BackgroundTelehealth is being used increasingly in providing care to patients in the community setting. Telehealth enhanced service delivery could offer new ways of managing load and care prioritisation for palliative care patients living in the community. The study assesses the feasibility of a telehealth-based model of service provision for community based palliative care patients, carers and clinicians.MethodsThis study was a prospective cohort study of a telehealth-based intervention for community based patients of a specialist palliative care service living in Southern Adelaide, South Australia. Participants were 43 community living patients enrolled in the Southern Adelaide Palliative Service. To be eligible patients needed to be over 18 years and have an Australian modified Karnofksy Performance Score > 40. Exclusion criteria included a demonstrated inability to manage the hardware or technology (unless living with a carer who could manage the technology) or non-English speaking without a suitable carer/proxy. Participants received video-based conferences between service staff and the patient/carer; virtual case conferences with the patient/carer, service staff and patient’s general practitioner (GP); self-report assessment tools for patient and carer; and remote activity monitoring (ACTRN12613000733774).ResultsThe average age of patients was 71.6 years (range: 49 to 91 years). All 43 patients managed to enter data using the telehealth system. Self-reported data entered by patients and carers did identify changes in performance status leading to changes in care. Over 4000 alerts were generated. Staff reported that videocalls were similar (22.3%) or better/much better (65.2%) than phone calls and similar (63.1%) or better/much better (27.1%) than face-to-face. Issues with the volume of alerts generated, technical support required and the impact of service change were identified.ConclusionsThe trial showed that patients and carers could manage the technology and provide data that would otherwise not have been available to the palliative care service.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000733774 registered on 02/07/2013.

Implementation of a pilot telehealth programme in a specialist palliative community team needs to involve clinical staff in service redesign from the outset. Reliable IT infrastructure and technical support is critical for telehealth models to be effective and will aid uptake.

BackgroundBreathlessness causes significant burden in our community but the underlying socio-demographic and lifestyle factors that may influence it are not well quantified. This study aims to define these predictors of chronic breathlessness at a population level.MethodsData were collected from adult South Australians in 2007 and 2008 (n = 5331) as part of a face-to-face, cross-sectional, whole-of-population, multi-stage, systematic area sampling population health survey. The main outcome variable was breathlessness in logistic regression models. Lifestyle factors examined included smoking history, smoke-free housing, level of physical activity and body mass index (obesity).ResultsThe participation rate was 64.1%, and 11.1% of individuals (15.0% if aged ≥50 years) chronically had breathlessness that limited exertion. Significant bivariate associations with chronic breathlessness for the whole population and only those ≥50 included: increasing age; female gender; being separated/divorced/widowed; social disadvantage; smoking status; those without a smoke-free home; low levels of physical activity; and obesity. In multi-variate analyses adjusted for age, marital status (p < 0.001), physical activity (p < 0.001), obesity (p < 0.001), gender (p < 0.05) and social disadvantage (p < 0.05) remained significant factors. Smoking history was not a significant contributor to the model.ConclusionsThere is potential benefit in addressing reversible lifestyle causes of breathlessness including high body mass index (obesity) and low levels of physical activity in order to decrease the prevalence of chronic breathlessness. Clinical intervention studies for chronic breathlessness should consider stratification by body mass index.

IMPORTANCEOlder adults with cancer are at risk of overtreatment or undertreatment when decision-making is based solely on chronological age. Although a geriatric assessment is recommended to inform care, the time and expertise required limit its feasibility for all patients. Screening tools offer the potential to identify those who will benefit most from a geriatric assessment. Consensus about the optimal tool to use is lacking.OBJECTIVE To appraise the evidence on screening tools used for older adults with cancer and identify an optimal screening tool for older adults with cancer who may benefit from geriatric assessment.EVIDENCE REVIEW Systematic review of 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], and PubMed) with narrative synthesis from January 1, 2000, to March 14, 2019. Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy and use of validated screening tools to identify older adults with cancer who need a geriatric assessment were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed from March 14, 2019, to March 23, 2020.FINDINGS Seventeen unique studies were included, reporting on the use of 12 screening tools. Most studies were prospective cohort studies (n = 11) with only 1 randomized clinical trial. Not all studies reported time taken to administer the screening tools. The Geriatric-8 (G8) (n = 12) and the Vulnerable Elders Survey-13 (VES-13) (n = 9) were the most frequently evaluated screening tools. The G8 scored better in sensitivity and the VES-13 in specificity. Other screening tools evaluated include the Groningen Frailty Index, abbreviated comprehensive geriatric assessment, and Physical Performance Test in 2 studies each. All other screening tools were evaluated in 1 study each. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCETo date, the G8 and VES-13 have the most evidence to recommend their use to inform the need for geriatric assessment. When choosing a screening tool, clinicians will need to weigh the tradeoffs between sensitivity and specificity. Future research needs to further validate or improve current screening tools and explore other factors that can influence their use, such as ease of use and resourcing.