Improving palliative care in selected settings in England using quality indicators: a realist evaluation

An evidence-base for the implementation of hospital-based palliative care programs in routine cancer practice: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Despite global support, there remain gaps in the integration of early palliative care into cancer care. The methods of implementation whereby evidence of benefits of palliative care is translated into practice deserve attention.

AIM

To identify implementation frameworks utilised in integrated palliative care in hospital-based oncology services and to describe the associated enablers and barriers to service integration.

DESIGN

Systematic review with a narrative synthesis including qualitative, mixed methods, pre-post and quasi experimental designs following the guidance by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (PROSPERO registration CRD42021252092).

DATA SOURCES

Six databases searched in 2021: EMBASE, EMCARE, APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Ovid MEDLINE searched in 2023. Included were qualitative or quantitative studies, in English language, involving adults >18 years, and implementing hospital-based palliative care into cancer care. Critical appraisal tools were used to assess the quality and rigour.

RESULTS

Seven of the 16 studies explicitly cited the use of frameworks including those based on RE-AIM, Medical Research Council evaluation of complex interventions and WHO constructs of health service evaluation. Enablers included an existing supportive culture, clear introduction to the programme across services, adequate funding, human resources and identification of advocates. Barriers included a lack of communication with the patients, caregivers, physicians and palliative care team about programme goals, stigma around the term 'palliative', a lack of robust training, or awareness of guidelines and undefined staff roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation science frameworks provide a method to underpin programme development and evaluation as palliative care is integrated within the oncology setting.

Level of knowledge and attitudes towards palliative care for people with advanced dementia in Spain: role of professional and academic factors

BACKGROUND

Providing quality end-of-life care to individuals with advanced dementia is crucial. To date, little attention has been paid to palliative care knowledge and attitudes toward palliative care for people with advanced dementia in Spain Objectives: To investigate the knowledge of and attitudes toward palliative care for advanced dementia among registered nurses and physicians in Spain.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A descriptive, cross-sectional survey design was used. This study included a convenience sample of 402 nurses (n = 290) and physicians (n = 112). Two instruments were administered: demographic characteristics and Spanish version of the Questionnaire of Palliative Care for Advanced Dementia (qPAD-SV). Descriptive statistics and multiple regression were used for data analysis.

RESULTS

Overall, the nurses and physicians had moderate mean scores for both knowledge of and attitudes regarding palliative care for advanced dementia. Physicians had a higher level of knowledge (p<0.05) compared to nurses. Additionally, physicians and nursing staff who had professional experience/education in geriatrics and those who had received palliative care and hospice training had greater (p<0.01) knowledge of palliative care. In addition, healthcare professionals who had received dementia care training and who had worked in nursing homes had higher levels (p<0.05) of knowledge and attitudes toward palliative care.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates the need to provide nurses and physicians with more education for select groups of professionals who have had limited education and experience in caring for older adults with advanced dementia.

Quality indicators of palliative care for cardiovascular intensive care

Healthcare providers working for cardiovascular intensive care often face challenges and they play an essential role in palliative care and end-of-life care because of the high mortality rates in the cardiac intensive care unit. Unfortunately, there are several barriers to integrating palliative care, cardiovascular care, and intensive care. The main reasons are as follows: cardiovascular disease-specific trajectories differ from cancer, there is uncertainty associated with treatments and diagnoses, aggressive treatments are necessary for symptom relief, and there is ethical dilemma regarding withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Quality indicators that can iterate the minimum requirements of each medical discipline could be used to overcome these barriers and effectively practice palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Unfortunately, there are no specific quality indicators for palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. A few indicators and their domains are useful for understanding current palliative care in cardiovascular intensive care. Among them, several domains, such as symptom palliation, patient- and family-centered decision-making, continuity of care, and support for health care providers that are particularly important in cardiovascular intensive care.

Historically, the motivation for using quality indicators is to summarize mechanisms for external accountability and verification, and formative mechanisms for quality improvement. Practically, when using quality indicators, it is necessary to check structural indicators in each healthcare service line, screen palliative care at the first visit, and integrate palliative care teams with other professionals. Finally, we would like to state that quality indicators in cardiovascular intensive care could be useful as an educational tool for practicing palliative care, understanding the minimum requirements, and as a basic structure for future discussions.

GPs’ involvement to improve care quality in care homes in the UK: a realist review

Background

Organising health-care services for residents living in care homes is an important area of development in the UK and elsewhere. Medical care is provided by general practitioners in the UK, and the unique arrangement of the NHS means that general practitioners are also gatekeepers to other health services. Despite recent focus on improving health care for residents, there is a lack of knowledge about the role of general practitioners.

Objectives

First, to review reports of research and quality improvement (or similar change management) in care homes to explore how general practitioners have been involved. Second, to develop programme theories explaining the role of general practitioners in improvement initiatives and outcomes.

Design

A realist review was selected to address the complexity of integration of general practice and care homes.

Setting

Care homes for older people in the UK, including residential and nursing homes.

Participants

The focus of the literature review was the general practitioner, along with care home staff and other members of multidisciplinary teams. Alongside the literature, we interviewed general practitioners and held consultations with a Context Expert Group, including a care home representative.

Interventions

The primary search did not specify interventions, but captured the range of interventions reported. Secondary searches focused on medication review and end-of-life care because these interventions have described general practitioner involvement.

Outcomes

We sought to capture processes or indicators of good-quality care.

Data sources

Sources were academic databases [including MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA), Web of Science™ (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and Cochrane Collaboration] and grey literature using Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA).

Methods

Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines were followed, comprising literature scoping, interviews with general practitioners, iterative searches of academic databases and grey literature, and synthesis and development of overarching programme theories.

Results

Scoping indicated the distinctiveness of the health and care system in UK and, because quality improvement is context dependent, we decided to focus on UK studies because of potential problems in synthesising across diverse systems. Searches identified 73 articles, of which 43 were excluded. To summarise analysis, programme theory 1 was ‘negotiated working with general practitioners’ where other members of the multidisciplinary team led initiatives and general practitioners provided support with the parts of improvement where their skills as primary care doctors were specifically required. Negotiation enabled matching of the diverse ways of working of general practitioners with diverse care home organisations. We found evidence that this could result in improvements in prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Programme theory 2 included national or regional programmes that included clearly specified roles for general practitioners. This provided clarity of expectation, but the role that general practitioners actually played in delivery was not clear.

Limitations

One reviewer screened all search results, but two reviewers conducted selection and data extraction steps.

Conclusions

If local quality improvement initiatives were flexible, then they could be used to negotiate to build a trusting relationship with general practitioners, with evidence from specific examples, and this could improve prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Larger improvement programmes aimed to define working patterns and build suitable capacity in care homes, but there was little evidence about the extent of local general practitioner involvement.

Future work

Future work should describe the specific role, capacity and expertise of general practitioners, as well as the diversity of relationships between general practitioners and care homes.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137090.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Large differences in the organization of palliative care in nursing homes in six European countries: findings from the PACE cross-sectional study

Background

To be able to provide high-quality palliative care, there need to be a number of organizational structures available in the nursing homes. It is unclear to what extent such structures are actually present in nursing homes in Europe. We aim to examine structural indicators for quality of palliative care in nursing homes in Europe and to evaluate the differences in terms of availability of and access to palliative care, infrastructure for residents and families, multidisciplinary meetings and quality improvement initiatives.

Methods

A PACE cross-sectional study (2015) of nursing homes in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. Nursing homes (N = 322) were selected in each country via proportional stratified random sampling. Nursing home administrators (N = 305) filled in structured questionnaires on nursing home characteristics. Organization of palliative care was measured using 13 of the previously defined IMPACT structural indicators for quality of palliative care covering four domains: availability of and access to palliative care, infrastructure for residents and families, multidisciplinary meetings and quality improvement initiatives. We calculated structural indicator scores for each country and computed differences in indicator scores between the six countries. Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to compute the p-value of each difference.

Results

The availability of specialist palliative care teams in nursing homes was limited (6.1–48.7%). In Finland, Poland and Italy, specialist advice was also less often available (35.6–46.9%). Up to 49% of the nursing homes did not provide a dedicated contact person who maintained regular contact with the resident and relatives. The 24/7 availability of opioids for all nursing home residents was low in Poland (37.5%).

Conclusions

This study found a large heterogeneity between countries in the organization of palliative care in nursing homes, although a common challenge is ensuring sufficient structural access to specialist palliative care services. Policymakers and health and palliative care organizations can use these structural indicators to identify areas for improvement in the organization of palliative care.

Metastatic bone disease: new quality performance indicator development

OBJECTIVES

Patients with metastatic bone disease (MBD) should receive the same standard of care regardless of which centre they are treated in. The aim was to develop and test a set of quality performance indicators (QPIs) to evaluate care for patients with MBD referred to orthopaedics.

METHODS

QPIs were adapted from the literature and ranked on feasibility and necessity during a modified RAND/Delphi consensus process. They were then validated and field tested in a retrospective cohort of 108 patients using indicator-specific targets set during consensus.

RESULTS

2568 articles including six guidelines were reviewed. 43 quality objectives were extracted and 40 proceeded to expert consensus. After two rounds, 18 QPIs for MBD care were generated, with the following generating the highest consensus: 'Patients with high fracture risk should receive urgent assessment' (combined mean 6.7/7, 95% CI 6.5 to 6.8) and 'preoperative workup should include full blood tests including group and save' (combined mean 6.7/7, 95% CI 6.5 to 6.9). In the pilot test, targets were met for 5/18 QPIs (mean 52%, standard deviation 22%). The median deviation from projected target was -14% (interquartile range -11% to -31%, range -74% to 11%). The highest scoring QPI was 'adults with fractures should have surgery within 7 days' (target 80%:actual 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

The published evidence and guidelines were adapted into a set of validated QPIs for MBD care which can be used to evaluate variation in care between centres. These QPIs should be correlated with outcome scores to determine whether they can act as predictors of outcome after surgery.

Introducing the trajectory Touchpoint technique: a systematic methodology for capturing the service experiences of palliative care patients and their families

Background

Evaluation of palliative care services is crucial in order to ensure high quality care and to plan future services in light of growing demand. There is also an acknowledgement of the need to better understand patient experiences as part of the paradigm shift from paternalistic professional and passive patient to a more collaborative partnership. However, while clinical decision-making is well-developed, the science of the delivery of care is relatively novel for most clinicians. We therefore introduce the Trajectory Touchpoint Technique (TTT), a systematic methodology designed using service delivery models and theories, for capturing the voices of palliative care service users.

Methods

We used design science research as our overarching methodology to build our Trajectory Touchpoint Technique. We also incorporated a range of kernel theories and service design models from the wider social sciences. We developed and tested our Trajectory Touchpoint Technique with palliative care patients and their families (n = 239) in collaboration with different hospices and hospital-based palliative care providers (n = 8).

Results

The Trajectory Touchpoint Technique is user-friendly, enables systematic data collection and analysis, and incorporates all tangible and intangible dimensions of palliative care important to the service user. These dimensions often go beyond clinical care to encompass wider aspects that are important to the people who use the service. Our collaborating organisations have already begun to make changes to their service delivery based on our results.

Conclusions

The Trajectory Touchpoint Technique overcomes several limitations of other palliative care evaluation methods, while being more comprehensive. The new technique incorporates physical, psychosocial, and spiritual aspects of palliative care, and is user-friendly for inpatients, outpatients, families, and the bereaved. The new technique has been tested with people who have a range of illnesses, in a variety of locations, among people with learning disabilities and low levels of literacy, and with children as well as adults. The Trajectory Touchpoint Technique has already uncovered many previously unrecognised opportunities for service improvement, demonstrating its ability to shape palliative care services to better meet the needs of patients and their families.

The Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcome Measures on Quality of and Access to Palliative Care

BACKGROUND

Measuring performance for palliative care is complex as care is delivered in many sites, over time and jointly to the patient and family. Measures of structural processes do not necessarily capture aspects that are important to patients and families nor reflect holistic multidisciplinary outcomes of care. This article focuses on the question as to whether measurement of patient-reported outcome measures improves the outcomes of quality and access to palliative care.

OBJECTIVES

To review the international evidence that measurement of indicators of desired outcomes improves the quality of and access to palliative care, in order to apply them to the Canadian context.

DESIGN

Rapid review.

SETTING

Canadian context.

FINDINGS

This review identified six systematic reviews and forty-seven studies that describe largely national efforts to arrive at a consensus as to what needs to be measured to assess quality of palliative care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming more prevalent, with emerging evidence to suggest that their measurement improves outcomes that are important to patients. Several Canadian initiatives are in place, including the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer's efforts, in conjunction with other partners, to develop common quality measures. Results from Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaborative demonstrate that patient-centered improvements in palliative care can be measured by using patient-reported outcomes derived at the point of care and delivered nationally.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of quality palliative and end-of-life care is very complex. It requires that both administrative data and PROMs be assessed to reflect outcomes that are important to patients and families. Australia's national initiative is a promising exemplar for continued work in this area.

Quality indicators for Palliative Day Services: A modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND:

The goal of Palliative Day Services is to provide holistic care that contributes to the quality of life of people with life-threatening illness and their families. Quality indicators provide a means by which to describe, monitor and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services provision and act as a starting point for quality improvement. However, currently, there are no published quality indicators for Palliative Day Services.

AIM:

To develop and provide the first set of quality indicators that describe and evaluate the quality of Palliative Day Services.

DESIGN AND SETTING:

A modified Delphi technique was used to combine best available research evidence derived from a systematic scoping review with multidisciplinary expert appraisal of the appropriateness and feasibility of candidate indicators. The resulting indicators were compiled into ‘toolkit’ and tested in five UK Palliative Day Service settings.

RESULTS:

A panel of experts independently reviewed evidence summaries for 182 candidate indicators and provided ratings on appropriateness, followed by a panel discussion and further independent ratings of appropriateness, feasibility and necessity. This exercise resulted in the identification of 30 indicators which were used in practice testing. The final indicator set comprised 7 structural indicators, 21 process indicators and 2 outcome indicators.

CONCLUSION:

The indicators fulfil a previously unmet need among Palliative Day Service providers by delivering an appropriate and feasible means to assess, review, and communicate the quality of care, and to identify areas for quality improvement.

Compassionate collaborative care: an integrative review of quality indicators in end-of-life care

Background

Compassion and collaborative practice are individually associated with high quality healthcare. When combined in a compassionate collaborative care (CCC) practice framework, they are reported to improve health, strengthen care provision, and control health costs. Little is known about how to integrate and measure CCC, yet it is fundamentally applied in palliative and end-of-life care settings. This study aimed to identify quality indicators of CCC by systematically reviewing and synthesizing the current state of the palliative and end-of-life care literature.

Methods

An integrative review of the palliative and end-of-life care literature was conducted using Whittemore and Knafl’s method. Donabedian’s healthcare quality framework was applied in the data analysis phase to organize and display the data. The analysis involved an iterative process that applied a constant comparative method.

Results

The final literature sample included 25 articles. Patient and family-centered care emerged as a primary structure for CCC, with overarching values including empathy, sharing, respect, and partnership. The analysis revealed communication, shared decision-making, and goal setting as overarching processes for achieving CCC at end-of-life. Patient and family satisfaction, enhanced teamwork, decreased staff burnout, and organizational satisfaction are exemplars of outcomes that suggest high quality CCC. Specific quality indicators at the individual, team and organizational levels are reported with supporting exemplar data.

Conclusions

CCC is inextricably linked to the inherent values, needs and expectations of patients, families and healthcare providers. Compassion and collaboration must be enacted and harmonized to fully operationalize and sustain patient and family-centered care in palliative and end-of-life practice settings. Towards that direction, the quality indicators that emerged from this integrative review provide a two-fold application in palliative and end-of-life care. First, to evaluate the existing structures, processes, and outcomes at the patient-family, provider, team, and organizational levels. Second, to guide the planning and implementation of team and organizational changes that improve the quality delivery of CCC.

Identifying models of delivery, care domains and quality indicators relevant to palliative day services: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

With an ageing population and increasing numbers of people with life-limiting illness, there is a growing demand for palliative day services. There is a need to measure and demonstrate the quality of these services, but there is currently little agreement on which aspects of care should be used to do this. The aim of the scoping review will be to map the extent, range and nature of the evidence around models of delivery, care domains and existing quality indicators used to evaluate palliative day services.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched for evidence using consensus development methods; randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials; mixed methods; and prospective, longitudinal or retrospective case-control studies to develop or test quality indicators for evaluating palliative care within non-residential settings, including day hospices and community or primary care settings. At least two researchers will independently conduct all searches, study selection and data abstraction procedures. Meta-analyses and statistical methods of synthesis are not planned as part of the review. Results will be reported using numerical counts, including number of indicators in each care domain and by using qualitative approach to describe important indicator characteristics. A conceptual model will also be developed to summarise the impact of different aspects of quality in a palliative day service context. Methodological quality relating to indicator development will be assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool. Overall strength of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Final decisions on quality assessment will be made via consensus between review authors.

DISCUSSION

Identifying, developing and implementing evidence-based quality indicators is critical to the evaluation and continued improvement of palliative care. Review findings will be used to support clinicians and policymakers make decisions on which quality indicators are most appropriate for evaluating day services at the patient and service level, and to identify areas for further research.