To synthesise the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patients/residents of hospitals/nursing homes about determinants of inappropriate indwelling urinary catheter (IUC) use and strategies for reduction.

Qualitative evidence synthesis.

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus and CINAHL for studies published between 1 January 2000 and 23 May 2025.

Studies were eligible if they used qualitative methods to explore the perceptions and experiences of healthcare professionals and patients/residents of hospitals/nursing homes or their family members regarding the determinants of IUC use and reduction. Included studies focused on behavioural drivers or strategies to reduce inappropriate IUC use.

Two independent authors reviewed the search results, extracted and coded data, and assessed methodological strengths and limitations of studies. We used a thematic synthesis approach following the Cochrane–Campbell Handbook for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation–Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research approach to assess confidence in the findings.

We synthesised 24 studies. Perceived determinants of inappropriate IUC use included non-adherence to guidelines due to vague indications for initial IUC insertion, differing perspectives on benefits and risks, low priority given to the topic, limited accessibility or perceived unsuitability of alternatives, high nurse workload and staff shortages (moderate confidence). Ineffective nurse–physician communication, documentation difficulties and lack of training were also assumed to be linked to inappropriate IUC use (low confidence). Mentioned strategies for the reduction of inappropriate IUC use included additional training for healthcare professionals, clinician reminders to review or remove catheters, improved electronic documentation systems, increased staffing and greater use of IUC alternatives.

Key drivers of inappropriate IUC use are vague indications and routine decisions, lack of suitable and available alternatives, staff shortages and perceived lack of importance of the topic. Addressing these barriers is important for deimplementing inappropriate IUC use, and multifaceted strategies appear to be the most promising approach to address the multiple factors that drive current IUC misuse.

CRD42024531522.

Emergence agitation (EA), defined as acute postoperative restlessness after general anaesthesia, is a common complication in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). The reported incidence of EA is nearly 30% in neurosurgical surgery, which bears tremendous risks for neurosurgical patients. Although current evidence suggests that remifentanil may reduce EA risk in non-cardiac settings, its preventive efficacy in patients undergoing intracranial surgery remains unclear.

In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-group prospective clinical trial, patients scheduled for elective craniotomy will be screened to confirm their eligibility. After surgery under general anaesthesia, patients will be assigned to groups to receive either remifentanil or placebo infusion on admission to the PACU. The remifentanil group will be given remifentanil infusion at a dose of 0.1 µg/(kgxmin), whereas the control group will be given the same volume of normal saline. The primary outcome is the effect of remifentanil on EA incidence during the emergence period. Secondary outcomes include the following: time to regain consciousness, extubation time, total PACU duration, extubation comfort score measured by the modified Minogue Scale, postoperative pain intensity assessed using a Numerical Rating Scale, awakening quality and postoperative delirium assessed by alertness and orientation score, and a 3-Minute Diagnostic Interview for Confusion Assessment Method.

The study protocol (V.4.0, dated 14 August 2025, No. 2025–0954) has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine and complies with the Declaration of Helsinki and relevant regulations for research involving human participants. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

ChiCTR2500096691.

Specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC) is an important element of the palliative care concept in Germany. The aim of this study is to compare patient characteristics, care processes and outcomes of patients with heart failure (HF) and oncological diseases, using the latter as a reference group to identify disease-specific needs and support the adaptation of SOPC to non-oncological conditions such as HF.

In this cross-sectional study (22 SOPC providers), clinical data of all palliative care patients who were treated between 2017 and 2021 were retrospectively analysed.

Survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. To further examine the relationship between patient survival time and various variables, a Cox proportional hazards model was used. Differences in symptom burden were tested for statistical significance using the McNemar test.

Data from 48 882 patients were analysed, with 5387 (11.0%) identified as having a primary HF diagnosis. This cohort was compared against a large oncological group consisting of 34 287 (70.1%) patients.

For HF patients, the mean number of days spent in SOPC was 30.5±67.7 days and for oncological patients 44.1±72.0 days. A significantly higher proportion of oncological patients died in hospices (14.0%) and hospitals (6.9%) compared with HF (2.9% and 2.2%). Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index at admission into SOPC was 9.4±3.1 in oncological patients compared with 6.7±1.7 in HF (p

HF patients in SOPC exhibit a different clinical profile compared with oncological patients, characterised by significant symptom burden and shorter survival times. These results emphasise the necessity for tailored palliative interventions to address the specific needs of HF patients.