Simultaneously reassuring and unsettling: a longitudinal qualitative study of community anticipatory medication prescribing for older patients

Anticipatory prescribing in community end-of-life care

OBJECTIVES

Our work aims to critically review the use of anticipatory medicines in our inner-city hospice community population and whether our current practices are fit for purpose.

METHODS

Retrospective audit of community palliative care patients at the end-of-life prescribed anticipatory medicines within a 3-month period. Anticipatory charts and case notes reviewed. Intervention included updating local guidelines, local teaching for medical and non-medical prescribers and sharing results nationally. Eighteen months later, reaudit was performed assessing impact.

RESULTS

In total, 76 patients included. 75/76 (99%) were prescribed an analgesic, antiemetic, antisecretory and anxiolytic. 49/76 (64%) were administered 'as required' medications at home. Haloperidol was the favoured antiemetic (88%), costing our hospice ~£2000/month. Case note review highlighted prescribing and administration issues. Reaudit showed a reduction in prescriptions of antisecretory (by 57%) and antiemetic (by 50%), with a wider range of antiemetics (levomepromazine 47%, haloperidol 35%, cyclizine 14%, metoclopramide 3%) indicating individualised prescribing. Those without an antiemetic prescribed did not later require one dispensing.

CONCLUSION

Our work challenges the orthodoxy that an analgesic, antiemetic, antisecretory and anxiolytic medication must always be included for effective anticipatory prescribing. Antiemetics may not be universally required and individualised prescribing was cost-effective and safe at a local level. Further work evaluating the impacts of altered practice on patients, caregivers, professionals and in other community settings is required.

Administering injectable medications prescribed in the anticipation of the end of life in the community: A mixed-methods observational study

BACKGROUND

The prescription of injectable anticipatory medications ahead of possible need for last-days-of-life symptom relief is established community practice internationally. Healthcare teams and policy makers view anticipatory medication as having a key role in optimising effective and timely symptom control. However, how these medications are subsequently administered (used) is unclear and warrants detailed investigation to inform interdisciplinary practice and guidance.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the frequency, timing and recorded circumstances of the administration of injectable end-of-life anticipatory medications prescribed for patients living at home and in residential care.

DESIGN

A retrospective mixed-methods observational study using general practitioner (family doctor) and community nursing held clinical records.

SETTING(S)

Community-based care in two English counties.

PARTICIPANTS

167 deceased adult patients (aged 18+) registered with eleven general practitioner practices and two associated community nursing services. These were patients prescribed anticipatory medications, identified from the 30 most recent deaths per practice. Patients died between 1 March 2017 and 25 September 2019, from any cause except trauma, sudden death or suicide.

METHODS

Patient characteristics, anticipatory medication discussions, recorded administration contexts and decision-making, medication details, recorded symptom control and comfort at death were collected from clinical records. Data analysis combined quantitative and qualitative analyses in a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

Anticipatory medications were administered to 59.9 % (100/167) patients, commenced between 0 and 586 days before death (median 3 days). Their usage was similar for patients who died from cancer and non-cancer conditions. Anticipatory medications were almost universally started and titrated by visiting nurses. Eleven patients had medications started between 59 days and 586 days before death for recorded reversible non-end-of-life care conditions. Only 5 % (5/100) of patient records contained detailed accounts of patient participation in decisions to start medications: four were recorded as being reluctant to commence medications but agreed to trial injections to relieve symptoms. Crucially, there was recurrent under-recording of the effectiveness of injectable medications and patient comfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescribed medications were commonly administered by visiting community nurses to help manage last-days-of-life symptoms. However, patient records infrequently referred to the effectiveness of administered medication and perceived patient comfort. Most recorded references to patient and family preferences for involvement in anticipatory medication decision-making and their experiences of care were brief and perfunctory. More detailed information should be routinely recorded in clinical records to enable assessment of the appropriate and effective use of anticipatory medicines and how inter-professional collaboration and services could be developed to provide adequate twenty-four-hour cover.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Effectiveness of injectable end-of-life symptom control medications and patient comfort often under-recorded @Ben_Bowers__ @PELi_Cam @TheQNI.

Anticipatory prescribing of injectable controlled drugs (ICDs) in care homes: a qualitative observational study of staff role, uncertain dying and hospital transfer at the end-of-life

BACKGROUND

The anticipatory prescribing of injectable controlled drugs (ICDs) by general practitioners (GPs) to care home residents is common practice and is believed to reduce emergency hospital transfers at the end-of-life. However, evidence about the process of ICD prescribing and how it affects residents' hospital transfer is limited. The study examined how care home nurses and senior carers (senior staff) describe their role in ICDs prescribing and identify that role to affect residents' hospital transfers at the end-of-life.

METHODS

1,440 h of participant observation in five care homes in England between May 2019 and March 2020. Semi-structured interviews with a range of staff. Interviews (n = 25) and fieldnotes (2,761 handwritten A5 pages) were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

Senior staff request GPs to prescribe ICDs ahead of residents' expected death and review prescribed ICDs for as long as residents survive. Senior staff use this mechanism to ascertain the clinical appropriateness of withholding potentially life-extending emergency care (which usually led to hospital transfer) and demonstrate safe care provision to GPs certifying the medical cause of death. This enables senior staff to facilitate a care home death for residents experiencing uncertain dying trajectories.

CONCLUSION

Senior staff use GPs' prescriptions and reviews of ICDs to pre-empt hospital transfers at the end-of-life. Policy should indicate a clear timeframe for ICD review to make hospital transfer avoidance less reliant on trust between senior staff and GPs. The timeframe should match the period before death allowing GPs to certify death without triggering a Coroner's referral.

Anticipatory prescribing in community end-of-life care: systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence since 2017

BACKGROUND

The anticipatory prescribing of injectable medications is recommended practice in controlling distressing symptoms in the last days of life. A 2017 systematic review found practice and guidance was based on inadequate evidence. Since then, there has been considerable additional research, warranting a new review.

AIM

To review the evidence published since 2017 concerning anticipatory prescribing of injectable medications for adults at the end-of-life in the community, to inform practice and guidance.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis.

METHODS

Nine literature databases were searched from May 2017 to March 2022, alongside reference, citation and journal hand-searches. Gough's Weight of Evidence framework was used to appraise included studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight papers were included in the synthesis. Evidence published since 2017 shows that standardised prescribing of four medications for anticipated symptoms is commonplace in the UK; evidence of practices in other countries is limited. There is limited data on how often medications are administered in the community. Prescriptions are 'accepted' by family caregivers despite inadequate explanations and they generally appreciate having access to medications. Robust evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of anticipatory prescribing remains absent.

CONCLUSION

The evidence underpinning anticipatory prescribing practice and policy remains based primarily on healthcare professionals' perceptions that the intervention is reassuring, provides effective, timely symptom relief in the community and prevents crisis hospital admissions. There is still inadequate evidence regarding optimal medications and dose ranges, and the effectiveness of these prescriptions. Patient and family caregiver experiences of anticipatory prescriptions warrant urgent investigation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42016052108.

The financial costs of anticipatory prescribing: A retrospective observational study of prescribed, administered and wasted medications using community clinical records

BACKGROUND

The prescribing of injectable end-of-life anticipatory medications ahead of possible need is recommended best practice. The financial costs of these medications have been little studied.

AIM

To identify the costs of anticipatory medications prescribed, used and not used for patients approaching the end-of-life at home and in residential care.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study using general practitioner and community nursing clinical records.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Data were collected from eleven general practitioner practices using the records of the 30 most recent deaths per practice. Patients were aged 18+ and died between 2017 and 2019 from any cause except trauma, sudden death or suicide.

RESULTS

Anticipatory medications were prescribed to 167/329 patients, of which 164 were included in the analysis. Costs (GBP) were analysed both at patient-level and drug-level. Median anticipatory prescription cost was £43.17 (IQR: £38.98-£60.47, range £8.76-£229.82). Median administered (used) drug cost was £2.16 (IQR: £0.00-£12.09, range £0.00-£83.14). Median unused (wasted) drug cost was £41.47 (IQR: £29.15-£54.33, range £0.00-£195.36). Prescription, administered and unused costs were significantly higher for the 59 patients prescribed an anticipatory syringe driver. There were wide variations in the unused costs of individual drugs; Haloperidol and Cyclizine contributed 49% of total unused costs.

CONCLUSION

The costs of prescribed and unused anticipatory medications were higher than previously reported but remain modest. Usage of prescriptions was lower than previously documented. There may be scope to reduce the quantity of vials that are routinely prescribed without adversely affecting care; further research is needed to investigate this possibility.