Acute renal failure (ARF) can complicate up to 60% of orthotopic liver transplants (OLT). The RIFLE criteria were developed to provide a consensus definition for acute renal disease in critically ill patients. Using the RI-FLE criteria, we aimed to determine the incidence and risk factors for ARF and acute renal injury (ARI), and to evaluate the link with the outcomes, patient survival and length of hospital stay. Three hundred patients, who received 359 OLTs, were retrospectively analyzed. ARI and ARF occurred post 11.1 and 25.7% of OLTs, respectively. By multivariate analysis, ARI was associated with pre-OLT hypertension and alcoholic liver disease and ARF with higher pre-OLT creatinine, inotrope and aminoglycoside use. ARF, but not ARI, had an impact on 30-day and 1-year patient survival and longer length of hospital stay. ARI and ARF, as defined by the RIFLE criteria, are common complications of OLT, with distinct risk factors and ARF has serious clinical consequences. The development of a consensus definition is a welcome advance, however these criteria do need to be validated in large studies in a wide variety of patient populations.

BackgroundAchieving choice is proposed as a quality marker. But little is known about what influences preferences especially among older adults. We aimed to determine and compare, across three countries, factors associated with preferences for place of death and treatment, and actual site of death.MethodsWe recruited adults aged ≥65-years from hospital-based multiprofessional palliative care services in London, Dublin, New York, and followed them for >17 months. All services offered consultation on hospital wards, support for existing clinical teams, outpatient services and received funding from their National Health Service and/or relevant Insurance reimbursements. The New York service additionally had 10 inpatient beds. All worked with and referred patients to local hospices. Face-to-face interviews recorded most and least preferred place of death, treatment goal priorities, demographic and clinical information using validated questionnaires. Multivariable and multilevel analyses assessed associated factors.ResultsOne hundred and thirty eight older adults (64 London, 59 Dublin, 15 New York) were recruited, 110 died during follow-up. Home was the most preferred place of death (77/138, 56%) followed by inpatient palliative care/hospice units (22%). Hospital was least preferred (35/138, 25%), followed by nursing home (20%) and home (16%); hospice/palliative care unit was rarely least preferred (4%). Most respondents prioritised improving quality of life, either alone (54%), or equal with life extension (39%); few (3%) chose only life extension. There were no significant differences between countries. Main associates with home preference were: cancer diagnosis (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.40–9.90) and living with someone (OR 2.19, 1.33–3.62). Adults with non-cancer diagnoses were more likely to prefer palliative care units (OR 2.39, 1.14–5.03). Conversely, functional independence (OR 1.05, 1.04–1.06) and valuing quality of life (OR 3.11, 2.89–3.36) were associated with dying at home. There was a mismatch between preferences and achievements – of 85 people who preferred home or a palliative care unit, 19 (25%) achieved their first preference.ConclusionAlthough home is the most common first preference, it is polarising and for 16% it is the least preferred. Inpatient palliative care unit emerges as the second most preferred place, is rarely least preferred, and yet was often not achieved for those who wanted to die there. Factors affecting stated preferences and met preferences differ. Available services, notably community support and palliative care units, require expansion. Contrasting actual place of death with capacity for meeting patient and family needs may be a better quality indicator than simply ‘achieved preferences’.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-017-0648-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Palliative care needs of patients with chronic heart failure are poorly recognised. Policy makers advise a patient-centred approach to holistically assess patients' needs and care goals. Patient-reported outcome measures are proposed to facilitate patientcentred care. Aim: To explore whether and how a palliative care-specific patient-reported outcome intervention involving the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale influences patients' experience of patient-centred care in nurse-led chronic heart failure disease management clinics. Design: A feasibility study using a parallel mixed-methods embedded design was undertaken. The qualitative component which examined patients and nurses experience of the intervention is reported here. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using framework analysis. Setting/participants: Eligible patients attended nurse-led chronic heart failure disease management clinics in two tertiary referral centres in Ireland with New York Heart Association functional class II-IV. Nurses who led these clinics were eligible for inclusion. Results: In all, 18 patients and all 4 nurses involved in the nurse-led clinics were interviewed. Three key themes were identified: identification of unmet needs, holistic assessment and patient empowerment. The intervention impacted on processes of care by enabling a shared understanding of patients' symptoms and concerns, facilitating patient-nurse communication by focusing on these unmet needs and empowering patients to become more involved in clinical discussions. Conclusion: This Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale-based intervention empowered patients to become more engaged in the clinical consultation and to highlight their unmet needs. This study adds to the evidence for the mechanism of action of patientreported outcome measures to improve patient-centred care and will help inform outcome selection for future patient-reported outcome measure research.

No abstract

No abstract