PURPOSE: To explore the experiences of hope of palliative care patients.
METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted at University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Adult palliative care in-patients were recruited and interviewed with semi structured questions on hope. Transcripts from the interviews were thematically analyzed with qualitative data management software NVIVO.
FINDINGS: 20 palliative care patients participated in the study. The themes generated from thematic analysis were (1) The notions of hope, (2) The sources and barriers of hope and (3) The contents of hope.
CONCLUSION: Hope is an ever-present source of energy that gives people strength to carry on even in the most adverse situations. Understanding hope from the palliative care perspective may allow healthcare providers to develop strategies to better foster hope in the terminally ill.
METHODS: Data from the National Health and Morbidity Survey 2018, a nation-wide, cross-sectional survey using a two-stage stratified sampling design, were analyzed. A representative sample of individuals aged ≥60 years identified through national sampling frames throughout Malaysia was included. Face-to-face interviews were conducted using validated questionnaires on activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental ADL (IADL). Social support was measured using the Duke Social Support Index.
RESULTS: The overall prevalence of the presence of any limitations in ADL and IADL was 17.0% and 42.9% respectively. Overall prevalence of the older persons with low to fair social support was 30.8% and high to very high social support was 69.2%. Logistic regression analysis identified the following factors as being associated with limitations in ADL and IADL: being female, of older age, having a monthly income
DESIGN: Parallel-group randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio.
SETTING: Two regional tertiary neonatal intensive care units.
PATIENTS: 150 preterm infants less than 35 weeks gestation with birth weight between 1.0 and 1.5 kg were recruited.
INTERVENTIONS: Infants were enrolled to either 2-hourly or 3-hourly interval feeding after randomisation. Blinding was not possible due to the nature of the intervention.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to achieve full enteral feeding (≥100 mL/kg/day). Secondary outcomes include time to regain birth weight, episode of feeding intolerance, peak serum bilirubin levels, duration of phototherapy, episode of necrotising enterocolitis, nosocomial sepsis and gastro-oesophageal reflux.
RESULTS: 72 infants were available for primary outcome analysis in each group as three were excluded due to death-three deaths in each group. The mean time to full enteral feeding was 11.3 days in the 3-hourly group and 10.2 days in the 2-hourly group (mean difference 1.1 days; 95% CI -0.4 to 2.5; p=0.14). The mean time to regain birth weight was shorter in 3-hourly group (12.9 vs 14.8 days, p=0.04). Other subgroup analyses did not reveal additional significant results. No difference in adverse events was found between the groups.
CONCLUSION: 3-hourly feeding was comparable with 2-hourly feeding to achieve full enteral feeding without any evidence of increased adverse events.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000676910, pre-result.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study is to assess the psychometric properties of the Suffering Pictogram, a new suffering assessment instrument on a population of palliative care patients.
DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a validation study conducted at University of Malaya Medical Centre, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Ninety one palliative care patients were recruited. Patients were interviewed with the Suffering Pictogram and FACIT-Sp.
RESULTS: The median completion time for the Suffering Pictogram was five minutes. The Suffering Pictogram showed good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.836. The total scores of the Suffering Pictogram correlated strongly and negatively with FACIT-Sp total score (Spearman's Rho = -0.625, p
METHODS: Non-inferiority randomized, clinical trial involving patients presenting with acute respiratory failure conducted in the ED of a local hospital. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either hCPAP or fCPAP as per the trial protocol. The primary endpoint was respiratory rate reduction. Secondary endpoints included discomfort, improvement in Dyspnea and Likert scales, heart rate reduction, arterial blood oxygenation, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), dryness of mucosa and intubation rate.
RESULTS: 224 patients were included and randomized (113 patients to hCPAP, 111 to fCPAP). Both techniques reduced respiratory rate (hCPAP: from 33.56 ± 3.07 to 25.43 ± 3.11 bpm and fCPAP: from 33.46 ± 3.35 to 27.01 ± 3.19 bpm), heart rate (hCPAP: from 114.76 ± 15.5 to 96.17 ± 16.50 bpm and fCPAP: from 115.07 ± 14.13 to 101.19 ± 16.92 bpm), and improved dyspnea measured by both the Visual Analogue Scale (hCPAP: from 16.36 ± 12.13 to 83.72 ± 12.91 and fCPAP: from 16.01 ± 11.76 to 76.62 ± 13.91) and the Likert scale. Both CPAP techniques improved arterial oxygenation (PaO2 from 67.72 ± 8.06 mmHg to 166.38 ± 30.17 mmHg in hCPAP and 68.99 ± 7.68 mmHg to 184.49 ± 36.38 mmHg in fCPAP) and the PaO2:FiO2 (Partial pressure of arterial oxygen: Fraction of inspired oxygen) ratio from 113.6 ± 13.4 to 273.4 ± 49.5 in hCPAP and 115.0 ± 12.9 to 307.7 ± 60.9 in fCPAP. The intubation rate was lower with hCPAP (4.4% for hCPAP versus 18% for fCPAP, absolute difference -13.6%, p = 0.003). Discomfort and dryness of mucosa were also lower with hCPAP.
CONCLUSION: In patients presenting to the ED with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema or decompensated COPD, hCPAP was non-inferior to fCPAP and resulted in greater comfort levels and lower intubation rate.