Shared decision-making is widely advocated in policy and practice, but how it is to be applied in a high-stakes clinical decision such as major lower limb amputation due to chronic limb-threatening ischaemia or diabetic foot is unclear. The aim of this study was to explore the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation.

A qualitative study (done as part of a broader mixed-methods study) using semi-structured interviews. Interview transcriptions were analysed using thematic analysis.

Vascular centres in three large National Health Service hospitals in Wales and England, UK, between 1 October 2020 and 30 September 2022.

A purposive sample of 18 patients for whom major lower limb amputation was considered as a treatment option/carried out, with interviews conducted before or within 4 months of amputation and 4–6 months after amputation. A further purposive sample of 20 healthcare professionals (including eight surgeons) involved in supporting or conducting major lower limb amputation decision-making.

Five major categories were identified that highlighted the challenges of ensuring shared decision-making associated with major lower limb amputation: (i) patients’ limited understanding, (ii) variable patient attitudes to decision-making, (iii) healthcare professionals’ perceived challenges to sharing decision-making, (iv) surgeons’ paternalism and (v) patients’ and healthcare professionals’ decisional regret/possible consequences of challenges.

Amputation is a life-changing decision for both patients and healthcare professionals, with huge consequences. Despite being considered the gold standard, our findings highlight several challenges to effective shared decision-making for major lower limb amputation. Shared decision-making training for healthcare professionals is paramount if these limitations are to be addressed and patients are to feel confident in being adequately informed about the treatment decisions that they make.

NCT04903756.

Frequent haemodialysis creates close-knit communities within treatment units, where high patient mortality contributes to significant grief among patients and staff. Despite the emotional toll, support for grief and bereavement in these settings remains limited, and recent data are lacking. This scoping review aims to explore how patients and nursing staff within haemodialysis units experience and cope with bereavement, and to identify support strategies currently used or desired to inform future, culturally sensitive approaches, particularly in Australia.

Scoping review conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology.

A comprehensive search was conducted using the Clinical Information Access Portal, supplemented by grey literature and the Elicit AI Research Assistant tool.

We included literature exploring patient and nurse perspectives on grief and bereavement in haemodialysis units. Studies outside the haemodialysis setting and non-English studies were excluded. There were no geographical or publication year limitations.

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. A data extraction table was used to collect study characteristics and key findings. Thematic analysis was applied to synthesise data across studies.

17 publications from 1998 to 2021 were identified across five countries. Grief and bereavement following patient death profoundly shape haemodialysis unit dynamics. Patients form familial bonds and experience deep grief when peers die, while nurses face emotional stress and burnout. Reported support strategies include memorial services, peer and staff support, counselling and debriefing and spiritual care.

This study describes grief experiences, support strategies and cultural implications in haemodialysis units, which serve a culturally diverse group of people. By consolidating available knowledge, this review provides a critical platform for future empirical work and calls for culturally sensitive support and larger, diverse samples in future research.

Motor neuron disease/amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (MND/ALS/ALS) is an incurable disease which leads to muscle weakness that worsens over time. MND/ALS is highly heterogeneous in its presentation, with many people experiencing a rapidly progressive trajectory of symptoms. Many people living with MND/ALS (plwMND/ALS) experience a combination of flaccidity and spasticity of the muscles involved in speech, swallowing, breathing and coughing. This makes it challenging to deal with the saliva and mucous (‘secretions") produced by the body. Failure to manage these problems effectively can lead to accumulation and aspiration of secretions, which may cause pneumonia and respiratory insufficiency. Knowing the best way to treat this problem is a challenge. Systematic reviews report substantive ongoing uncertainty regarding secretions management (SM). Little is known about the comparative effectiveness of secretion management interventions, their impact on quality of life and acceptability for plwMND/ALS and their unpaid/family.

A complex intervention systematic review of SM for plwMND/ALS and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach, designed in accordance with the principles and guidance laid out in a series of articles published by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on complex intervention reviews . Eight electronic databases will be searched for publications between 1996 and present: Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO Academic Search Ultimate, Scopus, EBSCO PsycInfo, Ovid MEDLINE and the Social Sciences Citation Index. This will be supplemented by hand searching of reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the results for potentially eligible studies using AS Review Lab (a semi-automated machine learning tool). Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A framework thematic synthesis approach will be employed to analyse and report quantitative and qualitative data. The reporting will be conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Intervention Extension Statement and Checklist.

This review will involve the secondary analysis of published information; therefore, ethical approvals are not required. Dissemination will be via presentation at scientific meetings, presentations to MND/ALS support groups and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

CRD42025102364.