No abstract

BackgroundThe use of virtual reality (VR) is increasing in palliative care. However, despite increasing interest in VR, there is little evidence of how this technology can be implemented into practice.AimsThis paper aims to: (1) explore the feasibility of implementing VR therapy, for patients and caregivers, in a hospital specialist inpatient palliative care unit and a hospice, and (2) to identify questions for organisations, to support VR adoption in palliative care.MethodsThe Samsung Gear VR system was used in a hospital specialist palliative inpatient unit and a hospice. Patients and caregivers received VR distraction therapy and provided feedback of their experience. Staff completed a feedback questionnaire to explore their opinion of the usefulness of VR in palliative care. A public engagement event was conducted, to identify questions to support implementation of VR in palliative care settings.ResultsFifteen individuals (12 (80%) patients and 3 (20%) caregivers) participated. All had a positive experience. No adverse effects were reported. Ten items were identified for organisations to consider ahead of adoption of VR in palliative care. These were questions about: the purpose of VR; intended population; supporting evidence; session duration; equipment choice; infection control issues; content choice; setting of VR; person(s) responsible for delivery and the maintenance plan.ConclusionsIt is feasible to use VR therapy in palliative care; however, further evidence about its efficacy and effectiveness is needed. Palliative care practitioners considering VR use should carefully consider several factors, to ensure that this technology can be used safely and effectively in clinical practice.

ObjectivesA number of randomised control trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of long-acting somatostatin analogues in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) and polycystic liver disease (PLD) have been recently reported. We sought to evaluate all available RCTs investigating the efficacy of somatostatin analogues treatment in ADPKD and PLD.Data sourcesElectronic databases; Pubmed, Clincaltrials.gov and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled TrialsEligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs and randomised cross-over trials comparing the effects of somatostatin analogue treatment with controls in patients with ADPKD or PLD.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and bias assessments were performed by two independent reviewers between January and May 2019. Outcomes assessed included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), total kidney volume (TKV), total liver volume (TLV), progression to end stage renal failure (ESRF) and adverse effects. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and reported as relative risk or mean difference with 95% CIs.ResultsMeta-analysis was performed of six RCTs or randomised cross-over trials and three secondary analyses. A total of 592 patients were included. Compared with controls, somatostatin analogue treatment significantly reduced TLV (mean difference −0.15 L, 95% CI −0.26 to −0.03, p=0.01). There was no significant effect on TKV (mean difference −0.19 L, 95% CI −0.50 to 0.12, p=0.23) or eGFR (mean difference 0.27 mL/min/1.73 m2, 95% CI −2.03 to 2.57, p=0.82). There was no effect on progression to ESRF. Somatostatin analogues were associated with known adverse effects such as gastrointestinal symptoms.ConclusionsThe available RCT data show improvement in TLV with somatostatin analogue treatment. There was no benefit to TKV or eGFR in patients with ADPKD, while being associated with various side effects. Further studies are needed to assess potential benefit in reducing cyst burden in patients with PLD.

BackgroundThe Need for Recovery (NFR) Scale is an 11-item questionnaire that assesses how work affects intershift recovery. Items are summated to form a score with a maximum value of 100. Previously reported scores range from 38 in nurses to 55 in miners. This study aimed to determine the NFR Score among ED staff and to identify whether the NFR Score was associated with characteristics potentially implicated with recovery from work.MethodsStaff in a single ED in the South West of England (annual attendances of 93 000) were asked to complete an electronic questionnaire incorporating the NFR Scale plus additional items relating to demographic, work-related and well-being characteristics, in their own time during January 2018. Descriptive statistics are presented, including median NFR Scores and associations with additional characteristics. Thematic analysis of free-text comments from an open-ended question was undertaken.ResultsOne hundred and sixty-eight responses were obtained (80.3% capture). Median NFR Score across all staff groups was 81.8 out of 100.0 (95% CI 72.7 to 81.8). Shift duration exceeding 12 hours, dissatisfaction with work–life balance and self-reported perceptions of burnout were associated with significantly elevated NFR Scores. Themes resulting from the open-ended question were ‘barriers to intershift recovery’ and ‘coping with work’.ConclusionThe NFR Scores in this study exceeded scores reported elsewhere and were associated with some demographic, occupational and well-being characteristics. The NFR Scale has utility to measure the need for intershift recovery among ED staff. A larger study is warranted to identify specific determinants of recovery and to provide recommendations.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The current management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is with an invasive strategy to guide treatment. However, identifying the lesions which are physiologically significant can be challenging. Non-invasive imaging is generally not appropriate or timely in the acute setting, so the decision is generally based upon visual assessment of the angiogram, supplemented in a small minority by invasive pressure wire studies using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or related indices. Whilst pressure wire usage is slowly increasing, it is not feasible in many vessels, patients and situations. Limited evidence for the use of FFR in non-ST elevation (NSTE) ACS suggests a 25% change in management, compared with traditional assessment, with a shift from more to less extensive revascularisation. Virtual (computed) FFR (vFFR), which uses a 3D model of the coronary arteries constructed from the invasive angiogram, and application of the physical laws of fluid flow, has the potential to be used more widely in this situation. It is less invasive, fast and can be integrated into catheter laboratory software. For severe lesions, or mild disease, it is probably not required, but it could improve the management of moderate disease in 'real time' for patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), and in bystander disease in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Its practicability and impact in the acute setting need to be tested, but the underpinning science and potential benefits for rapid and streamlined decision-making are enticing.