BackgroundSpecialist palliative care teams are consulted during hospital admission for advice on complex palliative care. These consultations need to be timely to prevent symptom burden and maintain quality of life. Insight into specialist palliative care teams may help improve the outcomes of palliative care.MethodsIn this retrospective observational study, we analyzed qualitative and quantitative data of palliative care consultations in a six-month period (2017 or 2018) in four general hospitals in the northwestern part of the Netherlands. Data were obtained from electronic medical records.ResultsWe extracted data from 336 consultations. The most common diagnoses were cancer (54.8%) and organ failure (26.8%). The estimated life expectancy was less than three months for 52.3% of all patients. Within two weeks after consultation, 53.2% of the patients died, and the median time until death was 11 days (range 191) after consultation. Most patients died in hospital (49.4%) but only 7.5% preferred to die in hospital. Consultations were mostly requested for advance care planning (31.6%). End-of-life preferences focused on last wishes and maintaining quality of life.ConclusionThis study provides detailed insight into consultations of palliative care teams and shows that even though most palliative care consultations were requested for advance care planning, consultations focus on end-of-life care and are more crisis-oriented than prevention-oriented. Death often occurs too quickly after consultation for end-of-life preferences to be met and these preferences tend to focus on dying. Educating healthcare professionals on when to initiate advance care planning would promote a more prevention-oriented approach. Defining factors that indicate the need for timely palliative care team consultation and advance care planning could help timely identification and consultation.
Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of intensive care unit (ICU)–initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families on elements of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) and/or PICS-family (PICS–F). Review method used: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis Sources: The authors searched in biomedical bibliographic databases including PubMed, Embase (OVID), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library and included studies written in English conducted up to October 8, 2020. Review methods: We included (non)randomised controlled trials focussing on ICU-initiated transitional care interventions for patients and families. Two authors conducted selection, quality assessment, and data extraction and synthesis independently. Outcomes were described using the three elements of PICS, which were categorised into (i) physical impairments (pulmonary, neuromuscular, and physical function), (ii) cognitive impairments (executive function, memory, attention, visuo-spatial and mental processing speed), and (iii) psychological health (anxiety, depression, acute stress disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and depression). Results: From the initially identified 5052 articles, five studies were included (i.e., two randomised controlled trials and three nonrandomised controlled trials) with varied transitional care interventions. Quality among the studies differs from moderate to high risk of bias. Evidence from the studies shows no significant differences in favour of transitional care interventions on physical or psychological aspects of PICS-(F). One study with a nurse-led structured follow-up program showed a significant difference in physical function at 3 months. Conclusions: Our review revealed that there is a paucity of research about the effectiveness of transitional care interventions for ICU patients with PICS. All, except one of the identified studies, failed to show a significant effect on the elements of PICS. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to variety and scarcity of data. Prospero registration: CRD42020136589 (available via https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020136589).
Background: The number of people suffering from one or more chronic conditions is rising, resulting in an increase in patients with complex health care demands. Interprofessional collaboration and the use of shared care plans support the management of complex health care demands of patients with chronic illnesses. This study aims to get an overview of the scientific literature on developing interprofessional shared care plans. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature regarding the development of interprofessional shared care plans. A systematic database search resulted in 45 articles being included, 5 of which were empirical studies concentrating purely on the care plan. Findings were synthesised using directed content analysis. Results: This review revealed three themes. The first theme was the format of the shared care plan, with the following elements: patient’s current state; goals and concerns; actions and interventions; and evaluation. The second theme concerned the development of shared care plans, and can be categorised as interpersonal, organisational and patient-related factors. The third theme covered tools, whose main function is to support professionals in sharing patient information without personal contact. Such tools relate to documentation of and communication about patient information. Conclusion: Care plan development is not a free-standing concept, but should be seen as the result of an underlying process of interprofessional collaboration between team members, including the patient. To integrate the patients’ perspectives into the care plans, their needs and values need careful consideration. This review indicates a need for new empirical studies examining the development and use of shared care plans and evaluating their effects.
