics , Physicians , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Telemedicine/methods , Transdermal Patch , United Kingdom/epidemiologySubject(s)
Medical Staff, Hospital , Palliative Care/standards , Terminal Care/standards , Education, Medical, Graduate/methods , Education, Medical, Graduate/standards , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/methods , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/standards , Humans , Palliative Care/methods , Terminal Care/methodsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to systematically analyse the prospective randomised controlled trials on laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) with and without short gastric vessel division (SGVD) for management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD). METHODS: After an extensive literature search, all previous trials on laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication with and without SGVD for management of GORD were assessed. Those meeting study quality criteria were analysed to generate summative data expressed by standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR). RESULTS: Five randomised controlled trials on 388 patients qualified for the meta-analysis. There were 194 patients in the no-SGVD group and 194 patients in the SGVD group. No-SGVD was associated with shorter operative time and length of stay. In both fixed- and random-effects models, there were no statistically significant differences in laparoscopic to open conversion rate or complications between the two groups. Three trials presented data on 1-year follow-up, with 118 patients in the no-SGVD group and 112 patients in the SGVD group. There was no statistically significant difference in heartburn, dysphagia, regurgitation or gas bloat syndrome between these two groups. Two trials presented data on 10-year follow-up, with 84 patients in the no-SGVD group and 86 patients in the SGVD group. There was no significant difference in heartburn, dysphagia, regurgitation or gas bloat syndrome between these two groups either. There was no heterogeneity between trials. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this review, SGVD in LNF is associated with longer operative time and hospital stay. However, there is no difference in terms of functional outcomes for 1- and 10-year follow-up. Routine use of SGVD may therefore not be necessary in LNF.
