Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with cancer are at higher risk of more severe COVID-19 infection and have more associated complications. The position paper describes the management of cancer patients, especially those receiving anticancer treatment, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dyspnea is a common emergency presentation in patients with cancer with a wide range of differential diagnoses, including pulmonary embolism, pleural disease, lymphangitis, and infection, of which SARS-CoV-2 is now a pathogen to be considered. Screening interviews to determine whether patients may be infected with COVID-19 are imperative to prevent the spread of infection, especially within healthcare facilities. Cancer patients testing positive with no or minimal symptoms may be monitored from home. Telemedicine is an option to aid in following patients without potential exposure. Management of complications of systemic anticancer treatment, such as febrile neutropenia (FN), is of particular importance during the COVID-19 pandemic where clinicians aim to minimize patients’ risk of infection and need for hospital visits. Outpatient management of patients with low-risk FN is a safe and effective strategy. Although the MASCC score has not been validated in patients with suspected or confirmed SARS-CoV-2, it has nevertheless performed well in patients with a range of infective illnesses and, accordingly, it is reasonable to expect efficacy in the clinical setting of COVID-19. Risk stratification of patients presenting with FN is a vital tenet of the evolving sepsis and pandemic strategy, necessitating access to locally formulated services based on MASCC and other national and international guidelines. Innovative oncology services will need to utilize telemedicine, hospital at home, and ambulatory care services approaches not only to limit the number of hospital visits but also to anticipate the complications of the anticancer treatments.

Background There is increased demand for urgent and acute services during the winter months, placing pressure on acute medicine services caring for emergency medical admissions. Hospital services adopt measures aiming to compensate for the effects of this increased pressure. This study aimed to describe the measures adopted by acute medicine services to address service pressures during winter. Methods A survey of acute hospitals was conducted during the Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit, a national day-of-care audit, on 30th January 2020. Survey questions were derived from national guidance. Acute medicine services at 93 hospitals in the United Kingdom completed the survey, evaluating service measures implemented to mitigate increased demand, as well as markers of increased pressure on services. Results All acute internal medicine services had undertaken measures to prepare for increased demand, however there was marked variation in the combination of measures adopted. 81.7% of hospitals had expanded the number of medical inpatient beds available. 80.4% had added extra clinical staff. The specialty of the physicians assigned to provide care for extra inpatient beds varied. A quarter of units had reduced beds available for providing Same Day Emergency Care on the day of the survey. Patients had been waiting in corridors within the emergency medicine department in 56.3% of units. Conclusion Winter pressure places considerable demand on acute services, and impacts the delivery of care. Although increased pressure on acute hospital services during winter is widely recognised, there is considerable variation in the approach to planning for these periods of increased demand.

AimTo evaluate the current provision of medical same day emergency care (SDEC) services within the UK, and the current utilisation of these pathways in the assessment of unplanned medical attendances.DesignSurvey data was used from the Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA), including anonymised patient-level data collected annually using a day of care survey.SettingHospitals accepting unplanned medical attendances within the UK, 2019–2023.Participants34 948 unplanned and 4342 planned attendances across 188 hospital sites.Results29.8% of unplanned medical attendances received their initial medical assessment within SDEC services (2403 patients in SAMBA23), with the proportion increasing over time. 82.4% of patients assessed in SDEC services were discharged without overnight admission. Assessment in SDEC services was less likely in male patients, patients with frailty and older adults (all p<0.005).Selected operational standards for SDEC delivery, set by the Society for Acute Medicine, were met in 64%–91% of hospitals. Most hospitals (82%) accepted referrals from emergency department triage and 63% accepted referrals directly from the paramedic team. 38% of hospitals did not use a recognised selection criteria to identify suitable patients for SDEC and only 8% used a criteria designed to identify patients suitable for discharge. Overall, 34.7% of medical attendances discharged without overnight admission received their medical assessment in locations other than SDEC.ConclusionsMedical SDEC provides assessment for one-third of patients seen through acute medicine services. Although the proportion of patients assessed within SDEC is increasing, further innovation and improvements are needed to ensure appropriate patients access this service.

Introduction Older people living with frailty are at high risk of emergency hospital admission and often have complex care needs which may not be adequately met by conventional models of acute care. This has driven the introduction of adaptations to acute care pathways designed to improve outcomes in this patient group. The identification of differences in the organisational approach to frailty may highlight opportunities for quality improvement. Methods The Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking audit is a national service evaluation which uses a single day-of-care methodology to record patient and organisational level data. All acute hospitals in the United Kingdom are eligible to participate. Emergency admissions referred to acute medical services between 00:00 and 23:59 on Thursday 23rd June 2022 were recorded. Information on the structure and operational design of acute frailty services was collected. The use of a validated frailty assessment tool, clinical frailty scale within the first 24 h of admission, assessment by an acute frailty service and clinical outcomes were reported in patients aged 70 year and above. A mixed effect generalised linear model was used to determine factors associated same-day discharge without overnight stay in patients with frailty. Results A total of 152 hospitals participated. There was significant heterogeneity in the operational design and staffing model of acute frailty services. The presence of an acute frailty unit was reported in 57 (42.2%) hospitals. The use of validated frailty assessment tools was reported in 117 (90.0%) hospitals, of which 107 (91.5%) used the clinical frailty scale. Patient-level data were recorded for 3604 patients aged 70 years and above. At the patient level, 1626 (45.1%) were assessed using a validated tool during the admission process. Assessment by acute frailty services was associated with an increased likelihood of same-day discharge (adjusted OR 1.55, 95%CI 1.03- 2.39). Conclusion There is significant variation in the provision of acute frailty services. Frailty-related policies and services are common at the organisational level but implemented inconsistently at the patient level. Older people with frailty or geriatric syndromes assessed by acute frailty services were more likely to be discharged without the need for overnight bed-based admission.

Background The incorporation of acute frailty services into the acute care pathway is increasingly common. The prevalence and impact of acute frailty services in the UK are currently unclear. Methods The Society for Acute Medicine Benchmarking Audit (SAMBA) is a day of care survey undertaken annually within the UK. SAMBA 2019 (SAMBA19) took place on Thursday 27th June 2019. A questionnaire was used to collect hospital and patient-level data on the structure and organisation of acute care delivery. SAMBA19 sought to establish the frequency of frailty assessment tool use and describe acute frailty services nationally. Hospitals were classified based on the presence of acute frailty services and metrics of performance compared. Results A total of 3218 patients aged ≥70 admitted to 129 hospitals were recorded in SAMBA19. The use of frailty assessment tools was reported in 80 (62.0%) hospitals. The proportion of patients assessed for the presence of frailty in individual hospitals ranged from 2.2 to 100%. Bedded Acute Frailty Units were reported in 65 (50.3%) hospitals. There was significant variation in admission rates between hospitals. This was not explained by the presence of a frailty screening policy or presence of a dedicated frailty unit. Conclusion Two fifths of participating UK hospitals did not have a routine frailty screening policy: where this existed, rates of assessment for frailty were variable and most at-risk patients were not assessed. Responses to positive results were poorly defined. The provision of acute frailty services is variable throughout the UK. Improvement is needed for the aspirations of national policy to be fully realised.

The development of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has revolutionized cancer treatment, with agents such as nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and cemiplimab targeting programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and durvalumab, avelumab, and atezolizumab targeting PD-ligand 1 (PD-L1). Ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4). These inhibitors have shown remarkable efficacy in melanoma, lung cancer, urothelial cancer, and a variety of solid tumors, either as single agents or in combination with other anticancer modalities. Additional indications are continuing to evolve. Checkpoint inhibitors are associated with less toxicity when compared to chemotherapy. These agents enhance the antitumor immune response and produce side- effects known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Although the incidence of immune checkpoint inhibitor pneumonitis (ICI-Pneumonitis) is relatively low, this complication is likely to cause the delay or cessation of immunotherapy and, in severe cases, may be associated with treatment-related mortality. The primary mechanism of ICI-Pneumonitis remains unclear, but it is believed to be associated with the immune dysregulation caused by ICIs. The development of irAEs may be related to increased T cell activity against cross-antigens expressed in tumor and normal tissues. Treatment with ICIs is associated with an increased number of activated alveolar T cells and reduced activity of the anti-inflammatory Treg phenotype, leading to dysregulation of T cell activity. This review discusses the pathogenesis of alveolar pneumonitis and the incidence, diagnosis, and clinical management of pulmonary toxicity, as well as the pulmonary complications of ICIs, either as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer modalities, such as thoracic radiotherapy.

Virtual wards must not distract from the urgent need for long term workforce, clinical, and capacity plans, write Dan Lasserson and Tim Cooksley

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as the newest pillar of cancer treatment, transforming outcomes in melanoma and showing benefit in a range of malignancies. Immune-mediated toxicities, stemming from increased activity within the T cell lineage, range from asymptomatic or mild complications to those that are fulminant and potentially fatal. Immune-mediated endocrinopathies include hypophysitis, thyroiditis, and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. These presentations, which may be vague and non-specific, can be life-threatening if not diagnosed and treated appropriately. This review considers the work-up and management of immune-mediated endocrinopathies and also considers the role of advanced practice practitioners in the management of immune-mediated toxicities. These state-of-the-art MASCC recommendations represent a comprehensive overview of the management and clinical work-up in those in whom the diagnosis should be considered.