Towards optimal use of antithrombotic therapy of people with cancer at the end of life: A research protocol for the development and implementation of the SERENITY shared decision support tool.

BACKGROUND: Even though antithrombotic therapy has probably little or even negative effects on the well-being of people with cancer during their last year of life, deprescribing antithrombotic therapy at the end of life is rare in practice. It is often continued until death, possibly resulting in excess bleeding, an increased disease burden and higher healthcare costs. METHODS: The SERENITY consortium comprises researchers and clinicians from eight European countries with specialties in different clinical fields, epidemiology and psychology. SERENITY will use a comprehensive approach combining a realist review, flash mob research, epidemiological studies, and qualitative interviews. The results of these studies will be used in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on the optimal design of the shared decision support tool. Next, the shared decision support tool will be tested in a randomised controlled trial. A targeted implementation and dissemination plan will be developed to enable the use of the SERENITY tool across Europe, as well as its incorporation in clinical guidelines and policies. The entire project is funded by Horizon Europe. RESULTS: SERENITY will develop an information-driven shared decision support tool that will facilitate treatment decisions regarding the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy in people with cancer at the end of life. CONCLUSIONS: We aim to develop an intervention that guides the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy, prevents bleeding complications, and saves healthcare costs. Hopefully, usage of the tool leads to enhanced empowerment and improved quality of life and treatment satisfaction of people with advanced cancer and their care givers.

Implementation lessons learnt when trialling palliative care interventions in the intensive care unit: relationships between determinants, implementation strategies, and models of delivery-a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity amongst palliative care interventions in the intensive care unit (ICU) and their outcomes has meant that, even when found to be effective, translation of evidence into practice is hindered. Previous evidence reviews have suggested that the field of ICU-based palliative care would benefit from well-designed, targeted interventions, with explicit knowledge translation research demonstrating valid implementation strategies. Reviewing effectiveness studies alongside process evaluations for these interventions will give insight into the implementation barriers or constraints identified, and the implementation strategies adopted. METHODS: A systematic review to identify and synthesise knowledge on how models of integrating palliative care into the ICU have been implemented and provide critical recommendations for successful future development and implementation of complex interventions in the field. The search will be carried out using MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. The search strategy will combine terms related to palliative care, intensive care, and implementation. Only full-text articles will be considered and conference abstracts excluded. There will be no date or language restrictions. The Implementation Research Logic Model will be used as a framework for synthesis. Findings will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. DISCUSSION: This review will provide understanding of implementation facilitators, barriers, and strategies, when employing palliative care interventions within the ICU. This will provide valuable recommendations for successful future development of complex interventions using implementation frameworks or theories. This can increase the potential for sustained change in practice, reduce heterogeneity in interventions, and therefore help produce measurable and comparable outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic reviews PROSPERO (CRD42022311052).

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.

PURPOSE: In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included. RESULTS: After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities. CONCLUSION: We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.

Patient, family and carer experiences of nutritional screening: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations for nutritional risk screening of all inpatients, outpatients and care home residents, as well as work to assess clinician's experiences and the validity of tools, little attention has been paid to the experiences of patients undergoing nutritional screening. This review aims to synthesise systematically the current evidence regarding nutritional risk screening with respect to the experiences and views of patients, their families and carers. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and British Nursing Database (inception - July 2019); with screening terms related to malnutrition, screening tools and experience. Titles, abstracts and full-text papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers and then quality-appraised. Qualitative papers and quantitative surveys were included. A narrative review of surveys and a thematic framework synthesis of interviews were used to identify themes. RESULTS: Nine studies, including five qualitative interview papers, were included. Qualitative and quantitative study results were combined using a matrix chart to allow comparison. Surveyed participants reported processes of nutritional screening as acceptable. Three key themes emerged from qualitative data: (i) experience of nutritional screening; (ii) misunderstanding of malnutrition: of causes, role of screening and poor self-perception of risk; and (iii) barriers to and opportunities for change. CONCLUSIONS: Although the screening process is acceptable, patients' misunderstanding and poor knowledge regarding causes and consequences of malnutrition result in reduced risk perception and disbelief or disregard of nutritional screening results. Findings should inform policy and clinical practice, as well as highlight the known paucity of data regarding the effectiveness of screening on clinical outcomes.