Dataset Information

Pharmacological strategies used to manage symptoms of patients dying of COVID-19: A rapid systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-19 has tragically resulted in over 2.5 million deaths globally. Despite this, there is a lack of research on how to care for patients dying of COVID-19, specifically pharmacological management of symptoms.

Aim

The aim was to determine the dose ranges of pharmacological interventions commonly used to manage symptoms in adult patients dying of COVID-19, establish how effectiveness of these interventions was measured, and whether the pharmacological interventions were effective.

Design

This was a rapid systematic review with narrative synthesis of evidence, prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020210892).

Data sources

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL via the NICE Evidence Health Databases Advanced Search interface; medRxiv; the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register; and Google Scholar with no date limits. We included primary studies which documented care of patients dying of COVID-19 under the care of a specialist palliative care team.

Results

Seven studies, documenting the care of 493 patients met the inclusion criteria. Approximately two thirds of patients required a continuous subcutaneous infusion with median doses of 15 mg morphine and 10 mg midazolam in the last 24 h of life. Four studies described effectiveness by retrospective review of documentation. One study detailed the effectiveness of individual medications.

Conclusions

A higher proportion of patients required continuous subcutaneous infusion than is typically encountered in palliative care. Doses of medications required to manage symptoms were generally modest. There was no evidence of a standardised yet holistic approach to measure effectiveness of these medications and this needs to be urgently addressed.

SUBMITTER: Heath L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8189007 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionOne of the most conflicting methodological issues when conducting an overview is the overlap of primary studies across systematic reviews (SRs). Overlap in the pooled effect estimates across SRs may lead to overly precise effect estimates in the overview. SRs that focus on exercise-related interventions are often included in overviews aimed at grouping and determining the effectiveness of various interventions for managing specific health conditions. The aim of this systematic methodological review is to describe the strategies used by authors of overviews focusing on exercise-related interventions to manage the overlap of primary studies.Methods and analysisA comprehensive search strategy has been developed for different databases and their platforms. The databases to be consulted will be MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library) and Epistemonikos. Two reviewers will independently screen the records identified through the search strategy and extract the information from the included overviews. The frequency and the type of overlap management strategies of the primary studies included in the SRs will be considered as the main outcome. In addition, the recognition of the lack of use of any overlap management strategy and the congruence between planning and conducting the overview focusing on overlap management strategies will be assessed. A subgroup analysis will be carried out according to the journal impact factor, year of publication and compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews statement.Ethics and disseminationThis study will not involve human subjects and therefore does not require ethics committee approval. However, the conduct and reporting of the findings of this review will be conducted in a rigorous, systematic and transparent manner, which relates to research ethics.The findings of this review will be presented at scientific conferences and published as one or more studies in peer-review scientific journals related to rehabilitation or research methods.

Project description:IntroductionThe risk of getting SARS-CoV-2 infection, worries about exposing loved ones, anxiety and frustration, emotional and physical exhaustion, burn out, a feeling of being overwhelmed, and struggles and challenges with parenting are a few among many factors that affect nurses' personal lives and professional functioning. The aim of the research is to assess nurses' level of stress during the COVID-19 pandemic and their sense of self-efficacy, and to learn what coping strategies they use.Methodology/methodsThe study was carried out online and based on the diagnostic poll method, using an original survey questionnaire, the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES 10-40), the Mini-COPE questionnaire (0-3), and the Perceived Stress Scale PSS-10 (0-40). The respondent group was made up of nurses (n = 220) who provide health services in inpatient and outpatient health care institutions in the northeastern region of Poland. The statistical analysis was performed using the STATISTICA 13.0 package (StatSoft). The distribution of variables was checked with Shapiro-Wilk tests. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare two independent samples, while the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare more samples. The adopted statistical significance level was p < 0.05. Multivariate regression analysis was applied to determine which factors were related to the level of stress.ResultsThe mean age of the participants was 43.3 years. The vast majority were women (96.4). The mean work experience of the nurses was over 20 years (58.2%). A total of 62.3% worked directly with patients in hospitals, including 11.8% respondents working at COVID-19 units and 37.7% working at primary care institutions. The analyses show that the respondents represented a high level of stress (PSS-10 - 20.9), related to their work experience as a nurse (β -0.250, p = 0.014), the number of hours worked a month (β 0.156, p = 0.015), and self-assessed health status (β -0.145, p = 0.037). They declared an average sense of self-efficacy (GSES - 29.1), which significantly depended on the nurses' places of employment (p = 0.044). Out of stress coping strategies (Mini-COPE), the younger nurses mentioned venting (p = 0.010), instrumental support (p = 0.011), sense of humour (p = 0.013) and self-blame (0.031). Practice nurses also chose the strategy of behavioral disengagement (p = 0.032), and nurse managers chose the strategy of planning (p = 0.018).ConclusionsThe experience of the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need to implement some strategies to protect nurses' mental health and to take extensive prevention measures in critical situations. Special attention should be given to nurses who are younger and have shorter work experience. It is also important to monitor nurses' working time and health status, and those who work at outpatient health care institutions should be given more support and information.