Palliative care in general practice; a questionnaire study on the GPs role and guideline implementation in Norway

Put on the sidelines of palliative care: a qualitative study of important barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and guideline implementation in Norway

BACKGROUND

Demographic changes, the evolvement of modern medicine and new treatments for severe diseases, increase the need for palliative care services. Palliative care includes all patients with life-limiting conditions, irrespective of diagnosis. In Norway, palliative care rests on a decentralised model where patient care can be delivered close to the patient's home, and the Norwegian guideline for palliative care describes a model of care resting on extensive collaboration. Previous research suggests that this guideline is not well implemented among general practitioners (GPs). In this study, we aim to investigate barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and implementation of the guideline.

METHODS

We interviewed 25 GPs in four focus groups guided by a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed qualitatively with reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified four main themes as barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care and to implementation of the guideline: (1) different established local cultures and practices of palliative care, (2) discontinuity of the GP-patient relationship, (3) unclear clinical handover and information gaps and (4) a mismatch between the guideline and everyday general practice.

CONCLUSION

Significant structural and individual barriers to GPs' participation in palliative care exist, which hamper the implementation of the guideline. GPs should be involved as stakeholders when guidelines involving them are created. Introduction of new professionals in primary care needs to be actively managed to avoid inappropriate collaborative practices. Continuity of the GP-patient relationship must be maintained throughout severe illness and at end-of-life.

Specialist and Primary Physicians' Experiences and Perspectives of Collaboration While Caring for Palliative Patients-A Qualitative Study

Increasing numbers of people living with chronic and life-limiting diseases are actualising a greater need for palliative care. Physicians are an important provider for identifying the need for palliation, and effective follow-up requires physician collaboration across different service levels. This study aimed to explore and describe how physicians in hospitals and municipalities experience their roles and interactions in the care of palliative patients. Pair interviews were performed with seven physicians working in hospitals, primary care and nursing homes in Mid-Norway. Systematic text condensation was used to analyse the data, resulting in three main themes: The boundaries of palliative care, Alternating understandings of roles and Absence of planning. The physicians' interactions with palliative patients appeared as a fragmented distribution of tasks rather than a real collaboration with shared responsibility. At both levels, the physicians seemed to assume withdrawn roles as a reaction to unclear and unspoken expectations and to avoid interfering with others' responsibilities. Moreover, their understanding of palliative care and which groups should be included varied. Realising a collaboration between physicians that is beneficial for both patients and physicians, greater openness and real arenas for discussion and decision-making support are required.

The effect of age on specialized palliative care use in the last year of life for patients who die of cancer: A nationwide study from Norway

INTRODUCTION

Specialized palliative care (SPC) is beneficial towards end of life because of its holistic approach to improve quality of life and comfort of patients and their families. Few studies have described how patient age, sex, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status (SES) are associated with SPC use in nonselective populations who die of cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the use of SPC in the year preceding death by all Norwegian individuals with a recent cancer diagnosis who died of cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From nationwide registries, we identified patients with a recent (<5 years) cancer diagnosis who died during 2010-2014. Using binary logistic regression models, we estimated the probability of receiving hospital-based SPC during the last year of life according to individual (age, sex, comorbidity), cancer (stage, type, and months since diagnosis), and SES (e.g., living alone, household income, and education) characteristics.

RESULTS

The analytical sample contained 45,521 patients with a median age at death of 75 years; 46% were women. The probability of receiving hospital-based SPC in the total cohort was 0.43 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.42-0.43). Use of SPC was higher if patients were younger, female, had limited comorbidity, metastatic disease, had one the following cancer types: colorectal, pancreatic, bladder, kidney, or gastric, were diagnosed more than six months before death, and had higher SES. Adjusted model results suggested that the probability of using SPC in the last year of life for patients aged 80-89 years was 0.31 (95% CI 0.30-0.32), compared to a probability of 0.63 (95% CI 0.61-0.65) for patients aged 50-59 years. For patients ≥90 years, the probability was 0.16 (95% CI 0.15-0.18).

DISCUSSION

Less hospital-based SPC use among older patients, males, and those with lower SES indicates possible under-treatment in these groups. Future studies should be designed to determine the underlying reasons for these observed differences.

Finding their place - general practitioners' experiences with palliative care-a Norwegian qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Modern palliative care focuses on enabling patients to spend their remaining time at home, and dying comfortably at home, for those patients who want it. Compared to many European countries, few die at home in Norway. General practitioners' (GPs') involvement in palliative care may increase patients' time at home and achievements of home death. Norwegian GPs are perceived as missing in this work. The aim of this study is to explore GPs' experiences in palliative care regarding their involvement in this work, how they define their role, and what they think they realistically can contribute towards palliative patients.

METHODS

We performed focus group interviews with GPs, following a semi-structured interview guide. We included four focus groups with a total of 25 GPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We performed qualitative analysis on these interviews, inspired by interpretative phenomenological analysis.

RESULTS

Strengths of the GP in the provision of palliative care consisted of characteristics of general practice and skills they relied on, such as general medical knowledge, being coordinator of care, and having a personal and longitudinal knowledge of the patient and a family perspective. They generally had positive attitudes but differing views about their formal role, which was described along three positions towards palliative care: the highly involved, the weakly involved, and the uninvolved GP.

CONCLUSION

GPs have evident strengths that could be important in the provision of palliative care. They rely on general medical knowledge and need specialist support. They had no consensus about their role in palliative care. Multiple factors interact in complex ways to determine how the GPs perceive their role and how involved they are in palliative care. GPs may possess skills and knowledge complementary to the specialized skills of palliative care team physicians. Specialized teams with extensive outreach activities should be aware of the potential they have for both enabling and deskilling GPs.

Talking together in rural palliative care: a qualitative study of interprofessional collaboration in Norway

Background

Caring for people with palliative care needs in their homes requires close collaboration within and between primary and hospital care. However, such close collaboration is often lacking. Transitions of care are potentially unsafe and distressing points in a patient trajectory. Few studies have explored the experiences of healthcare professionals in the community who receive patients from hospital care and provide them with palliative care at home.

Objective

To explore how rural health professionals experience local and regional collaboration on patients in need of palliative care.

Methods

This was a qualitative focus group and interview study in rural Northern Norway involving 52 primary care health professionals including district nurses, general practitioners, oncology nurses, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists. Five uni-professional focus group discussions were followed by five interprofessional discussions and six individual interviews. Transcripts were analysed thematically.

Results

“Talking together” was perceived as the optimal form of collaboration, both within primary care and with specialists. Nurses and GPs had similar perceptions of their worst-case scenario in primary palliative care: the sudden arrival after working hours of a sick patient about whom they lacked information. These situations could be the result of a short notice transfer from secondary care or an emergency presentation after a crisis in patient management locally, the latter often resulting in a hospital admission. Participants missed timely and detailed discharge letters and in complex cases a telephone call or conference. Locally, co-location was perceived as advantageous for crucial communication, mutual support, and knowledge about each other’s competencies and work schedule. Because local health professionals belonged to different units within the primary health care organisation, in some places they had limited knowledge about each other’s roles and skill sets.

Conclusions

Lack of communication, both locally and between specialist and primary care, was a key factor in the worst-case patient scenarios for GPs and nurses working in primary palliative care in rural Northern Norway. Co-location of primary care professionals promoted local collaboration and should be encouraged. Hospital discharge planning should involve the receiving primary care professionals.

Strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in public health: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.

Methods

This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).

Results

This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways—single intervention, educational meeting—single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback—both strategies implemented in combination with others—were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.

Conclusion

This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.