scholarly journals It’s Yet Another Thing: Barriers to and Recommendations for Physician Referrals to Home-Based Palliative Care

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 167-168
Author(s):  
Valeria Cardenas ◽  
YuJun Zhu ◽  
Jenna Giulioni ◽  
Anna Rahman ◽  
Susan Enguidanos ◽  
...  

Abstract To understand primary care providers’ (PCPs) experiences with referring patients to home-based palliative care (HBPC), we conducted individual, key-informant interviews with 31 PCPs. About half participants were male (54.8%), White (42.5%), US-born (58.1%), and were 57 years old (SD=9.17), on average. About one-third of participants (32.3%) indicated they refer 10+ patients annually to HBPC, while most (80.7%) reported “strong” comfort discussing palliative care with patients. Qualitative analysis revealed three prominent thematic categories, each related to barriers PCP experienced when referring patients to palliative care: (1) PCP-level (lack of knowledge and comfort); (2) perceived patient-level (culture, family disagreement, need, home-based aspect); and (3) HBPC program-level (need to close the loop with PCP, insurance coverage, program availability, and eligibility). PCP recommendations for overcoming identified barriers will be discussed. Findings hold important implications for timely patient-referrals to palliative care by PCPs and for sustaining palliative programs that rely on these referrals.

Author(s):  
Valeria Cardenas ◽  
Anna Rahman ◽  
Yujun Zhu ◽  
Susan Enguidanos

Background: Despite some insurance plans now paying for home-based palliative care, recent reports have suggested that insurance coverage for palliative care may be insufficient in expanding patient access to home-based palliative care. Aim: To identify patients’ and caregivers’ perceived barriers to home-based palliative care and their recommendations for overcoming these barriers. Design: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews. Our interview protocol elicited participants’ perspectives on home-based palliative care services; positive and negative aspects of the palliative program explanation; and suggestions for improving messaging around home-based palliative care. Setting/Participants: Twenty-five participants (patients, proxies, and their caregivers) who were eligible for a randomized controlled trial of home-based palliative care were interviewed by telephone. Results: Themes related to home-based palliative care referral barriers included reluctance to have home visits, enrollment timing, lack of palliative care knowledge, misconceptions about palliative care, and patients’ self-perceived health condition. Themes related to recommendations for overcoming these obstacles included ensuring that palliative care referrals come from healthcare providers or insurance companies and presenting palliative care services more clearly. Conclusion: Findings reinforce the need for additional palliative care education among patients with serious illness (and their caregivers) and the importance of delivering palliative care information and referrals from trusted sources.


Author(s):  
Ksenia Gorbenko ◽  
Emily Franzosa ◽  
Sybil Masse ◽  
Abraham A Brody ◽  
Orla Sheehan ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asha Mathew ◽  
Honor McQuinn ◽  
Diane M Flynn ◽  
Jeffrey C Ransom ◽  
Ardith Z Doorenbos

ABSTRACT Introduction Primary care providers are on the front lines of chronic pain management, with many reporting frustration, low confidence, and dissatisfaction in handling the complex issues associated with chronic pain care. Given the importance of their role and reported inadequacies and dissatisfaction in managing this challenging population, it is important to understand the perspectives of primary care providers when considering approaches to chronic pain management. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to comprehensively summarize the provider challenges and suggestions to improve chronic pain care in military primary care settings. Materials and Methods Semi-structured interviews with 12 military primary care providers were conducted in a single U.S. Army medical center. All interviews were audio-recorded and lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Interview transcripts were analyzed using ATLAS 9.0 software. Narratives were analyzed using a general inductive approach to content analysis. The Framework Method was used to organize the codes and emergent categories. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Washington. Results Four categories captured providers’ challenges and suggestions for improving chronic pain care: (1) tools for comprehensive pain assessment and patient education, (2) time available for each chronic pain appointment, (3) provider training and education, and (4) team-based approach to chronic pain management. Providers suggested use of the Pain Assessment Screening Tool and Outcomes Registry, more time per visit, incorporation of chronic pain care in health sciences curriculum, consistent provider training across the board, insurance coverage for complementary and integrative therapies, patient education, and improved access to interdisciplinary chronic pain care. Conclusions Lack of standardized multifaceted tools, time constraints on chronic pain appointments, inadequate provider education, and limited access to complementary and integrative health therapies are significant provider challenges. Insurance coverage for complementary and integrative health therapies needs to be expanded. The Stepped Care Model of Pain Management is a positive and definite stride toward addressing many of these challenges. Future studies should examine the extent of improvement in guidelines-concordant chronic pain care, patient outcomes, and provider satisfaction following the implementation of the Stepped Care Model of Pain Management in military health settings.


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 1131-1145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariko L Carey ◽  
Alison C Zucca ◽  
Megan AG Freund ◽  
Jamie Bryant ◽  
Anne Herrmann ◽  
...  

Background: There is increasing demand for primary care practitioners to play a key role in palliative care delivery. Given this, it is important to understand their perceptions of the barriers and enablers to optimal palliative care, and how commonly these are experienced. Aim: To explore the type and prevalence of barriers and enablers to palliative care provision reported by primary care practitioners. Design: A systematic review of quantitative data-based articles was conducted. Data sources: Medline, Embase and PsychINFO databases were searched for articles published between January 2007 and March 2019. Data synthesis: Abstracts were assessed against the eligibility criteria by one reviewer and a random sample of 80 articles were blind coded by a second author. Data were extracted from eligible full-texts by one author and checked by a second. Given the heterogeneity in the included studies’ methods and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was undertaken. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. The most common barriers related to bureaucratic procedures, communication between healthcare professionals, primary care practitioners’ personal commitments, and their skills or confidence. The most common enablers related to education, nurses and trained respite staff to assist with care delivery, better communication between professionals, and templates to facilitate referral to out-of-hours services. Conclusion: A holistic approach addressing the range of barriers reported in this review is needed to support primary care providers to deliver palliative care. This includes better training and addressing barriers related to the interface between healthcare services.


Geriatrics ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine O’Brien ◽  
Sara Bradley ◽  
Vanessa Ramirez-Zohfeld ◽  
Lee Lindquist

The numbers of homebound patients in the United States are increasing. Home-based primary care (HBPC) is an effective model of interdisciplinary care that has been shown to have high patient satisfaction rates and excellent clinical outcomes. However, there are few clinicians that practice HBPC and clinicians that do face additional stressors. This study sought to better understand the stressors that HBPC providers face in caring for homebound patients. This was a cross-sectional qualitative survey and analysis of HBPC providers. Responses were categorized into four themes: The patient in the home setting, caregiver support, logistics, and administrative concerns. This research is the first to analyze the stressors that providers of HBPC face in serving the needs of complex homebound patients. Awareness and attention to these issues will be important for the future sustainability of home-based primary care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca M. Crimmins ◽  
Lydia Elliott ◽  
Darren T. Absher

Context: Heart failure (HF) is a complex, life-limiting disease that is prevalent and burdensome. All major cardiology societies and international clinical practice guidelines recommend the integration of palliative care (PC) interventions alongside usual HF management. Objectives: The purpose of this review of the literature was to evaluate the various barriers to the early initiation of PC for HF patients in the primary care setting. Methods: An integrative literature review was conducted in order to assess and incorporate the diverse sources of literature available. An EBSCO search identified relevant articles in the following databases: Medline complete, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and SocINDEX. The search was limited to full text, peer reviewed, English only, and published between 2010 and 2019. Results: Barriers to the integration of PC for HF patients include poor communication between provider/patient and interdisciplinary providers, the misperception and miseducation of what PC is and how it can be incorporated into patient care, the unpredictable disease trajectory of HF, and the limited time allowed for patient care in the primary care setting. Conclusion: The results of this review highlight a lack of communication, time, and knowledge as barriers to delivering PC. Primary care providers caring for patients with HF need to establish an Annual Heart Failure Review to meticulously evaluate symptoms and allow the time for communication involving prognosis, utilize a PC referral screening tool such as the Needs Assessment Tool: Progressive Disease-Heart Failure, and thoroughly understand the benefits and appropriate integration of PC.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Taro Tomizuka ◽  
Tomone Watanabe ◽  
Satoru Kamitani ◽  
Takahiro Higashi

84 Background: To improve coordination of cancer care between cancer specialist hospitals and primary care providers (PCPs), the Japanese government accredited cancer specialist hospitals, so called “designated cancer care hospitals (DCCHs)” and introduced “Cancer care coordination instruction fee” which PCPs can receive if they share a cancer critical path (Japanese version of Survivorship Care Plans) of each cancer patient with DCCHs. We sought to assess the current status of coordination of cancer care in Japan and communication between DCCHs and PCPs from PCPs’ point of view. Methods: A cross-sectional mail survey was administered to randomly selected clinic-based PCPs (4,000 clinics) from a nation-wide database of medical institutions authorized by Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Japan to treat patients with health insurance (87,869 clinics). The survey evaluated how much PCPs provided cancer follow-up care and how well DCCHs coordinated care and communicated with PCPs in cancer survivorship. Results: 1,873 PCPs returned the questionnaire (response rate: 46.8%). 1,223 (65.3%) answered to provide cancer follow-up care in outpatient setting. Most of the PCPs which provided cancer follow-up care evaluated the care coordination and support by DCCHs were satisfactory (946, 77.4%) but the degree of good evaluation varied by region (highest: 91.3%, lowest: 45.8%). In regression analysis, provision of palliative care by PCPs (OR 1.52 95%CI 1.05-2.17) and use of cancer critical path (OR 2.10 95%CI 1.63-2.71) were significantly correlated with better evaluation of communication and care coordination. Conclusions: DCCHs communicated well with PCPs and PCPs were satisfied with the communication and care coordination by DCCHs. Provision of palliative care by PCPs and use of cancer critical path are likely to lead good care coordination in cancer care.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23142-e23142
Author(s):  
Oren Hannun Levine ◽  
Daryl Bainbridge ◽  
Gregory Russell Pond ◽  
Marissa Slaven ◽  
Sukhbinder K. Dhesy-Thind ◽  
...  

e23142 Background: Advanced cancer patients benefit from early integration of palliative care (EIPC) with usual care. A proposed model of EIPC reserves specialized palliative care (SPC) for complex patients, while primary care providers (PCP) and oncologists oversee basic palliative care (PC). We studied the attitudes among patients and their healthcare providers regarding delivery of EIPC. Methods: A cross-sectional study at a tertiary cancer centre in Ontario. Patients with newly diagnosed incurable gastrointestinal (GI) cancer were surveyed using a study specific instrument for the outcomes of interest: importance of and preferences for accessing support across 8 domains of PC (disease management, physical, psychological, social, spiritual, practical, end of life care, loss and grief). Healthcare providers within the circle of care completed a parallel survey for each recruited patient. Primary analysis involved use of descriptive statistics to summarize survey results and concordance between patient and provider responses. Results: From Oct 2017 - Nov 2018, 67 patients were surveyed (median age 69, 34% female). 90% had an identified medical oncologist, and 19% had SPC. 97% had a PCP, but only 42% listed a PCP as part of the care team. Median time from first oncology assessment for advanced cancer to patient survey completion was 52.5 days. 85 providers responded (oncologist = 59, PCP = 20, SPC = 6; response rate 92%; 1-3 physician responses per patient). Disease management and physical concerns were most important to patients. In these domains, 67% and 81% of patients endorsed receiving care from the preferred provider, but concordance between patient and physician responses regarding most responsible provider was only 58% and 38%. For all other domains, 87 – 100% of patients attributed primary responsibility to self or family rather than any healthcare provider. Conclusions: Respondents did not assign responsibility to physicians early in the disease trajectory for many domains of PC. Our findings suggest that incorporating patient activation and empowerment into EIPC requires further study. PCPs appeared to have limited involvement in PC for newly diagnosed advanced GI cancer patients.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Rodriguez ◽  
Kevin Hwang ◽  
Jing Wang

BACKGROUND There is a lack of research on how to best incorporate home-based self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) measurements, combined with other patient-generated health data (PGHD), into electronic health record (EHR) systems in a way that promotes primary care workflow without burdening the primary care team with irrelevant or superfluous data. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to explore the perspectives of primary care providers in utilizing SMBP measurements and integrating SMBP data into the clinical workflow for the management of hypertension in the primary care setting. METHODS A total of 13 primary care physicians were interviewed in total; 5 in individual interviews and 8 in a focus group. The interview questions were centered on (1) the value of SMBP in hypertension care, (2) needs of viewing SMBP and desired visual display, (3) desired alert algorithm and critical values, (4) needs for other PGHD, and (5) workflow of primary care team in utilizing SMBP. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, and a thematic analysis was performed to extract overarching themes. RESULTS The primary care experience of the 13 providers ranged from 5 to 35 years. The following themes emerged from the individual and focus group interviews: (1) ways to utilize SMBP measurements in primary care, (2) preferred visual display of SMBP, (3) patient condition determines preferred scheduling of patient SMBP measurements and provider’s preferred frequency of viewing SMBP data, (4) effect of patient condition on alert parameters, (5) location to receive critical value alerts, (6) primary recipient of critical value alerts, and (7) the need of additional PGHD (eg, emotional stressors, food diary, and medication adherence) to provide context of SMBP values. CONCLUSIONS The perspectives of primary care providers need to be incorporated into the design of a built-in interface in the EHR to incorporate SMBP and other PGHD. Future usability evaluation should be conducted with mock-up interfaces to solicit opinions on the optimal alert frequency and mechanism to best fit the workflow in the primary care setting. Future studies should examine how the utilization of a built-in interface that fully integrates SMBP measurements and PGHD into EHR systems can support patient self-management and thus, improve patient outcomes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document