Discussing patient preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment: development and pilot testing of a Danish POLST form

Background Medically frail and/or chronically ill patients are often admitted to Danish hospitals without documentation of patient preferences. This may lead to inappropriate care. Modelled on the American Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form, the purpose of the study was to develop and pilot test a Danish POLST form to ensure that patients’ preferences for levels of life-sustaining treatment are known and documented. Methods The study was a mixed methods study. In the initial phase, a Danish POLST form was developed on the basis of literature and recommendations from the National POLST organisation in the US. A pilot test of the Danish POLST form was conducted in hospital wards, general practitioners’ clinics, and nursing homes. Patients were eligible for inclusion if death was assessed as likely within 12 months. The patient and his/her physician engaged in a conversation where patient values, beliefs, goals for care, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment alternatives were discussed. The POLST form was completed based on the patient’s values and preferences. Family members and/or nursing staff could participate. Participants’ assessments of the POLST form were evaluated using questionnaires, and in-depth interviews were conducted to explore experiences with the POLST form and the conversation. Results In total, 25 patients participated, 45 questionnaires were completed and 14 interviews were conducted. Most participants found the POLST form readable and understandable, and 93% found the POLST form usable to a high or very high degree for discussing preferences regarding life-sustaining treatment. Three themes emerged from the interviews: (a) an understandable document is essential for the conversation, (b) handling and discussing wishes, and (c) significance for the future. Conclusion The Danish version of the POLST form is assessed by patients, families, physicians, and nurses as a useful model for obtaining and documenting Danish patients’ preferences for life-sustaining treatment. However, this needs to be confirmed in a larger-scale study.

Evidence-Based Decision Support for a Structured Care Program on Polypharmacy in Multimorbidity: A Guideline Upgrade Based on a Realist Synthesis

Evidence-based clinical guidelines generally consider single conditions, and rarely multimorbidity. We developed an evidence-based guideline for a structured care program to manage polypharmacy in multimorbidity by using a realist synthesis to update the German polypharmacy guideline including the following five methods: formal prioritization in focus groups; systematic guideline review of evidence-based multimorbidity/polypharmacy guidelines; evidence search/synthesis and recommendation development; multidisciplinary consent of recommendations; feasibility test of updated guideline. We identified the need for a better description of the target group, decision support, prioritization of medication, consideration of patient preferences and anticholinergic properties, and of healthcare interfaces. We conducted a systematic guideline review of eight guidelines and extracted and synthesized recommendations using the Ariadne principles. We also included 48 systematic reviews. We formulated and agreed upon 34 recommendations for the revised guideline. During the feasibility test, guideline use enabled 57% of GPs to identify problems, leading to medication changes in 49% and self-assessed improvement in 56% of patients. Although 58% of GPs felt that it was too long, 92% recommended it. Polypharmacy should be systematically reviewed at least annually. Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals should monitor and adjust it using prospective process validation, taking into account patient preferences and agreed treatment goals.

Acupuncture for cancer pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline

Background This study aims to develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline of acupuncture in the treatment of patients with moderate and severe cancer pain. Methods The development of this guideline was triggered by a systematic review published in JAMA Oncology in 2020. We searched databases and websites for evidence on patient preferences and values, and other resources of using acupuncture for treatment of cancer pain. Recommendations were developed through a Delphi consensus of an international multidisciplinary panel including 13 western medicine oncologists, Chinese medicine/acupuncture clinical practitioners, and two patient representatives. The certainty of evidence, patient preferences and values, resources, and other factors were fully considered in formulating the recommendations. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Results The guideline proposed three recommendations: (1) a strong recommendation for the treatment of acupuncture rather than no treatment to relieve pain in patients with moderate to severe cancer pain; (2) a weak recommendation for the combination treatments with acupuncture/acupressure to reduce pain intensity, decrease the opioid dose, and alleviate opioid-related side effects in moderate to severe cancer pain patients who are using analgesics; and (3) a strong recommendation for acupuncture in breast cancer patients to relieve their aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia. Conclusion This proposed guideline provides recommendations for the management of patients with cancer pain. The small sample sizes of evidence limit the strength of the recommendations and highlights the need for additional research.

OVERVIEW OF PATIENT PREFERENCES IN THE SURGICAL MANAGEMENT PLAN OF EARLY BREAST CANCERS

Objective: To determine patient preferences in the surgical options of early breast cancers and surgeon’s role in the decisionmaking. Study Design: cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Breast Surgery Department, Combined Military Hospital Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Nov 2020 to May 2021. Methodology: Patients having early carcinoma breast were studied, i.e., clinical stage 1 or 2, and their surgical preference was recorded. The cases were discussed in multidisciplinary meetings, and a discussion session with patient conducted and then final decision taken from the patient was recorded again, and the results compared. Results: A total of 28 patients were included in this study and their surgical preferences recorded. Of these patients 22 (78.5%) agreed to breast conservation initially, whereas one of the patients wanted mastectomy. Five (17.8%) patients were undecided between the two. After multidisciplinary team recommendation and discussion with surgeon, only one patient opted for mastectomy (3.6%). Conclusion: Patients with early breast cancer when offered a surgical decision between breast conservation and mastectomy mostly opt for breast conservation; those who select mastectomy do so because of the fear of recurrence.