OBJECTIVES: To improve transmural palliative care for acutely admitted older patients, the PalliSupport transmural care pathway was developed. Implementation of this care pathway was challenging. The aim of this study was to improve understanding why the implementation partly failed.DESIGN: A qualitative process evaluation study.SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 17 professionals who were involved in the PalliSupport program were interviewed.METHODS: Online semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis to create themes according to the implementation framework of Grol & Wensing.RESULTS: From this study, themes within four levels of implementation emerged: 1) The innovation: challenges in current palliative care, the setting of the pathway and boost for improvement; 2) Individual professional: feeling (un)involved and motivation; 3) Organizational level: project management; 4) Political and economic level: project plan and evaluation.CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We learned that the challenges involved in implementing a transmural care pathway in palliative care should not be underestimated. For successful implementation, we emphasize the importance of creating a program that fits the complexity of transmural palliative care. We suggest starting on a small scale and invest in project management. This could help to involve all stakeholders and anticipate current challenges in palliative care. To increase acceptance, create one care pathway that can start and be used in all care settings. Make sure that there is sufficient flexibility in time and room to adjust the project plan, so that a second pilot study can possibly be performed, and choose a scientific evaluation with both rigor and practical usefulness to evaluate effectiveness.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: The generalist-plus-specialist palliative care model is endorsed worldwide. In the Netherlands, the competencies and profile of the generalist provider of palliative care has been described on all professional levels in nursing and medicine. However, there is no clear description of what specialized expertise in palliative care entails, whereas this is important in order for generalists to know who they can consult in complex palliative care situations and for timely referral of patients to palliative care specialists. Objective: To gain insight in the roles and competencies attributed to palliative care specialists as opposed to generalists. Methods: A scoping review was completed based on PRISMA-ScR guidelines to explore the international literature on the role and competence description of specialist and expert care professionals in palliative care. Databases Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco) and Web of Science Core Collection were consulted. The thirty-nine included articles were independently screened, reviewed and charted. Thematic codes were attached based on two main outcomes roles and competencies. Results: Five roles were identified for the palliative care specialist: care provider, care consultant, educator, researcher and advocate. Leadership qualities are found to be pivotal for every role. The roles were further specified with competencies that emerged from the analysis. The title, roles and competencies attributed to the palliative care specialist can mostly be applied to both medical and nursing professionals. Discussion: The roles and competencies derived from this scoping review correspond well with the seven fields of competence for medical/nursing professionals in health care of the CanMEDS guide. A specialist is not only distinguished from a generalist on patient-related care activities but also on an encompassing level. Clarity on what it entails to be a specialist is important for improving education and training for specialists. Conclusion: This scoping review adds to our understanding of what roles and competencies define the palliative care specialist. This is important to strengthen the position of the specialist and their added value to generalists in a generalist-plus-specialist model
DOCUMENT
Background and objective Public involvement in palliative care is challenging and difficult, because people in need of palliative care are often not capable of speaking up for themselves. Patient representatives advocate for their common interests. The aim of our study was to examine in depth the current practice of public involvement in palliative care. Setting and sample The study was conducted in the province of Limburg in the Netherlands, with six palliative care networks. Study participants were 16 patient representatives and 12 professionals. Method This study had a descriptive design using qualitative methods: 18 in-depth interviews and three focus groups were conducted. The critical incident technique was used. The data were analysed using an analytical framework based on Arnstein’s involvement classification and the process of decision making. Impact categories as well as facilitators and barriers were analysed using content analysis. Findings and conclusion The perceived impact of public involvement in palliative care in terms of citizen control and partnership is greatest with regard to quality of care, information development and dissemination, and in terms of policymaking with regard to the preparation and implementation phases of decision making. The main difference in perceived impact between patient representatives and professionals relates to the tension between operational and strategic involvement. Patient representatives experienced more impact regarding short-term solutions to practical problems, while professionals perceived great benefits in long-term, strategic processes. Improving public involvement in palliative care requires positive attitudes, open communication, sufficient resources and long-term support, to build a solid basis for pursuing meaningful involvement in the entire decision-making process.
MULTIFILE
