Charlie Corke
Deakin University
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Charlie Corke.
BMJ | 2014
Karen Detering; William Silvester; Charlie Corke; Sharyn Milnes; R Fullam; Virginia Lewis; J Renton
Objective To develop and evaluate an interactive advance care planning (ACP) educational programme for general practitioners and doctors-in-training. Design Development of training materials was overseen by a committee; informed by literature and previous teaching experience. The evaluation assessed participant confidence, knowledge and attitude toward ACP before and after training. Setting Training provided to metropolitan and rural settings in Victoria, Australia. Participants 148 doctors participated in training. The majority were aged at least 40 years with more than 10 years work experience; 63% had not trained in Australia. Intervention The programme included prereading, a DVD, interactive patient e-simulation workshop and a training manual. All educational materials followed an evidence-based stepwise approach to ACP: Introducing the topic, exploring concepts, introducing solutions and summarising the conversation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the change in doctors’ self-reported confidence to undertake ACP conversations. Secondary measures included pretest/post-test scores in patient ACP e-simulation, change in ACP knowledge and attitude, and satisfaction with programme materials. Results 69 participants completed the preworkshop and postworkshop evaluation. Following education, there was a significant change in self-reported confidence in six of eight items (p=0.008 –0.08). There was a significant improvement (p<0.001) in median scores on the e-simulation (pre 7/80, post 60/80). There were no significant differences observed in ACP knowledge following training, and most participants were supportive of patient autonomy and ACP pretraining. Educational materials were rated highly. Conclusions A short multimodal interactive education programme improves doctors’ confidence with ACP and performance on an ACP patient e-simulation.
BMJ | 2015
Sharyn Milnes; Neil Orford; Laura Berkeley; Nigel Lambert; Nicholas Simpson; Tania Elderkin; Charlie Corke; Michael Bailey
Objectives Report the use of an objective tool, UK Gold Standards Framework (GSF) criteria, to describe the prevalence, recognition and outcomes of patients with palliative care needs in an Australian acute health setting. The rationale for this is to enable hospital doctors to identify patients who should have a patient-centred discussion about goals of care in hospital. Design Prospective, observational, cohort study. Participants Adult in-patients during two separate 24 h periods. Main outcome measures Prevalence of in-patients with GSF criteria, documentation of treatment limitations, hospital and 1 year survival, admission and discharge destination and multivariate regression analysis of factors associated with the presence of hospital treatment limitations and 1 year survival. Results Of 626 in-patients reviewed, 171 (27.3%) had at least one GSF criterion, with documentation of a treatment limitation discussion in 60 (30.5%) of those patients who had GSF criteria. Hospital mortality was 9.9%, 1 year mortality 50.3% and 3-year mortality 70.2% in patients with GSF criteria. One-year mortality was highest in patients with GSF cancer (73%), renal failure (67%) and heart failure (60%) criteria. Multivariate analysis revealed age, hospital length of stay and presence of the GSF chronic obstructive pulmonary disease criteria were independently associated with the likelihood of an in-hospital treatment limitation. Non-survivors at 3 years were more likely to have a GSF cancer (25% vs 6%, p=0.004), neurological (10% vs 3%, p=0.04), or frailty (45% vs 3%, p=0.04) criteria. After multivariate logistic regression GSF cancer criteria, renal failure criteria and the presence of two or more GSF clinical criteria were independently associated with increased risk of death at 3 years. Patients returning home to live reduced from 69% (preadmission) to 27% after discharge. Conclusions The use of an objective clinical tool identifies a high prevalence of patients with palliative care needs in the acute tertiary Australian hospital setting, with a high 1 year mortality and poor return to independence in this population. The low rate of documentation of discussions about treatment limitations in this population suggests palliative care needs are not recognised and discussed in the majority of patients. Trial registration number 11/121.
BMJ | 2017
Sharyn Milnes; Charlie Corke; Neil Orford; Michael Bailey; Julian Savulescu; Dominic Wilkinson
Medicine regards the prevention of death as an important priority. Yet patients may have a range of priorities of equal or greater importance. These other priorities are often not discussed or appreciated by treating doctors. Objectives We sought to identify priorities of care for patients attending an advance care planning (ACP) clinic and among the general population, and to identify factors associated with priorities other than prolonging life. Methods We used a locally developed survey tool ‘What Matters Most’ to identify values. Choices presented were: maintaining dignity, avoiding pain and suffering, living as long as possible, and remaining independent. Participants rated the importance of each and then selected a main priority for their doctor. Participant groups were a purposive sample of 382 lay people from the general population and 100 attendees at an ACP clinic. Results Living as long as possible was considered to be less important than other values for ACP patients and for the general population. Only 4% of ACP patients surveyed and 2.6% of our general population sample selected ‘living as long as possible’ as their top priority for medical treatment. Conclusions ‘Living as long as possible’ was not the most important value for ACP patients, or for a younger general population. Prioritisation of other goals appeared to be independent of extreme age or illness. When end of life treatment is being discussed with patients, priorities other than merely prolonging life should be considered.
BMJ | 2017
Neil Orford; Sharyn Milnes; Nicholas Simpson; Gerry Keely; Tania Elderkin; Allison Bone; Peter Martin; Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael Bailey; Charlie Corke
Objectives To describe the effect of a communication skills training programme on patient-centred goals of care documentation and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with life-limiting illnesses (LLI) referred for intensive care management. Methods Prospective before-and-after cohort study in a tertiary teaching hospital in Australia. The population was 222 adult patients with LLI referred to the intensive care unit (ICU). The study was divided into two periods, before (1 May to 31 July 2015) and after (15 September to 15December 2015) the intervention. The intervention was a 2-day, small group, simulated-patient, communication skills course, and process of care for patients with LLI. The primary outcome was documentation of patient-centred goals of care discussion (PCD) within 48 hours of referral to the ICU. Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes and 90-day mortality. Results The intervention was associated with increased documentation of a PCD from 50% to 69% (p=0.004) and 43% to 94% (p<0.0001) in patients deceased by day 90. A significant decrease in critical care as the choice of resuscitation goal (61% vs 42%, p=0.02) was observed. Although there was no decrease in admission to ICU, there was a significant decrease in medical emergency team call prevalence (87% vs 73%, p=0.009). The cancer and organ failure groups had a significant decrease in 90-day mortality (75% vs 44%, p=0.02; 42% vs 16%, p=0.01), and the frailty group had a significant decrease in 90-day readmissions (48% vs 19%, p=0.003). Conclusions The intervention was associated with increased PCD documentation and decrease in the choice of critical care as the resuscitation goal. Admissions to ICU did not decrease, and although limited by study design, condition-specific trajectory changes, clinical interventions and outcomes warrant further study.
Critical Care and Resuscitation | 2009
Charlie Corke; Sharyn Milnes; Neil Orford; Margaret J. Henry; Claire Foss; Deborah Porter
Critical Care and Resuscitation | 2009
Charlie Corke; Evelyne de Leeuw; Sing Kai Lo; Carol George
Critical Care and Resuscitation | 2014
Leo Nunnink; Carole Foot; Bala Venkatesh; Charlie Corke; Manoj Saxena; Mark Lucey; Mark Jones
Critical Care and Resuscitation | 2016
Neil Orford; Sharyn Milnes; Nigel Lambert; Laura Berkeley; Stephen Lane; Nicholas Simpson; Tania Elderkin; Allison Bone; Peter Martin; Charlie Corke; Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael Bailey
Critical Care and Resuscitation | 2010
Charlie Corke; William Silvester; Rinaldo Bellomo
Critical Care and Resuscitation | 2016
Balasubramanian Venkatesh; Charlie Corke; Raper R; M. Pinder; Di Stephens; Gavin M. Joynt; Peter Morley; Rinaldo Bellomo; Bevan R; Ross Freebairn; Varghese B; Ashbolt M; Hawker F; Jacobe S; Yong S