Delirium at the end of life

Development and validation of the Terminal Delirium-Related Distress Scale - Shortform

BACKGROUND

We previously developed a 24-item Terminal Delirium-Related Distress Scale (TDDS) to evaluate patient and family distress due to terminal delirium. However, a scale with fewer evaluation items was needed to reduce the burden on terminally ill patients and their families. Thus, the TDDS Shortform (TDDS-SF) was developed, and the validity and reliability of the scale were evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to evaluate the validity and reliability of TDDS-SF.

METHODS

Items with insufficient loading (<0.6) based on factor analysis were removed from the TDDS. Palliative care experts reviewed each item and checked the structure of the scale. Based on their feedback, we developed the TDDS-SF, a 15-item questionnaire consisting of 4 subscales, including "Care for the family," "Ability to communicate," "Psychiatric symptoms," and "Adequate information and discussion about treatment for delirium." A cross-sectional, self-completed questionnaire survey of bereaved families of cancer patients who were admitted to a hospice/palliative care unit was conducted in August 2018. The survey included the TDDS-SF, Good Death Inventory (GDI), Care Evaluation Scale (CES), and distress score in the Delirium Experience Questionnaire. The validity, including construct validity, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and internal consistency, and reliability, including the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for internal consistency, of the TDDS-SF were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study included 366 bereaved family members. Factor analysis revealed good construct validity. Convergent validity was demonstrated based on good correlations with the CES (r = - 0.54, P < 0.001) and the GDI (r = - 0.54, P < 0.001). Discriminant validity was demonstrated by a low correlation (r = 0.23, P < 0.001) with the distress scores of bereaved families. The internal consistency was also good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.70-0.94).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

The TDDS-SF is a valid and feasible tool for assessing irreversible terminal delirium-related distress. A study targeting patients and their families with end-of-life delirium is planned for the near future.

A qualitative analysis of algorithm-based decision support usability testing for symptom management across the trajectory of cancer care: one size does not fit all

BACKGROUND

Adults with cancer experience symptoms that change across the disease trajectory. Due to the distress and cost associated with uncontrolled symptoms, improving symptom management is an important component of quality cancer care. Clinical decision support (CDS) is a promising strategy to integrate clinical practice guideline (CPG)-based symptom management recommendations at the point of care.

METHODS

The objectives of this project were to develop and evaluate the usability of two symptom management algorithms (constipation and fatigue) across the trajectory of cancer care in patients with active disease treated in comprehensive or community cancer care settings to surveillance of cancer survivors in primary care practices. A modified ADAPTE process was used to develop algorithms based on national CPGs. Usability testing involved semi-structured interviews with clinicians from varied care settings, including comprehensive and community cancer centers, and primary care. The transcripts were analyzed with MAXQDA using Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis method. A cross tabs analysis was also performed to assess the prevalence of themes and subthemes by cancer care setting.

RESULTS

A total of 17 clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) were interviewed for usability testing. Three main themes emerged: (1) Algorithms as useful, (2) Symptom management differences, and (3) Different target end-users. The cross-tabs analysis demonstrated differences among care trajectories and settings that originated in the Symptom management differences theme. The sub-themes of "Differences between diseases" and "Differences between care trajectories" originated from participants working in a comprehensive cancer center, which tends to be disease-specific locations for patients on active treatment. Meanwhile, participants from primary care identified the sub-theme of "Differences in settings," indicating that symptom management strategies are care setting specific.

CONCLUSIONS

While CDS can help promote evidence-based symptom management, systems providing care recommendations need to be specifically developed to fit patient characteristics and clinical context. Findings suggest that one set of algorithms will not be applicable throughout the entire cancer trajectory. Unique CDS for symptom management will be needed for patients who are cancer survivors being followed in primary care settings.

A Core Outcome Set for Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Palliative Care

CONTEXT

Delirium is a serious neurocognitive syndrome which is highly prevalent in people approaching the end of life. Existing trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults receiving palliative care report heterogeneous outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To undertake an international consensus process to develop a core outcome set for trials of interventions, designed to prevent and/or treat delirium, for adults receiving palliative care.

METHODS

The core outcome set development process included a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi method and virtual consensus meetings using nominal group technique (Registration http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/796). Participants included family members, clinicians, and researchers with experience of delirium in palliative care.

RESULTS

Forty outcomes were generated from the systematic review and interviews informing the Delphi Round one survey. The international Delphi panel comprised 92 participants including clinicians (n = 71, 77%), researchers (n = 13, 14%), and family members (n = 8, 9%). Delphi Round two was completed by 77 (84%) participants from Round one. Following the consensus meetings, four outcomes were selected for the core outcome set: 1) delirium occurrence (incidence and prevalence); 2) duration of delirium until resolution defined as either no further delirium in this episode of care or death; 3) overall delirium symptom profile (agitation, delusions or hallucinations, delirium symptoms and delirium severity); 4) distress due to delirium (person with delirium, and/or family and/or carers [including healthcare professionals]).

CONCLUSION

Using a rigorous consensus process, we developed a core outcome set comprising four delirium-specific outcomes for inclusion in future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in palliative care.

Exploration of delirium assessment and management in a hospice inpatient unit

Background: Delirium is common across all palliative care settings. Guidelines exist to support the care of terminally ill people who develop delirium; yet the evidence base is limited. Recent surveys of palliative care specialists have suggested clinical practice is variable. Aim: To explore delirium assessment and management in a hospice inpatient setting. Methods: A mixed-methods study comprising a retrospective case note review of 21 patients admitted to a hospice inpatient unit and semi-structured interviews with seven hospice inpatient doctors and nurses. Results: A total of 62% of patients were screened for delirium on admission using the 4 As tool (4AT). The period prevalence of delirium was 76% during the 2-week study period. The term ‘delirium’ was documented infrequently in case notes, compared to other more ambiguous terms. Interview data suggested that nurses were unfamiliar with delirium screening tools. Conclusion: Lack of awareness about delirium screening tools and the infrequent use of the term ‘delirium’ may suggest that delirium goes under-recognised and under-treated. Further education and research are required to support the care of terminally ill people with delirium.

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.

Prevalence of Delirium in End-of-Life Palliative Care Patients: An Observational Study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of delirium, using the Assessment Test for Delirium and Cognitive Impairment (4AT) in end-of-life palliative care patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on end-of-life patients in a hospice or at home. All patients were evaluated with the 4AT for the presence of delirium.

RESULTS

Of the 461 patients analyzed, 76 (16.5%) were inpatients and 83.5% (385) outpatients. The median age was 79.5 (72-86) years, and 51.0% were female. According to the 4AT score, 126 patients (27.3%) had delirium (A4T ≥4) at admission, 28 (36.8%) were inpatients, and 98 (25.5%) outpatients. Around 33.8% of the cancer inpatients had delirium, while 20.6% of the cancer outpatients had delirium. The prevalence of delirium varied according to the setting, clinical condition, and life expectancy. In addition, 55.0% (11) actively dying inpatients, within 3 days, had delirium, and 56.7% (17) outpatients had delirium; while among those with life expectancy longer than 4 days, 30.4% (17) inpatients and 22.8% (81) outpatients were with delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirms that delirium is common in cancer and noncancer palliative care patients. Further research on delirium in end-of-life palliative care patients should consider the complexity of palliative care of this population as well as of the characteristics of the settings.

Outcomes and measures of delirium interventional studies in palliative care to inform a core outcome set: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement.

AIM

To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions.

DESIGN

Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

DATA SOURCES

We searched six electronic databases (1980-November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions.

RESULTS

From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life.

CONCLUSION

The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research.

Symptom trajectories for palliative care inpatients with and without hyperactive delirium in the last week of life

AIMS

Hyperactive delirium (HD) is a common and distressing symptom among palliative care patients. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of HD and associated symptoms among palliative care inpatients and evaluate relationships between HD development and symptom trajectories in this population.

DESIGN

A retrospective study was conducted.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records was conducted for all patients who died in a large Australian specialist palliative care unit between 1 January and 31 December 2019. Patients were assessed daily using the Symptoms Assessment Scale (SAS) and Palliative Care Problem Severity Scale (PCPSS). Multilevel models were used to estimate the differences in symptoms trajectories in the last 7 days of life between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 501 included patients, 64.5% (323) had an episode of HD. For 30% (95) of patients, HD occurred prior to admission. Compared with patients without HD, those with HD had significantly higher odds ratios (ORs) for four of the seven SAS symptoms (sleep problems, appetite, fatigue and pain; OR range: 1.94-4.48, p < .05), and all four PCPSS items (OR range: 2.00-3.00, p < .05) in the last week of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative care inpatients commonly experience HD in their last week of life. There are higher levels of symptom distress, complexity, psychological concerns and family/carer concerns among patients with HD compared with those without HD.

IMPACT

The high prevalence of HD, and its association with higher levels of symptom distress, highlights the importance of routine screening and optimal management for HD among palliative care patients. Given the widely recognized challenges facing palliative care professionals in assessment and management of delirium, provision of relevant training among these professionals is recommended.