Number of tables: 3 Number of figures: 3 Number of references: 38 Word count: 2936 Background Delirium is a common debilitating complication of advanced cancer. ObjectiveTo determine if a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention was feasible for adult patients with advanced cancer, prior to a phase III (efficacy) trial. DesignPhase 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 sites admission days 1-7.Control sites then implemented the intervention ('waitlist sites'). SettingFour Australian palliative care units MeasurementsThe 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. ResultsSixty-five enrolled patients (25 control, 20 intervention, 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 was 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 (SD) 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. ConclusionThe intervention requires modification for optimal adherence in a phase III trial.

IntroductionDelirium is a significant medical complication for hospitalised patients. Up to one-third of delirium episodes are preventable in older inpatients through non-pharmacological strategies that support essential human needs, such as physical and cognitive activity, sleep, hydration, vision and hearing. We hypothesised that a multicomponent intervention similarly may decrease delirium incidence, and/or its duration and severity, in inpatients with advanced cancer. Prior to a phase III trial, we aimed to determine if a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention is feasible and acceptable for this specific inpatient group.Methods and analysisThe study is a phase II cluster randomised wait-listed controlled trial involving inpatients with advanced cancer at four Australian palliative care inpatient units. Intervention sites will introduce delirium screening, diagnostic assessment and a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with six domains of care: preserving natural sleep; maintaining optimal vision and hearing; optimising hydration; promoting communication, orientation and cognition; optimising mobility; and promoting family partnership. Interdisciplinary teams will tailor intervention delivery to each site and to patient need. Control sites will first introduce only delirium screening and diagnosis, later implementing the intervention, modified according to initial results. The primary outcome is adherence to the intervention during the first seven days of admission, measured for 40 consecutively admitted eligible patients. Secondary outcomes relate to fidelity and feasibility, acceptability and sustainability of the study intervention, processes and measures in this patient population, using quantitative and qualitative measures. Delirium incidence and severity will be measured to inform power calculations for a future phase III trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained for all four sites. Trial results, qualitative substudy findings and implementation of the intervention will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, and reported at conferences, to study sites and key peak bodies.Trial registration numberACTRN12617001070325; Pre-results.

BackgroundDelirium is common, distressing, serious and under-researched in specialist palliative care settings. ObjectivesTo examine whether people requiring palliative care were included in non-pharmacological delirium intervention studies in inpatient settings, how they were characterised, and what their outcomes were.

This mixed-methods study reports on the key stakeholders’ perspectives on the ear, nose, and throat (ENT) service redesign in remote Australia, using a participatory action research (PAR) approach. A primary health care (PHC) clinician survey was conducted to assess local needs and possible educational gaps in clinical knowledge. This was followed by an internal stakeholder forum and a follow-up survey with Torres and Cape Hospital and Health Service staff to gain their perspectives on current service delivery and table ideas for a new ENT health service model. Qualitative data were analyzed inductively and grouped in emerging themes. Quantitative data were imported into tables and analyzed descriptively. PAR allowed for input from 19 PHC clinicians, 10 face-to-face stakeholders perspectives, and 18 stakeholder follow-up survey respondents. Four themes emerged: 1. Training for health workers in ENT management; 2. Improved local service access; 3. New referral pathways to improve continuity of care; and 4. Introduction of telehealth. PAR engaged key stakeholders, identifying gaps in ENT service delivery, and guided the development of the new service model. The inclusion of stakeholders throughout the service redesign process is likely to create a more sustainable model of care which already has local “buy-in”.

Objectives The burden on care partners, particularly once dementia emerges, is among the greatest of all caregiving groups. This meta‐review aimed to (1) synthesis evidence on the self‐reported needs of care partners supporting people living with neurodegenerative disorders; (2) compare the needs according to care partner and care recipient characteristics; and (3) determine the face validity of existing care partner needs assessment tools. Methods We conducted a systematic review of reviews involving a thematic synthesis of care partner needs and differences in needs according to demographic and other characteristics. We then conducted a gap analysis by identifying the themes of needs from existing needs assessment tools specific to dementia and cross‐matching them with the needs derived from the thematic synthesis. Results Drawing on 17 published reviews, the identified range of needs fell into four key themes: (1) knowledge and information, (2) physical, social and emotional support, (3) care partner self‐care, and (4) care recipient needs. Needs may differ according to disease trajectory, relationship to the care recipient, and the demographic characteristics of the care partner and recipient. The ‘captured needs’ range between 8% and 66% across all the included needs assessment tools. Conclusions Current tools do not fully or adequately capture the self‐identified needs of care partners of people living with neurodegenerative disorders. Given the high burden on care partners, which has been further exacerbated by the COVID‐19 (SARS CoV‐2) pandemic, the needs assessment tools should align with the self‐reported needs of care partners throughout the caregiving trajectory to better understand unmet needs and target supportive interventions.

Background The rising rates of women in prison is a serious public health issue. Unlike men, women in prison are characterised by significant histories of trauma, poor mental health, and high rates of substance use disorders (SUDs). Recidivism rates of women have also increased exponentially in the last decade, with substance related offences being the most imprisoned offence worldwide. There is a lack of evidence of the effectiveness of post-release programs for women. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise and evaluate the evidence on post-release programs for women exiting prison with SUDs. Methods We searched eight scientific databases for empirical original research published in English with no date limitation. Studies with an objective to reduce recidivism for adult women (⩾18 years) with a SUD were included. Study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. Results Of the 1493 articles, twelve (n = 3799 women) met the inclusion criteria. Recidivism was significantly reduced in five (42%) programs and substance-use was significantly reduced in one (8.3%) program. Common attributes among programs that reduced recidivism were: transitional, gender-responsive programs; provision of individualised support; providing substance-related therapy, mental health and trauma treatment services. Methodological and reporting biases were common, which impacted our ability to synthesize results further. Recidivism was inconsistently measured across studies further impacting the ability to compare results across studies. Conclusions Recidivism is a problematic measure of program efficacy because it is inconsistently measured and deficit-focused, unrecognising of women’s gains in the post-release period despite lack of tailored programs and significant health and social disadvantages. The current evidence suggests that women benefit from continuity of care from prison to the community, which incorporated gender-responsive programming and individualised case management that targeted co-morbid mental health and SUDs. Future program design should incorporate these attributes of successful programs identified in this review to better address the unique challenges that women with SUDs face when they transition back into the community.

Background: Theory-based and qualitative evaluations in pilot trials of complex clinical interventions help to understand quantitative results, as well as inform the feasibility and design of subsequent effectiveness and implementation trials. Aim: To explore patient, family, clinician and volunteer (‘stakeholder’) perspectives of the feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention for adult patients with advanced cancer in four Australian palliative care units that participated in a phase II trial, the ‘PRESERVE pilot study’. Design: A trial-embedded qualitative study via semi-structured interviews and directed content analysis using Michie’s Behaviour Change Wheel and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Setting/participants: Thirty-nine people involved in the trial: nurses ( n = 17), physicians ( n = 6), patients ( n = 6), family caregivers ( n = 4), physiotherapists ( n = 3), a social worker, a pastoral care worker and a volunteer. Results: Participants’ perspectives aligned with the ‘capability’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘motivation’ domains of the applied frameworks. Of seven themes, three were around the alignment of the delirium prevention intervention with palliative care (intervention was considered routine care; intervention aligned with the compassionate and collaborative culture of palliative care; and differing views of palliative care priorities influenced perspectives of the intervention) and four were about study processes more directly related to adherence to the intervention (shared knowledge increased engagement with the intervention; impact of the intervention checklist on attention, delivery and documentation of the delirium prevention strategies; clinical roles and responsibilities; and addressing environmental barriers to delirium prevention). Conclusion: This theory-informed qualitative study identified multiple influences on the delivery and documentation of a pilot multicomponent non-pharmacological delirium prevention intervention in four palliative care units. Findings inform future definitive studies of delirium prevention in palliative care. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617001070325; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373168

Objective Little is known about the economic value of clinical interventions for delirium. This review aims to synthesise and appraise available economic evidence, including resource use, costs, and cost‐effectiveness of interventions for reducing, preventing, and treating delirium. Methods Systematic review of published and grey literature on full and partial economic evaluations. Study quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Results Fourteen economic evaluations (43% full, 57% partial) across nine multicomponent and nonpharmacological intervention types met inclusion criteria. The intervention costs ranged between US$386 and $553 per person in inpatient settings. Multicomponent delirium prevention intervention and the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) reported statistically significant cost savings or cost offsets somewhere else in the health system. Cost savings related to inpatient, outpatient, and out‐of‐pocket costs ranged between $194 and $6022 per person. The average CHEERS score was 74% (±SD 10%). Conclusion Evidence on a joint distribution of costs and outcomes of delirium interventions was limited, varied and of generally low quality. Directed expansion of health economics towards the evaluation of delirium care is necessary to ensure effective implementation that meets patients' needs and is cost‐effective in achieving similar or better outcomes for the same or lower cost.