"Who's watching?": Exploring patients' acceptance of having their consultations livestreamed for educational purposes.

Shortages of clinical placements are an ever-increasing global challenge. Livestreaming clinical experiences to remotely-located learners shows promise in addressing this challenge. However, little is known about the acceptability of livestreamed clinical experiences for patients. Understanding patient views is critical to determine feasibility of this method of delivering clinical experience. This study reports on the experiences of 11 patients who participated in a livestreamed clinical experience in general practices in Yorkshire, United Kingdom. Up to five remotely-located medical students participated in each consultation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings suggest that a livestreamed clinical experience did not impact patients' experience of their consultation, including willingness to withdraw from the consultation. Smartglasses worn by clinicians did not impede patient-clinician interaction, likely because they did not obstruct eye contact. Patient views varied as to whether or not they preferred to see students on the computer screen during the consultation, raising potential tensions between student learning needs and patient preference. Most patients had no preference as to whether students participated remotely or in person. These findings show promise in terms of patient acceptability but further research evaluating patient perspectives in greater numbers and in other clinical contexts is important.

Livestreaming clinical experience to remotely located learners: A critical narrative review.

CONTEXT: Medical education relies on real patient learning (RPL) to provide medical students with essential clinical experience. However, growing demand for clinical placements continues to be a challenge in providing sufficient RPL opportunities. The COVID-19 pandemic forced academic institutions to rethink the delivery of traditional clinical training and innovations in online clinical learning experiences, specifically livestreamed clinical experiences, have emerged which show promise in addressing the capacity limitations of traditional placements. Although previous reviews have explored the use of livestreamed clinical experiences during the pandemic, there is a lack of rigorous theoretical framing to support these innovations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is two-fold: to examine the effectiveness of livestreamed clinical experiences through an experience-based learning (ExBL) theory perspective and to provide practical recommendations to optimise and implement these innovations. METHODS: A review of literature was conducted to identify journal articles published between September 2019 and January 2023 reporting on innovations relating to livestreamed clinical experiences. The search focused on undergraduate and postgraduate medical education but relevant evidence from other healthcare professions were also included due to a limited evidence base. Strengths and weaknesses were derived from the literature and analysed in relation to ExBL components. RESULTS: Principal strengths of livestreamed clinical experiences included expanded access to RPL opportunities and medical specialties, enhanced standardisation of learning experiences and positive perceptions from students regarding convenience. Clinical educators found these innovations enabled teaching at scale. Patients did not perceive such innovations to negatively impact their standard of care. Limitations included the inability to practice physical examination skills, challenges in ensuring learner engagement and connectivity issues. CONCLUSION: Livestreamed clinical experiences have the potential to effectively expand placement capacity and provide high-quality educational experiences for medical students. Although certain limitations exist, technological and pedagogical adaptations can help overcome these challenges. The application of theoretical frameworks to future online innovations will be fundamental to ensure effective clinical learning.

Duration of palliative care before death in international routine practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early provision of palliative care, at least 3-4 months before death, can improve patient quality of life and reduce burdensome treatments and financial costs. However, there is wide variation in the duration of palliative care received before death reported across the research literature. This study aims to determine the duration of time from initiation of palliative care to death for adults receiving palliative care across the international literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018094718). Six databases were searched for articles published between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2018: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, as well undertaking citation list searches. Following PRISMA guidelines, articles were screened using inclusion (any study design reporting duration from initiation to death in adults palliative care services) and exclusion (paediatric/non-English language studies, trials influencing the timing of palliative care) criteria. Quality appraisal was completed using Hawker's criteria and the main outcome was the duration of palliative care (median/mean days from initiation to death). RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine studies from 23 countries were included, involving 11,996,479 patients. Prior to death, the median duration from initiation of palliative care to death was 18.9 days (IQR 0.1), weighted by the number of participants. Significant differences between duration were found by disease type (15 days for cancer vs 6 days for non-cancer conditions), service type (19 days for specialist palliative care unit, 20 days for community/home care, and 6 days for general hospital ward) and development index of countries (18.91 days for very high development vs 34 days for all other levels of development). Forty-three per cent of studies were rated as 'good' quality. Limitations include a preponderance of data from high-income countries, with unclear implications for low- and middle-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Duration of palliative care is much shorter than the 3-4 months of input by a multidisciplinary team necessary in order for the full benefits of palliative care to be realised. Furthermore, the findings highlight inequity in access across patient, service and country characteristics. We welcome more consistent terminology and methodology in the assessment of duration of palliative care from all countries, alongside increased reporting from less-developed settings, to inform benchmarking, service evaluation and quality improvement.

Cancer-Related Neuropathic Pain.

Neuropathic pain in cancer is common and debilitating. It is important to differentiate neuropathic pain from other cancer-related pains as it is associated with worse pain outcomes and requires different treatment strategies. This review summarises recent updates to pain classification, aetiology, pain assessment and current recommendations for treatment in patients with cancer-related neuropathic pain.