Audit in palliative care: does practice change?

Systematic Review of Palliative Care in the Rural Setting

BACKGROUND

Many of the world's population live in rural areas. However, access and dissemination of the advances taking place in the field of palliative care to patients living in rural areas have been limited.

METHODS

We searched 2 large databases of the medical literature and found 248 relevant articles; we also identified another 59 articles through networking and a hand search of reference lists. Of those 307 articles, 39 met the inclusion criteria and were grouped into the following subcategories: intervention (n = 4), needs assessment (n = 2), program planning (n = 3), program evaluation (n = 4), education (n = 7), financial (n = 8), and comprehensive/systematic literature reviews (n = 11).

RESULTS

We synthesized the current state of rural palliative care research and practice to identify important gaps for future research. Studies were conducted in the United States, Australia, Canada, Africa, Sweden, and India. Two randomized control trials were identified, both of which used telehealth approaches and had positive survival outcomes. One study demonstrated positive patient quality of life and depression outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Research to guide rural palliative care practice is sparse. Approaches to telehealth, community- academic partnerships, and training rural health care professionals show promise, but more research is needed to determine best practices for providing palliative care to patients living in rural settings.

How can we improve outcomes for patients and families under palliative care? Implementing clinical audit for quality improvement in resource limited settings

Palliative care in India has made enormous advances in providing better care for patients and families living with progressive disease, and many clinical services are well placed to begin quality improvement initiatives, including clinical audit. Clinical audit is recognized globally to be essential in all healthcare, as a way of monitoring and improving quality of care. However, it is not common in developing country settings, including India. Clinical audit is a cyclical activity involving: identification of areas of care in need of improvement, through data collection and analysis utilizing an appropriate questionnaire; setting measurable quality of care targets in specific areas; designing and implementing service improvement strategies; and then re-evaluating quality of care to assess progress towards meeting the targets. Outcome measurement is an important component of clinical audit that has additional advantages; for example, establishing an evidence base for the effectiveness of services. In resource limited contexts, outcome measurement in clinical audit is particularly important as it enables service development to be evidence-based and ensures resources are allocated effectively. Key success factors in conducting clinical audit are identified (shared ownership, training, managerial support, inclusion of all members of staff and a positive approach). The choice of outcome measurement tool is discussed, including the need for a culturally appropriate and validated measure which is brief and simple enough to incorporate into clinical practice and reflects the holistic nature of palliative care. Support for clinical audit is needed at a national level, and development and validation of an outcome measurement tool in the Indian context is a crucial next step.

Evaluating Palliative Care—A Review of the Literature

The purpose of this article was to investigate the outcome measures developed and used in palliative care. The paper involved a literature review of published research. Many of the reviewed papers concluded similarly that there was lack of good quality evidence on which to base conclusions. More high quality evidence is needed to compare the relative merits of the differences in models of palliative care services, so that we can learn from other appropriate systems of care at end of life. It follows that quality of life is the main outcome of palliative care, in which the patient instead of the disease represents the target of the clinical approach. Patients struggling with serious illness have other concerns, including managing pain and other symptoms, coordinating care among multiple providers and settings, ensuring that treatments reflect preferences and balance benefits and harms as well as clinical appropriateness, achieving empathic communication and care, fostering well-being, maintaining function and practically supporting family and caregivers through illness and bereavement.

Discussion of quality and audit in health

Attaining quality health care has long been a social policy priority for countries internationally. This discussion considers issues important to understanding quality, and audit implementation in particular. The paper covers, first, the principles and practice of audit and, second, broader implementation issues, which together point to the further development of quality initiatives in health in the United Kingdom health care context. To close, the future of audit as a means of improving health care is elaborated.

Goal setting as a measure of outcome in palliative care

Setting goals and assessing outcomes are essential elements in palliative care. This paper describes a multiprofessional project, conducted under the auspices of clinical audit, which attempted to evaluate important outcomes of care. Over a six-month period there were 123 consecutive admissions to the hospice. These patients and their carers, as well as the staff, were encouraged to set explicit goals for, and evaluate outcomes of, their care. As anticipated, we encountered many difficulties in this, but there were benefits. We were able to record goals of admission from the patient in 97 cases (79%), their main carer in 74 cases (63%) and from hospice staff in 120 cases (98%). Patient and carer goals were often more functional and specific whereas the staff goals tended to be more problem or symptom focused. The achievement of these goals was evaluated by patients, carers and staff at discharge or death (where possible) with the majority being fully or partially met. Only 15 patients and 9 carers thought that some or all of their goals had not been achieved with just 4 recording that their goals had changed. Overall, it was a worthwhile (although time-consuming) exercise and, as a result of the 'audit', clear goals and outcomes from patient, carer and staff perspectives are now routinely recorded for all admissions to the hospice and are used to focus multiprofessional patient review. Having analysed the process as well as the results of the 'audit', we would encourage others not to be daunted from undertaking similar projects.

Audit on discharging patients from community specialist palliative care nursing services

Discharging patients from community specialist palliative care services is a contentious issue. Although some specialist nursing teams discharge patients at the earliest opportunity and are open to re-referral, others retain patients as "pending", i.e. patients do not receive regular contact or intervention but remain on the caseload until a need arises. This anomaly is not surprising given the lack of evidence of good practice in the discharge of patients who no longer have specialist needs. This article describes an audit by a community specialist palliative care nursing team of patients discharged from their caseloads over a 6-month period from January to June 2002. The aims of the audit were to compare the reasons for discharge given by the nurse specialists with existing discharge criteria and to provide data for guidelines for good practice in discharging patients. The rate of re-referral for the discharged cohort was also measured. There were 199 patient discharges in the audit period with 23 being re-referred within 6 months of discharge. The reasons for discharge were generally broader than the discharge criteria and the nurses frequently emphasized to the patient, the family and primary carers that re-referral was welcomed as needs arise. The need for multicentre discharge audits was also highlighted.

What is the potential for the use of clinical outcome measures to be computerised? Findings from a qualitative research study

Clinical outcome measures are used in clinical audit to monitor the quality of care provided to patients. As information technology (IT) is increasingly being integrated into the delivery of health care, computerising the use of clinical outcome measures has been proposed. However, little is known about the attitudes of health professionals towards this. Aims to understand professionals' views on adapting one clinical outcome measure--the palliative care outcome scale (POS)--for use on hand-held computers. Concludes that these results reinforce existing research on clinical outcome measures and IT in health care; identify special palliative care issues when considering the use of computerised clinical outcome measures with patients; and highlight the need for further research.

Professionals' views and experiences of using outcome measures in palliative care

In palliative care, outcome measures are increasingly used to aid clinical practice, conduct audit and research. The objective of this study was to elicit professionals' views and experiences of using outcome measures, paying special attention to the Palliative care Outcome Scale (POS). This article presents the results of a qualitative study of 26 professionals, experienced in using the POS, who were invited to participate in semi-structured telephone interviews. Of those invited, 22 people took part. Participants' comments were noted verbatim through the interviews and data subjected to content analysis. Analysis of data identified a number of key themes surrounding outcome measures, notably their reasons for use, application in clinical settings and a range of professionals' attitudes. The article concludes that understanding the process of outcome measures is important for improving their implementation. When undertaking further research, attention should be paid to the wider social, cultural and structural contexts, as factors that can influence the implementation of outcome measures. As the drive towards outcome measures continues, it is essential that measures are not developed in a vacuum. Instead they should always be informed by the needs and experiences of individuals and services.

Audit tools for palliative care services: identification of neglected aspects of care

The purpose of this study was to investigate the extent to which audit of palliative care service occurs nationally in Britain and Ireland. The following items were measured: (1) audit tools employed, (2) aspects of services undergoing audit, (3) changes in practice as a result of audit, and (4) obstacles to conducting some aspects of the audit. Audit practices were surveyed by means of a postal questionnaire distributed to managers of all hospice and palliative care services in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. A 10 percent sample of managers (n = 40) who responded were subsequently interviewed to confirm and elaborate on questionnaire responses. The response rate was 60 percent and was highest for hospices at 68 percent. Of the respondents, 73 percent audit their services. Of those who audit their services, 79 percent changed their service as a result. Although physical aspects of care were audited frequently (61 percent), other core aspects of palliative care that rarely were audited included bereavement care (17 percent), training (13 percent), and psychological and spiritual care (12 percent). Managers indicated that some aspects of care were rarely audited because they considered clinical and organizational aspects of palliative care to be more important. They also stated that they did not have enough time, expertise, or adequate measurement tools. Until the neglected features of palliative care are audited, the full effectiveness of the services remains unknown.

Symptom control outcomes in a community palliative care nursing team

Measuring outcomes of care is an essential component of clinical governance. This article describes a pragmatic approach to auditing symptom control outcomes in a community specialist palliative care nursing team. Using a palliative care assessment tool, it demonstrates that the team make a positive difference to the patient's experience of most symptoms and a plan for further development of practice is formulated in response to the results of the audit. Unexpected outcomes reveal some of the realities of community specialist palliative care and demonstrate that audit is worthwhile despite some of the pitfalls in this area of practice.

An audit of oral care practice and staff knowledge in hospital palliative care

Mouth care is considered one of the most basic of nursing activities, and palliative care patients are especially vulnerable to oral problems (Macmillan Practice Development Unit, 1995). This article describes a project on developing oral care practice and staff knowledge, by nursing staff and Macmillan nurses at a hospital in central England. A baseline audit (audit I) was carried out to examine all aspects of current oral care practice and nursing knowledge, including assessment, implementation, prescribing and evaluation of care. Oral care guidelines and a programme of ward-based teaching were then introduced. Several months later a follow-up audit (audit II) was conducted. Results showed an improvement in all aspects of oral care and staff knowledge. Additional benefits of this process included improved professional relationships and the promotion of further audits in hospital palliative care. Recommendations include the need for further nursing research into oral care to build the evidence base further. Additionally, it is suggested that nurses must recognize their important and central role in improving this aspect of palliative care. Education and training is pivotal to this process.

Balancing efficiency, cost-effectiveness and patient choice in opioid selection

Recent UK government initiatives have stressed the importance of patient choice in health care. In relation to palliative care, this involves the achievement of the best quality of life, respect for patient autonomy and choice over treatment options. Regarding selection of analgesic, the treatment options are evaluated by considering efficacy and potency, routes of delivery, titration and conversion, adverse effects and cost effectiveness. This article explores these issues in relation to the rationale for choice of strong opioids. Morphine and diamorphine are usually considered the most effective, 'first-line' analgesics but is this necessarily the case when patient choice is put into the equation? There is a case for more flexibility in selecting the opioid depending upon individual circumstances. Opioid selection should take into account quality of life issues. However the scope for opioid selection seems likely to be restricted by considerations of cost effectiveness. The challenge is to ensure that the patient voice is heard.