Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Dignity-Conserving Practice

The acknowledgment and promotion of dignity is commonly viewed as the cornerstone of person-centered care. Although the preservation of dignity is often highlighted as a key tenet of palliative care provision, the concept of dignity and its implications for practice remain nebulous to many clinicians. Dignity in care encompasses a series of theories describing different forms of dignity, the factors that impact them, and strategies to encourage dignity-conserving care. Different modalities and validated instruments of dignity in care have been shown to lessen existential distress at the end of life and promote patient-clinician understanding. It is essential that palliative care clinicians be aware of the impacts of dignity-related distress, how it manifests, and common solutions that can easily be adapted, applied, and integrated into practice settings. Dignity-based constructs can be learned as a component of postgraduate or continuing education. Implemented as a routine component of palliative care, they can provide a means of enhancing patient-clinician relationships, reducing bias, and reinforcing patient agency across the span of serious illness. Palliative care clinicians-often engaging patients, families, and communities in times of serious illness and end of life-wield significant influence on whether dignity is intentionally integrated into the experience of health care delivery. Thus, dignity can be a tangible, actionable, and measurable palliative care goal and outcome. This article, written by a team of palliative care specialists and dignity researchers, offers 10 tips to facilitate the implementation of dignity-centered care in serious illness.

Integrating specialist palliative care to improve care and reduce suffering: cystic fibrosis (InSPIRe:CF) - study protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial

Introduction

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic disorder estimated to affect more than 160 000 individuals and their families worldwide. People living with CF commonly experience significant physical and emotional symptom burdens, disruptions to social roles and complex treatment decision making. While palliative care (PC) interventions have been shown to relieve many such burdens in other serious illnesses, no rigorous evidence exists for palliative care in CF. Thus, this study aims to compare the effect of specialist palliative care plus usual CF care vs usual CF care alone on patient quality of life.

Methods and analysis

This is a five-site, two-arm, partially masked, randomised superiority clinical trial. 264 adults with CF will be randomly assigned to usual CF care or usual CF care plus a longitudinal palliative care intervention delivered by a palliative care specialist. The trial’s primary outcome is patient quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative care instrument). Secondary outcomes include symptom burden, satisfaction with care and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes will be measured at 12 months (primary endpoint) and 15 months (secondary endpoint). In addition, we will conduct qualitative interviews with patient participants, caregivers, and palliative care and CF care team members to explore perceptions of the intervention’s impact and barriers and facilitators to dissemination.

Ethics and dissemination

Human subjects research ethics approval was obtained from all participating sites, and all study participants gave informed consent. We will publish the results of this trial in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN53323164.

Coprescribing of opioids and high-risk medications in the USA: a cross-sectional study with data from national ambulatory and emergency department settings

OBJECTIVE

Describe trends in opioid plus high-risk medication coprescribing in the USA.

DESIGN

Analyses of serial, cross-sectional, nationally representative data of the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) over 2007-2016 and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) over 2007-2018.

SETTING

US ambulatory (NAMCS) and emergency department (ED, NHAMCS) settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Patient visits in which the patient was 18 years and older with an opioid prescription in the NAMCS or NHAMCS databases.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency of opioid plus high-risk medication coprescribing.

RESULTS

From a combined sample of 700 499 visits over 2007-2018, there were 105 720 visits (15.1%) where opioids were prescribed. n=31 825 were from NAMCS and n=73 895 were from NHAMCS. The mean prevalence of coprescription of opioids and high-risk medications for the combined NAMCS and NHAMCS sample was 18.4% in 2007, peaked at 33.2% in 2014 and declined to 23.8% in 2016. Compared with adults receiving opioid prescriptions alone, those coprescribed opioids and high-risk medications were older, more likely female, white and using private or Medicare insurance (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Coprescribing is more common in ambulatory than ED settings and has been declining, yet one in four patient visits where opioids were prescribed resulted in coprescribed, high-risk medications in 2016. Efforts and research to help lower the rates of high-risk prescribing are needed.

Recognizing familial myeloid leukemia in adults

Germline testing for familial cases of myeloid leukemia in adults is becoming more common with the recognition of multiple genetic syndromes predisposing people to bone marrow disease. Currently, Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments approved testing exists for several myeloid leukemia predisposition syndromes: familial platelet disorder with propensity to acute myeloid leukemia (FPD/AML), caused by mutations in RUNX1; familial AML with mutated CEBPA; familial myelodysplastic syndrome and acute leukemia with mutated GATA2; and the inherited bone marrow failure syndromes, including dyskeratosis congenita, a disease of abnormal telomere maintenance. With the recognition of additional families with a genetic component to their leukemia, new predisposition alleles will likely be identified. We highlight how to recognize and manage these cases as well as outline the characteristics of the major known syndromes. We look forward to future research increasing our understanding of the scope of inherited myeloid leukemia syndromes.