Systematic review of barriers and enablers to the delivery of palliative care by primary care practitioners

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (9) ◽  
pp. 1131-1145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariko L Carey ◽  
Alison C Zucca ◽  
Megan AG Freund ◽  
Jamie Bryant ◽  
Anne Herrmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Barriers And Enablers ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners

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.

scholarly journals Complementary and Integrative Health Knowledge and Practice in Primary Care Settings: A Survey of Primary Care Providers in the Northwestern United States

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 216495612110233
Author(s):  
Malaika R Schwartz ◽  
Allison M Cole ◽  
Gina A Keppel ◽  
Ryan Gilles ◽  
John Holmes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Knowledge ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Integrative Health ◽  
And Training

Background The demand for complementary and integrative health (CIH) is increasing by patients who want to receive more CIH referrals, in-clinic services, and overall care delivery. To promote CIH within the context of primary care, it is critical that providers have sufficient knowledge of CIH, access to CIH-trained providers for referral purposes, and are comfortable either providing services or co-managing patients who favor a CIH approach to their healthcare. Objective The main objective was to gather primary care providers’ perspectives across the northwestern region of the United States on their CIH familiarity and knowledge, clinic barriers and opportunities, and education and training needs. Methods We conducted an online, quantitative survey through an email invitation to all primary care providers (n = 483) at 11 primary care organizations from the WWAMI (Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho) region Practice and Research Network (WPRN). The survey questions covered talking about CIH with patients, co-managing care with CIH providers, familiarity with and training in CIH modalities, clinic barriers to CIH integration, and interest in learning more about CIH modalities. Results 218 primary care providers completed the survey (45% response rate). Familiarity with individual CIH methods ranged from 73% (chiropracty) to 8% (curanderismo). Most respondents discussed CIH with their patients (88%), and many thought that their patients could benefit from CIH (41%). The majority (89%) were willing to co-manage a patient with a CIH provider. Approximately one-third of respondents had some expertise in at least one CIH modality. Over 78% were interested in learning more about the safety and efficacy of at least one CIH modality. Conclusion Primary care providers in the Northwestern United States are generally familiar with CIH modalities, are interested in referring and co-managing care with CIH providers, and would like to have more learning opportunities to increase knowledge of CIH.

A Comparison of Perceptions of Reassurance in Patients with Nontraumatic Neck Pain and Whiplash-Associated Disorders in Consultations with Primary Care Practitioners—An Online Survey

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 3377-3386
Author(s):  
Alma Viviana Silva Guerrero ◽  
Jenny Setchell ◽  
Annick Maujean ◽  
Michele Sterling
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Structural Damage ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Detailed Comparison ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Primary Care Practitioners ◽  
Pain Symptoms

Abstract Objectives Neck pain remains highly prevalent and costly worldwide. Although reassurance has been recommended as a first line of treatment, specific advice on the best ways to provide reassurance has not been provided due to lack of evidence. Pain symptoms and experiences differ between patients with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) and those with nontraumatic neck pain (NTNP). The aims of this study were to 1) identify and compare the concerns, fears, and worries of patients with WAD and NTNP; and 2) determine if patients believe their concerns are addressed by primary care providers. Methods These questions were investigated through an online survey, with a convenience sample of 30 participants with NTNP and 20 with WAD. Results A thematic analysis of survey responses resulted in the following seven themes related to common concerns, and two regarding how well concerns were addressed. Common concerns expressed by both groups shared four themes: 1) further structural damage, 2) psychological distress, 3) concerns about the future, and 4) hardships that eventuate. Theme 5), pain/disability is long term, was specific to WAD. Themes 6), pain is current or reoccurring, and 7), interference with daily life, were specific to NTNP. Regarding how well patient concerns were addressed, two overarching themes were common to both conditions: 1) concerns were addressed, with both groups sharing the subthemes “successful treatment,” “reassurance,” and “trust”; and 2) concerns were not addressed, where all subthemes were shared with the exception of two unique to NTNP. Conclusions This detailed comparison provides information about neck pain patients’ concerns and fears, while providing health practitioners support for selecting strategies to promote reassurance appropriately for individual patient needs. Our findings from patients’ perspectives enhance the understanding for providing reassurance for neck pain as proposed by our analysis.

scholarly journals Palliative Care in a Death-Denying Culture: Exploring Barriers to Timely Palliative Efforts for Heart Failure Patients in the Primary Care Setting

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca M. Crimmins ◽  
Lydia Elliott ◽  
Darren T. Absher
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Setting ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Communication Time

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.

Evaluation of coordination of cancer care between designated cancer hospitals and primary care providers: Results from a nationwide survey in Japan.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 84-84
Author(s):  
Taro Tomizuka ◽  
Tomone Watanabe ◽  
Satoru Kamitani ◽  
Takahiro Higashi
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Critical Path ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
Cancer Specialist

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.

scholarly journals Protocol for a Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Provider-targeted Interventions to Improve Opioid Prescribing in Primary Care

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pallavi Prathivadi ◽  
Natalie Connell ◽  
Louisa Picco ◽  
Karleen F Giannitrapani ◽  
Hong-nei Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Strict Adherence ◽  
Targeted Interventions ◽  
Opioid Prescribing ◽  
Wide Range

Abstract Background: Improving primary care opioid prescribing is a public health priority in many western nations. Governments, policymakers and key stakeholders are intervening on multiple levels to address patient, prescriber and systems factors contributing to opioid over-prescription in primary care. Many opioid prescribing interventions specifically target primary care providers (PCPs); however, the overall effectiveness of these interventions is not known. Identifying effective components of PCP-targeted behaviour change interventions may help inform scalability and translation of prescribing interventions across countries and varying primary healthcare settings. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of provider-targeted interventions to improve opioid prescribing in primary care. This protocol reports the methods of the proposed narrative synthesis review that will be guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Methods: The study will follow Cochrane methods for conducting a narrative synthesis. Reporting is compliant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocols. The review will conduct searches in PubMed, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases for studies published in the English language from 2010 onwards. Reference lists of accepted articles will be also screened for additional studies meeting inclusion. Any opioid prescribing behaviour will be measured as an outcome. Intervention components will be mapped to domains of the TDF. No geographic limits will be applied. All stages of screening and data extraction will involve a dual review with gold standard adjudication. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to evaluate quality and risk. Discussion: This review is being conducted in strict adherence to Cochrane principles. The protocol was submitted for registration to Prospero prior to publication for transparency and to avoid duplication of research. Formal ethics approval is not required for this research. The findings of this review will inform the delivery and implementation of PCP targeted opioid prescribing interventions. Findings will be disseminated to a wide range of stakeholders involved in quality improvement, prescribing interventions, education and training; professional groups, policymakers, researchers and PCPs.Systematic review registration: Submitted to Prospero 22 December 2020; pending registration

scholarly journals Barriers to and facilitators of implementation of the integration of oncology and palliative care in daily practice: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu Uneno ◽  
Yoshiki Horie ◽  
Yuki Kataoka ◽  
Masanori Mori ◽  
Mami Hirakawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Care Delivery Model ◽  
The Government

Abstract Background: Palliative care (PC) is widely recognized as an essential part of oncology care, and multiple academic societies have developed strong recommendations regarding the implementation of the integration of oncology and PC (IOP) in daily practice. However, IOP implementation is a slow- evolving process, and its barriers and facilitators have not yet been comprehensively identified. This systematic review aimed to clarify the barriers to and facilitators of IOP in the context of treating patients with advanced cancer.Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature until June 3, 2017. We included original articles, narrative and systematic reviews, guidelines, editorials, commentaries, and letters. After title and abstract screening by two of five independent reviewers, we analyzed the data qualitatively using inductive content analysis and a consolidated framework for implementation research. Results: We obtained 3,304 articles, of which 60 met the predefined eligibility criteria. The numbers and proportions of original and review articles, guidelines, and other article types were 21 (35%), 30 (50%), 3 (5%), and 7 (12%), respectively. Five categories emerged regarding both the barriers to and facilitators of IOP: intervention characteristics, outer settings, inner settings, individual characteristics, and process. The representative barriers were limited availability of and access to PC services, limited educational opportunities for PC providers, insufficient reimbursement and research funding toward PC services, focus on cure rather than care (patients and their caregivers), and insufficient communication between oncology and PC staff (n = 26, 16, 14, 13, and 7, respectively). The representative facilitators were improvement of the availability of and access to PC services, development of an optimal integrated care model, enrichment of educational opportunities regarding PC (healthcare professionals), and initiatives by government and academic societies (n = 24, 18, 25, and 7, respectively).Conclusions: This study clarified the multi-level barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of IOP. Educational and financial support from the government and academic societies appears essential, and further effort to develop and investigate the implementable care delivery model is warranted.Registration: PROSPERO:CRD42018069212

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document