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
BackgroundTo improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.MethodsWe conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsThe palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.ConclusionsThe pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.
MULTIFILE
Background: Transmural palliative care interventions aim to identify older persons with palliative care needs and timely provide advance care planning, symptom management, and coordination of care. Nurses can have an important role in these interventions; however, their expertise is currently underused. A new transmural care pathway with a central role for the community care registered nurse in advance care planning aims to contribute to the quality of palliative care for older persons. Objective: To examine the perspectives of community nurses on the feasibility of a new transmural care pathway for advance care planning for older persons. Design: A qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. Setting(s): Interviews were performed with community nurses of three participating homecare organizations in the Netherlands between March and May 2023. Participants: 19 community nurses. Methods: A topic guide was based on (1) challenges in advance care planning identified from the literature and (2) concepts that are important in assessing the feasibility of complex healthcare interventions provided by the Normalisation Process Theory framework. A combined inductive and deductive thematic analysis was performed. Results: Four themes were identified: views on the transmural care pathway, community nurses’ needs to fulfil their role, key points regarding implementation, and evaluation of the new practice. In general, community nurses were positive about the feasibility of the new practice as it provided a more structured work process that could facilitate interprofessional collaboration and improve the quality of palliative care. Overall, the feasibility of the new practice, from community nurses perspective, was determined by (1) clear roles and responsibilities in the transmural care pathway, (2) standardized registration of advance care planning, and (3) close involvement of community nurses in the whole implementation process. Conclusions: We highlighted important factors, from the perspectives of community nurses, that need to be considered in the implementation of a new transmural care pathway for advance care planning. A clear division of roles and responsibilities, standardized registration of advance care planning, and involvement of community nurses during the whole implementation process were mentioned as important enabling factors. This knowledge might contribute to successful implementation of a transmural care pathway that aims to enhance the quality of palliative care for older persons. Tweetable abstract: Community nurses’ perspectives on the feasibility of a transmural care pathway for advance care planning for older persons.
DOCUMENT
Background: Team-based palliative care interventions have shown positive results for patients at the end of life in both hospital and community settings. However, evidence on the effectiveness of transmural, that is, spanning hospital and home, team-based palliative care collaborations is limited. Aim: To systematically review whether transmural team-based palliative care interventions can prevent hospital admissions and increase death at home. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), PsychINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane Library (Wiley) were systematically searched until January 2021. Studies incorporating teams in which hospital and community professionals co-managed patients, hospital-based teams with community follow-up, and case-management interventions led by palliative care teams were included. Data was extracted by two researchers independently. Results: About 19 studies were included involving 6614 patients, of whom 2202 received an intervention. The overall pooled odds ratio of at least one hospital (re)admissions was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.68) in favor of the intervention group. The highest reduction in admission was in the hospital-based teams with community follow-up: OR 0.21 (95% CI 0.07–0.66). The pooled effect on home deaths was 2.19 (95% CI 1.26–3.79), favoring the intervention, with also the highest in the hospital-based teams: OR 4.77 (95% CI 1.23–18.47). However, studies had high heterogeneity regarding intervention, study population, and follow-up time. Conclusion: Transmural team-based palliative care interventions, especially hospital-based teams that follow-up patients at home, show an overall effect on lowering hospital admissions and increasing the number of patients dying at home. However, broad clinical and statistical heterogeneity of included studies results in uncertainty about the effect size.
DOCUMENT
Background: A transitional care pathway (TCP) could improve care for older patients in the last months of life. However, barriers exist such as unidentified palliative care needs and suboptimal collaboration between care settings. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a TCP, named PalliSupport, for older patients at the end of life, prior to a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial. Methods: A mixed-method feasibility study was conducted at one hospital with affiliated primary care. Patients were ≥ 60 years and acutely hospitalized. The intervention consisted of (1) training on early identification of the palliative phase and end of life conversations, (2) involvement of a transitional palliative care team during admission and post-discharge and (3) intensified collaboration between care settings. Outcomes were feasibility of recruitment, data collection, patient burden and protocol adherence. Experiences of 14 professionals were assessed through qualitative interviews. Results: Only 16% of anticipated participants were included which resulted in difficulty assessing other feasibility criteria. The qualitative analysis identified misunderstandings about palliative care, uncertainty about professionals' roles and difficulties in initiating end of life conversations as barriers. The training program was well received and professionals found the intensified collaboration beneficial for patient care. The patients that participated experienced low burden and data collection on primary outcomes and protocol adherence seems feasible. Discussion: This study highlights the importance of performing a feasibility study prior to embarking on effectiveness studies. Moving forward, the PalliSupport care pathway will be adjusted to incorporate a more active recruitment approach, additional training on identification and palliative care, and further improvement on data collection.
DOCUMENT
Every healthcare professional (HCP) in the Netherlands is expected to provide palliative care based on their initial education. This requires national consensus and clarity on the quality and goals of palliative care education and accessible education opportunities nationwide. These requirements were not met in the Netherlands, posing a major obstacle to improving the organization and delivery of palliative care. Therefore, a program, Optimizing Education and Training in Palliative Care (O2PZ), was established to improve palliative care education on a national level.
MULTIFILE
In the Netherlands, palliative care is provided by generalist healthcare professionals (HCPs) if possible and by palliative care specialists if necessary. However, it still needs to be clarifed what specialist expertise entails, what specialized care consists of, and which training or work experience is needed to become a palliative care special‑ist. In addition to generalists and specialists, ‘experts’ in palliative care are recognized within the nursing and medical professions, but it is unclear how these three roles relate. This study aims to explore how HCPs working in palliative care describe themselves in terms of generalist, specialist, and expert and how this self-description is related to their work experience and education. Methods A cross-sectional open online survey with both pre-structured and open-ended questions among HCPs who provide palliative care. Analyses were done using descriptive statistics and by deductive thematic coding of open-ended questions. Results Eight hundred ffty-four HCPs flled out the survey; 74% received additional training, and 79% had more than fve years of working experience in palliative care. Based on working experience, 17% describe themselves as a generalist, 34% as a specialist, and 44% as an expert. Almost three out of four HCPs attributed their level of expertise on both their education and their working experience. Self-described specialists/experts had more working experience in palliative care, often had additional training, attended to more patients with palliative care needs, and were more often physicians as compared to generalists. A deductive analysis of the open questions revealed the similarities and dis‑ tinctions between the roles of a specialist and an expert. Seventy-six percent of the respondents mentioned the impor‑tance of having both specialists and experts and wished more clarity about what defnes a specialist or an expert, how to become one, and when you need them. In practice, both roles were used interchangeably. Competencies for the specialist/expert role consist of consulting, leadership, and understanding the importance of collaboration. Conclusions Although the grounds on which HCPs describe themselves as generalist, specialist, or experts difer, HCPs who describe themselves as specialists or experts mostly do so based on both their post-graduate education and their work experience. HCPs fnd it important to have specialists and experts in palliative care in addition to gen‑eralists and indicate more clarity about (the requirements for) these three roles is needed.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundHospital admissions are common in the last phase of life. However, palliative care and advance care planning (ACP) are provided late or not at all during hospital admission.AimTo provide insight into the perceptions of in-hospital healthcare professionals concerning current and ideal practice and roles of in-hospital palliative care and advance care planning.MethodsAn electronic cross-sectional survey was send 398 in-hospital healthcare professionals in five hospitals in the Netherlands. The survey contained 48 items on perceptions of palliative care and ACP.ResultsWe included non-specialists who completed the questions of interest, resulting in analysis of 96 questionnaires. Most respondents were nurses (74%). We found that current practice for initiating palliative care and ACP was different to what is considered ideal practice. Ideally, ACP should be initiated for almost every patient for whom no treatment options are available (96.2%), and in case of progression and severe symptoms (94.2%). The largest differences between current and ideal practice were found for patients with functional decline (Current 15.2% versus Ideal 78.5%), and patients with an estimated life expectancy <1 year (Current 32.6% versus ideal 86.1%). Respondents noted that providing palliative care requires collaboration, however, especially nurses noted barriers like a lack of inter-professional consensus.ConclusionsThe differences between current and ideal practice demonstrate that healthcare professionals are willing to improve palliative care. To do this, nurses need to increase their voice, a shared vision of palliative care and recognition of the added value of working together is needed.
MULTIFILE
Het generalist-plus-specialistische palliatieve zorgmodel wordt wereldwijd onderschreven. In Nederland zijn de competenties en het profiel van de generalistische aanbieder van palliatieve zorg beschreven op alle professionele niveaus in de verpleegkunde en geneeskunde.
MULTIFILE
Introduction: The implementation of oncology care pathways that standardize organizational procedures has improved cancer care in recent years. However, the involvement of “authentic” patients and caregivers in quality improvement of these predetermined pathways is in its infancy, especially the scholarly reflection on this process. We, therefore, aim to explore the multidisciplinary challenges both in practice, when cancer patients, their caregivers, and a multidisciplinary team of professionals work together on quality improvement, as well as in our research team, in which a social scientist, health care professionals, health care researchers, and experience experts design a research project together. Methods and design: Experience-based co-design will be used to involve cancer patients and their caregivers in a qualitative research design. In-depth open discovery interviews with 12 colorectal cancer patients, 12 breast cancer patients, and seven patients with cancer-associated thrombosis and their caregivers, and focus group discussions with professionals from various disciplines will be conducted. During the subsequent prioritization events and various co-design quality improvement meetings, observational field notes will be made on the multidisciplinary challenges these participants face in the process of co-design, and evaluation interviews will be done afterwards. Similar data will be collected during the monthly meetings of our multidisciplinary research team. The data will be analyzed according to the constant comparative method. Discussion: This study may facilitate quality improvement programs in oncologic care pathways, by increasing our real-world knowledge about the challenges of involving “experience experts” together with a team of multidisciplinary professionals in the implementation process of quality improvement. Such co-creation might be challenging due to the traditional paternalistic relationship, actual disease-/treatment-related constraints, and a lack of shared language and culture between patients, caregivers, and professionals and between professionals from various disciplines. These challenges have to be met in order to establish equality, respect, team spirit, and eventual meaningful participation.
DOCUMENT
