scholarly journals Establishing key criteria to define and compare models of specialist palliative care: A mixed-methods study using qualitative interviews and Delphi survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 1114-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice M Firth ◽  
Suzanne M O’Brien ◽  
Ping Guo ◽  
Jane Seymour ◽  
Heather Richardson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Models Of Care ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

Background: Specialist palliative care services have various configurations of staff, processes and interventions, which determine how care is delivered. Currently, there is no consistent way to define and distinguish these different models of care. Aim: To identify the core components that characterise and differentiate existing models of specialist palliative care in the United Kingdom. Design: Mixed-methods study: (1) semi-structured interviews to identify criteria, (2) two-round Delphi study to rank/refine criteria, and (3) structured interviews to test/refine criteria. Setting/participants: Specialist palliative care stakeholders from hospice inpatient, hospital advisory, and community settings. Results: (1)  Semi-structured interviews with 14 clinical leads, from eight UK organisations (five hospice inpatient units, two hospital advisory teams, five community teams), provided 34 preliminary criteria. (2)  Delphi study: Round 1 (54 participants): thirty-four criteria presented, seven removed and seven added. Round 2 (30 participants): these 34 criteria were ranked with the 15 highest ranked criteria, including setting, type of care, size of service, diagnoses, disciplines, mode of care, types of interventions, ‘out-of-hours’ components (referrals, times, disciplines, mode of care, type of care), external education, use of measures, bereavement follow-up and complex grief provision. (3)  Structured interviews with 21 UK service leads (six hospice inpatients, four hospital advisory and nine community teams) refined the criteria from (1) and (2), and provided four further contextual criteria (team purpose, funding, self-referral acceptance and discharge). Conclusion: In this innovative study, we derive 20 criteria to characterise and differentiate models of specialist palliative care – a major paradigm shift to enable accurate reporting and comparison in practice and research.

Clinicians’ perceptions of opioid error–contributing factors in inpatient palliative care services: A qualitative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 430-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Heneka ◽  
Priyanka Bhattarai ◽  
Tim Shaw ◽  
Debra Rowett ◽  
Samuel Lapkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
System Level ◽  
Quality And Safety ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Contributing Factors ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

Background: Opioid errors are a leading cause of patient harm and adversely impact palliative care inpatients’ pain and symptom management. Yet, the factors contributing to opioid errors in palliative care are poorly understood. Identifying and better understanding the individual and system factors contributing to these errors is required to inform targeted strategies. Objectives: To explore palliative care clinicians’ perceptions of the factors contributing to opioid errors in Australian inpatient palliative care services. Design: A qualitative study using focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Settings: Three specialist palliative care inpatient services in New South Wales, Australia. Participants: Inpatient palliative care clinicians who are involved with, and/or have oversight of, the services’ opioid delivery or quality and safety processes. Methods: Deductive thematic content analysis of the qualitative data. The Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework was applied to identify error-contributing factors. Findings: A total of 58 clinicians participated in eight focus groups and 20 semi-structured interviews. Nine key error contributory factor domains were identified, including: active failures; task characteristics of opioid preparation; clinician inexperience; sub-optimal skill mix; gaps in support from central functions; the drug preparation environment; and sub-optimal clinical communication. Conclusion: This study identified multiple system-level factors contributing to opioid errors in inpatient palliative care services. Any quality and safety initiatives targeting safe opioid delivery in specialist palliative care services needs to consider the full range of contributing factors, from individual to systems/latent factors, which promote error-causing conditions.

scholarly journals A framework for complexity in palliative care: A qualitative study with patients, family carers and professionals

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1078-1090 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Pask ◽  
Cathryn Pinto ◽  
Katherine Bristowe ◽  
Liesbeth van Vliet ◽  
Caroline Nicholson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Family Health ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Palliative Care Services ◽  
Family Professionals

Background: Palliative care patients are often described as complex but evidence on complexity is limited. We need to understand complexity, including at individual patient-level, to define specialist palliative care, characterise palliative care populations and meaningfully compare interventions/outcomes. Aim: To explore palliative care stakeholders’ views on what makes a patient more or less complex and insights on capturing complexity at patient-level. Design: In-depth qualitative interviews, analysed using Framework analysis. Participants/setting: Semi-structured interviews across six UK centres with patients, family, professionals, managers and senior leads, purposively sampled by experience, background, location and setting (hospital, hospice and community). Results: 65 participants provided an understanding of complexity, which extended far beyond the commonly used physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains. Complexity included how patients interact with family/professionals, how services’ respond to needs and societal perspectives on care. ‘Pre-existing’, ‘cumulative’ and ‘invisible’ complexity are further important dimensions to delivering effective palliative and end-of-life care. The dynamic nature of illness and needs over time was also profoundly influential. Adapting Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory, we categorised findings into the microsystem (person, needs and characteristics), chronosystem (dynamic influences of time), mesosystem (interactions with family/health professionals), exosystem (palliative care services/systems) and macrosystem (societal influences). Stakeholders found it acceptable to capture complexity at the patient-level, with perceived benefits for improving palliative care resource allocation. Conclusion: Our conceptual framework encompasses additional elements beyond physical, psychological, social and spiritual domains and advances systematic understanding of complexity within the context of palliative care. This framework helps capture patient-level complexity and target resource provision in specialist palliative care.

Perceptions of palliative care among hematologic malignancy specialists: A mixed-methods study.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 9-9
Author(s):  
Thomas William LeBlanc ◽  
Jonathan David O'Donnell ◽  
Megan Crowley-Makota ◽  
Daniel Paul Dohan ◽  
Michael W. Rabow ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Solid Tumor ◽  
End Of Life Care ◽  
Hematologic Malignancy ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Mixed Methods Study ◽  
Life Care ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

9 Background: Patients with hematologic malignancies have unmet palliative care needs but are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. This difference is poorly understood. Methods: Multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic oncologists and solid tumor oncologists. Between February and October 2012, oncologists at 3 academic medical centers with well-established palliative care services completed surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth, semi-structured interviews about their views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We then analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods to explore reasons for observed differences. Results: Among 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies, and 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven of 23 hematologic oncologists (30%) reported never referring a patient to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred (p<0.001). In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, while most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex cases and/or offload burden in a busy clinic. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophical concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and a preference to control palliative aspects of patient care. Conclusions: Most hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, while solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for co-managing complex patients. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic oncologists.

scholarly journals Reluctance to Accept Palliative Care and Recommendations for Improvement: Findings From Semi-Structured Interviews With Patients and Caregivers

2021 ◽  
pp. 104990912110126
Author(s):  
Valeria Cardenas ◽  
Anna Rahman ◽  
Yujun Zhu ◽  
Susan Enguidanos
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Palliative Care Services

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.

scholarly journals Specialist palliative care services for older people in primary care: A systematic review using narrative synthesis

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim de Nooijer ◽  
Yolanda WH Penders ◽  
Lara Pivodic ◽  
Nele J Van Den Noortgate ◽  
Peter Pype ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Older People ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Family Carers ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Specialist Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services

Background: There is recognition that older people with incurable conditions should have access to specialist palliative care services. However, it remains unclear which activities and outcomes these services entail for older people in primary care and to which patients they are provided. Aim: The aim of this review was to identify the criteria for referral to specialist services; who provides specialist palliative care; through which activities and with which frequency; which outcomes are reported; and which suggestions are made to improve services. Design: Systematic review of the literature and narrative synthesis. Quality appraisal and selection of studies were performed independently by two researchers. Participant characteristics, intervention features, outcome data and suggestions for improvement were retrieved. Data sources: Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, Google Scholar, PsycINFO and CINAHL EBSCO databases (until June 2019). Results: Ten eligible articles, three qualitative, three quantitative, three mixed-method and one narrative review, were identified. Referral criteria were mainly based on patient characteristics such as diagnosis. The specialist services involved a variety of activities and outcomes and descriptions were often lacking. Services could be improved regarding the information flow between healthcare professionals, greater in-depth palliative care knowledge for case managers and social workers, identification of a key worker and support for family carers. Conclusion: The limited evidence available shows areas for improvement of the quality of and access to specialist services for older people, such as support for family carers. In addition, this review underscores the need for comprehensive reporting of interventions and the use of consensus-based outcome measures.

Mind the gap: do tertiary cancer centres need 24 hour access to specialist palliative care services?

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. A78.1-A78
Author(s):  
Owen Pooley ◽  
Alison Coackley ◽  
Agnes Noble ◽  
Ann Griffiths ◽  
Donna Arundell
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Specialist Palliative Care ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Palliative Care Services
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document