No abstract

Background and objectivesCompared with hemodialysis, home peritoneal dialysis alleviates the burden of travel, facilitates independence, and is less costly. Physical, cognitive, or psychosocial factors may preclude peritoneal dialysis in otherwise eligible patients. Assisted peritoneal dialysis, where trained personnel assist with home peritoneal dialysis, may be an option, but the optimal model is unknown. The objective of this work is to characterize existing assisted peritoneal dialysis models and synthesize clinical outcomes.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA systematic review of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL was conducted (search dates: January 1995–September 2018). A focused gray literature search was also completed, limited to developed nations. Included studies focused on home-based assisted peritoneal dialysis; studies with the assist provided exclusively by unpaid family caregivers were excluded. All outcomes were narratively synthesized; quantitative outcomes were graphically depicted.ResultsWe included 34 studies, totaling 46,597 patients, with assisted peritoneal dialysis programs identified in 20 jurisdictions. Two categories emerged for models of assisted peritoneal dialysis on the basis of type of assistance: health care and non–health care professional assistance. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous, ranging from patient-level outcomes of survival, to resource use and transfer to hemodialysis; however, the comparative effect of assisted peritoneal dialysis was unclear. In two qualitative studies examining the patient experience, the maintenance of independence was identified as an important theme.ConclusionsReported outcomes and quality were heterogeneous, and relative efficacy of assisted peritoneal dialysis could not be determined from included studies. Although the patient voice was under-represented, suggestions to improve assisted peritoneal dialysis included using a person-centered model of care, ensuring continuity of nurses providing the peritoneal dialysis assist, and measures to support patient independence. Although attractive elements of assisted peritoneal dialysis are identified, further evidence is needed to connect assisted peritoneal dialysis outcomes with programmatic features and their associated funding models.

BackgroundThe aim of palliative care is to improve the quality of life of patients and families through the prevention and relief of suffering. Frequently, patients may choose to receive palliative care in the home. The objective of this paper is to summarize the quality and primary outcomes measured within the palliative care in the home literature. This will synthesize the current state of the literature and inform future work.MethodsA scoping review was completed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, PsycINFO, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched from inception to August 2016. Inclusion criteria included: 1) care was provided in the “home of the patient” as defined by the study, 2) outcomes were reported, and 3) reported original data. Thematic component analysis was completed to categorize interventions.ResultsFifty-three studies formed the final data set. The literature varied extensively. Five themes were identified: accessibility of healthcare, caregiver support, individualized patient centered care, multidisciplinary care provision, and quality improvement. Primary outcomes were resource use, symptom burden, quality of life, satisfaction, caregiver distress, place of death, cost analysis, or described experiences. The majority of studies were of moderate or unclear quality.ConclusionsThere is robust literature of varying quality, assessing different components of palliative care in the home interventions, and measuring different outcomes. To be meaningful to patients, these interventions need to be consistently evaluated with outcomes that matter to patients. Future research could focus on reaching a consensus for outcomes to evaluate palliative care in the home interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12904-018-0299-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Treatment with IFX, GOL, CZP, ustekinumab, and apremilast resulted in improvements in self-reported work productivity. A pooled analysis was not possible because of the clinical heterogeneity of the trials and variability in outcome reporting.

IMPORTANCE The Elder-Friendly Approaches to the Surgical Environment (EASE) initiative is a novel approach to acute surgical care for elderly patients. OBJECTIVE To determine the cost-effectiveness of EASE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS An economic evaluation from the perspective of the health care system was conducted as part of the controlled before-and-after EASE study at 2 tertiary care centers, the University of Alberta Hospital and Foothills Medical Centre. Participants included elderly adults (aged Ն65 years) admitted for emergency abdominal surgery between 2014 and 2017. Data were analyzed from April 2018 to February 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Data were captured at both control and intervention sites before and after implementation of the EASE intervention. Resource use was captured over 6 months of follow-up and was converted to costs. Utility was measured with the EuroQol Five-Dimensions Three-Levels instrument at 6 weeks and 6 months of follow-up. The differences-indifferences method was used to estimate the association of the intervention with cost and qualityadjusted life-years. For a subset of participants, self-reported out-of-pocket health care costs were collected using the Resource Use Inventory at 6 months. RESULTS A total of 675 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [7.9] years; 333 women [49.3%]), 289 in the intervention group and 386 in the control group. The mean (SD) cost per control