Inclusion, characteristics and outcomes of people requiring palliative care in studies of non-pharmacological interventions for delirium: A systematic review

"Beyond Feasibility": A Qualitative Study of Patients, Their Whānau (Family) and Staff Perspectives and Experiences of a Non- Pharmacological Delirium-Prevention Intervention in Two Aotearoa/New Zealand Hospices

CONTEXT

Delirium is prevalent in the hospice population. Despite causing significant distress to patients and families, delirium is under-recognised. There is a need to better understand delirium prevention and outcomes in this population including people's experiences of delirium-prevention strategies in different cultural contexts.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the "PRESERVE Aotearoa" delirium prevention intervention was feasible and acceptable for Māori (indigenous peoples of Aotearoa/ New Zealand) and non-Māori patients with advanced cancer, their families (called whānau in this paper), and clinical staff.

METHODS

A qualitative semistructured interview substudy of a cohort PRESERVE Aotearoa feasibility study codesigned with a Māori partner to ensure inclusion of Māori-centred values. The study was underpinned conceptually by He Awa Whiria (braided rivers)-combining Western and Māori knowledges. Data were analysed using Hopwood and Srivasta's framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients and their whānau, 21 clinical staff and five researchers from two stand-alone hospices in the North Island, Aotearoa/New Zealand. Finding showed that, for the most part, participants considered the study interventions feasible and acceptable. Inductive analysis resulted in four themes highlighting the importance to whānau of their participation in the study: benefits of learning about delirium; the affirmation of the caregiver role and whānau-centred care; valuing fundamentals of care; and research as legacy.

CONCLUSION

This qualitative study found that it is feasible and acceptable to study multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium-prevention interventions in Aotearoa/New Zealand hospice inpatient units. The study also highlights the value of Māori-centred approaches and whānau involvement in these settings.

A revision of JPOS/JASCC clinical guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients: a summary of recommendation statements

OBJECTIVE

The Japanese Psycho-Oncology Society and the Japanese Association of Supportive Care in Cancer have recently revised the clinical practice guidelines for delirium in adult cancer patients. This article reports the process of developing the revised guidelines and summarizes the recommendations made.

METHODS

The guidelines were developed in accordance with the Medical Information Network Distribution Service creation procedures. The guideline development group, consisting of multi-disciplinary members, created three new clinical questions: non-pharmacological intervention and antipsychotics for the prevention of delirium and trazodone for the management of delirium. In addition, systematic reviews of nine existing clinical questions have been updated. Two independent reviewers reviewed the proposed articles. The certainty of evidence and the strength of the recommendations were graded using the grading system developed by the Medical Information Network Distribution Service, following the concept of The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. The modified Delphi method was used to validate the recommended statements.

RESULTS

This article provides a compendium of the recommendations along with their rationales, as well as a short summary.

CONCLUSIONS

These revised guidelines will be useful for the prevention, assessment and management of delirium in adult cancer patients in Japan.

A simple risk score list can be used to predict the occurrence of delirium in patients admitted to inpatient hospice care: A medical record study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine whether the 10-item Risk Score List (RSL) accurately predicts delirium in patients admitted to inpatient hospice care and whether this instrument can be simplified. Determining the risk for developing delirium can help to treat these patients in a timely manner.

METHODS

This was a retrospective medical record study in patients who died in 2019 or 2020 in three hospices. Predictive values were examined using Cox regression analysis, crosstabs, and C-statistic.

RESULTS

In total, 240 patients were included. Median age at admission was 78 (IQR 70-84) years. Primary diagnosis most often was cancer (n = 186, 78%); 173 (72%) patients had an increased risk of delirium according to RSL, of whom 120 (69%) developed delirium. Overall, 147 (61%) patients developed delirium. The RSL significantly predicted future delirium (HR 3.25, CI 1.87-5.65, p < 0.01) and had a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 43%, positive predictive value of 62%, negative predictive value of 73%, and a C-statistic of 0.64. Simplifying the RSL to four items still significantly predicted future delirium, with similar predictive values.

CONCLUSION

Delirium occurs in more than half of patients admitted to hospice care. The RSL can be simplified to four items, without compromising on predictive accuracy.

The Dilemma of Treating Delirium: the Conundrum of Drug Management

OPINION STATEMENT

Delirium is a common medical complication in people living with cancer, particularly with more advanced disease. Delirium is associated with significant symptom burden which causes distress and impacts quality of life. As recommended by international guidelines, a high degree of suspicion is needed to ensure delirium is detected early. Attention to collateral history can provide clues to changes in cognition and attention. Non-pharmacological approaches that can be considered essential elements of care are effective in reducing the risk of delirium. Delirium screening using a validated measure is recommended as even expert clinicians can underdiagnose or miss delirium. The diagnostic assessment requires consideration of the cancer diagnosis and comorbidities, in the context of potential reversibility, goals of care, and patient preferences. The gold standard approach based on expert consensus is to institute management for delirium precipitants supported by non-pharmacological essential care, with the support of an interdisciplinary team. Medication management should be used sparingly and for a limited period of time wherever possible for severe perceptual disturbance or agitation which has not improved with non-pharmacological approaches. Clinicians should be familiar with the registered indication for medications and seek informed consent for off-label use. All interventions put in place to manage delirium need to consider net clinical benefit, including harms such as sedation and loss of capacity for meaningful interaction. Clear communication and explanation are needed regularly, with the person with delirium as far as possible and with surrogate decision makers. Delirium can herald a poor prognosis and this needs to be considered and be discussed as appropriate in shared decision-making. Recall after delirium has resolved is common, and opportunity to talk about this experience and the related distress should be offered during the period after recovery.

Postoperative delirium in older patients with cancer: the role of psychological distress and social support

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Delirium is a common and important adverse event in the perioperative period. Older people with cancer are at significant risk, and outcomes are poor. There is increasing awareness of the effect of psychological distress and social support on pathogenesis and outcomes of delirium in this setting. This review aimed to describe recent research in this evolving area.

RECENT FINDINGS

Across six recent studies of postoperative delirium in older people with cancer, delirium incidence ranged from 8 to 19.8%. Poor social support and high levels of distress are implicated in the development of postoperative delirium. Distress can be related to negative emotional reaction to diagnosis, preconception of cancer diagnosis and interactions with the healthcare system. Prevention of delirium is key, and multicomponent interventions show evidence of effectiveness. 'Emotional distress' has been included in a new core outcome set for studies of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium.

SUMMARY

Postoperative delirium in older adults with cancer is common and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Psychological distress and social support play an important role, but there are many unmet research needs in this area.

Palliative care for patients with advanced dementia

ABSTRACT

Dementia is currently the seventh leading cause of death and one of the major causes of disability and dependency among older adults globally. Its final stages are complicated by a multitude of problems that can cause immense suffering. This article explores the interconnection between advanced dementia and palliative care and the role of nurses in providing end-of-life care for these patients.

Delirium in Palliative Care

Simple Summary

Delirium is a generalized cerebral dysfunction that occurs frequently near the end of life. In palliative care, delirium is frequently a sign of impending death; it is distressing for patients, families, and caregivers; and the goals of management, assessment, and treatment are controversial. We provide an update on these topics mainly focusing on patients with cancer.

Abstract

Delirium, a widespread neuropsychiatric disorder in patients with terminal diseases, is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, profoundly impacting patients, their families, and caregivers. Although frequently missed, the effective recognition of delirium demands attention and commitment. Reversibility is frequently not achievable. Non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions are commonly used but largely unproven. Palliative sedation, although controversial, should be considered for refractory delirium. Psychological assistance should be available to patients and their families at all times.

The conscious state of the dying patient: An integrative review

OBJECTIVES

The cognitive state of the dying in the last days of life may deteriorate, resulting in a reduced ability to communicate their care needs. Distressing symptoms, physical and existential, may go unrecognized and untreated. The objectives of this integrative review were to systematically interrogate the literature to determine the changing conscious state of dying adults and to identify changes in their care needs.

METHODS

An integrative review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020160475). The World Health Organization definition of palliative care informed the review. CINAHL, MEDLINE (OVID), Scopus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched from inception to October 2019 using search strategies for each database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Methodological quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist for the Case Series appraisal tool. Extracted data were synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Of 5,136 papers identified, 11 quantitative case series studies were included. Six themes were identified: conscious state and change over time, awareness, pain, absence of holistic care, the voiceless patient, and signs and symptoms of dying.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

In the last days of life, the physical and conscious state of the dying patient declines, resulting in an inability to express their care needs. Dignity in dying and freedom from pain and suffering are both an imperative and a human right; and unvoiced care needs can result in unnecessary suffering and distress. This review revealed that little is known about how healthcare professionals assess holistic care needs at this vulnerable time. Although much has been written about palliative and end-of-life care, the assessment of care needs when patients are no longer able to voice their own needs has largely been ignored, with little attention from clinical, educational, or research perspectives. This gap in evidence has important implications for the dying and their families.

Delirium at the End of Life

Delirium is a prevalent acute neurocognitive condition in patients with progressive life-limiting illness. Delirium remains underdetected; a systematic approach to screening is essential. Delirium at the end of life requires a comprehensive assessment. Consider the potential for reversibility, illness trajectory, patient preference, and goals of care before proceeding with investigations and interventions. Management should be interdisciplinary, and nonpharmacologic therapy is fundamental. For patients with refractory and severe agitation or perceptual disturbance, judicious use of medication may also be required. Carers and family should be seen as partners in care and be involved in shared decision making about care.

Delirium at the end of life

Delirium is highly prevalent in people with advanced life limiting illness(es), and current evidence can inform how we provide best delirium care in this setting. Whilst strategies to prevent and reverse delirium are the cornerstones of optimal care, the care for delirious patients who are approaching the end of life and their families pose specific challenges particularly if delirium is refractory flagging a grave prognosis. These include addressing additional supportive care needs, clinical decision-making about the degree of investigation and intervention, minimising distress from the symptoms of delirium itself and considering other concurrent problems contributing to agitation. A fine balance is needed to address other symptoms such as pain whilst minimizing psychoactive medication load. There is need for regular and clear information and communication about prognosis and goals of care. Witnessing a delirium episode in a loved one in close proximity to death requires consideration of the needs of the family into bereavement care. Palliative care is person and family-centred care provided for a person with an active, progressive, advanced disease; who has little or no prospect of cure and who is expected to die, and for whom the primary treatment goal is to optimise quality of life. It is an approach which can be provided regardless of setting and diagnosis, and by both specialist palliative care teams and other health professionals.

A Multicomponent Nonpharmacological Intervention to Prevent Delirium for Hospitalized People with Advanced Cancer: A Phase II Cluster Randomized Waitlist Controlled Trial (The PRESERVE Pilot Study)

Background: Delirium is a common debilitating complication of advanced cancer. Objective: To determine if a multicomponent nonpharmacological delirium prevention intervention was feasible for adult patients with advanced cancer, before a phase III (efficacy) trial. Design: Phase II (feasibility) cluster randomized controlled trial. All sites implemented delirium screening and diagnostic assessment. Strategies within sleep, vision and hearing, hydration, orientation, mobility, and family domains were delivered to enrolled patients at intervention site admission days 1-7. Control sites then implemented the intervention ("waitlist sites"). Setting: Four Australian palliative care units. Measurements: The primary outcome was adherence, with an a priori endpoint of at least 60% patients achieving full adherence. Secondary outcomes were interdisciplinary care delivery, delirium measures, and adverse events, analyzed descriptively and inferentially. Results: Sixty-five enrolled patients (25 control, 20 intervention, and 20 waitlist) had 98% delirium screens and 75% diagnostic assessments completed. Nurses (67%), physicians (16%), allied health (8.4%), family (7%), patients (1%), and volunteers (0.5%) delivered the intervention. There was full adherence for 5% patients at intervention sites, partial for 25%. Both full and partial adherence were higher at waitlist sites: 25% and 45%, respectively. One-third of control site patients (32%) became delirious within seven days of admission compared to one-fifth (20%) at both intervention and waitlist sites (p = 0.5). Mean (standard deviation) Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-1998 scores were 16.8 + 12.0 control sites versus 18.4 + 8.2 (p = 0.6) intervention and 18.7 + 7.8 (p = 0.5) waitlist sites. The intervention caused no adverse events. Conclusion: The intervention requires modification for optimal adherence in a phase III trial.