The views of physicians and nurses on the potentials of an electronic assessment system for recognizing the needs of patients in palliative care

'It is important to feel invited': what patients require when using the Utrecht Symptom Diary - 4 Dimensional, a qualitative exploration

Background

In palliative care, the Utrecht Symptom Diary - 4 Dimensional (USD-4D), a Dutch-adapted and validated patient-reported outcome measure, supports multidimensional symptom management through identification and monitoring of, as well as dialogue on symptoms and needs. For the USD-4D to optimally support patients' autonomy, it is essential to know what patients need to use it.

Objective

This study aims to identify what patients need when using the USD-4D in clinical palliative care.

Design

A generic qualitative design with primary and secondary analyses of semistructured interviews.

Methods

Patients ⩾18 years with a life-limiting illness were purposefully recruited within hospice and home care settings if they were in their last year of life as identified by the surprise question. Patients had to be aware of their life-threatening condition. Patients were selected in two tranches. In the first tranche, patients had to have completed the USD-4D at least once. The second tranche consisted of patients who were not familiar with the USD-4D in clinical practice and were interviewed in a previous study on the content validity of the USD-4D. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and were subjected to thematic analysis.

Results

Twenty-five patients were included (14 men, ages 44-87). Patients' needs when using the USD-4D were summarized in three themes: (1) feeling invited, (2) being aware of the purpose and function of the USD-4D, and (3) experiencing a personal and nonjudgmental approach.

Conclusion

For patients to optimally benefit from the USD-4D as a supportive measure of their autonomy in clinical palliative care, it is essential that they feel invited to use it. Healthcare providers are tasked with setting the right preconditions for patients to want and to be able to use the USD-4D. For patients, this means healthcare providers should always be attuned to their personal preferences when communicating the purpose and function of the USD-4D and when they enter into dialogue with them.

What Are the Perceptions of Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant About Medication Adherence?: A Synthesis of Qualitative Studies

BACKGROUND

Recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) may encounter difficulties in adhering to their post-transplant medication as prescribed to avoid complications. Despite the relevance of patients' perspectives to inform the clinical practice, to date, no summary regarding their lived experience of oral medication adherence (MA) has been produced.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the lived experience of MA by recipients of allogeneic HSCT as documented in qualitative studies.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research was performed. Six databases were searched up to June 27, 2023. Four qualitative studies met eligibility and were included: those designed and conducted with scientifically sound methodologies and those regarding adult patients who had undergone allogeneic HSCT and required an oral medication regimen in the post-transplant phase. Data were extracted and synthesized using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four analytical themes were identified: "The initiation is a challenge," "Time as a new issue," "Internal and external obstacles threaten medication adherence," and "Different strategies are the answer to medication non-adherence."

CONCLUSIONS

Medication adherence in patients after HSCT is a complex phenomenon wherein different factors play a role. When designing targeted interventions to improve MA, it is imperative to start with patients' experiences and perspectives.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Patients developed different strategies to deal with obstacles to MA that may inform daily practice. Before discharge, healthcare professionals should emphasize to both patients and carers the importance of MA.

Exploring the Potential of Chatbots in Critical Care Nephrology

The exponential growth of artificial intelligence (AI) has allowed for its integration into multiple sectors, including, notably, healthcare. Chatbots have emerged as a pivotal resource for improving patient outcomes and assisting healthcare practitioners through various AI-based technologies. In critical care, kidney-related conditions play a significant role in determining patient outcomes. This article examines the potential for integrating chatbots into the workflows of critical care nephrology to optimize patient care. We detail their specific applications in critical care nephrology, such as managing acute kidney injury, alert systems, and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT); facilitating discussions around palliative care; and bolstering collaboration within a multidisciplinary team. Chatbots have the potential to augment real-time data availability, evaluate renal health, identify potential risk factors, build predictive models, and monitor patient progress. Moreover, they provide a platform for enhancing communication and education for both patients and healthcare providers, paving the way for enriched knowledge and honed professional skills. However, it is vital to recognize the inherent challenges and limitations when using chatbots in this domain. Here, we provide an in-depth exploration of the concerns tied to chatbots' accuracy, dependability, data protection and security, transparency, potential algorithmic biases, and ethical implications in critical care nephrology. While human discernment and intervention are indispensable, especially in complex medical scenarios or intricate situations, the sustained advancements in AI signal that the integration of precision-engineered chatbot algorithms within critical care nephrology has considerable potential to elevate patient care and pivotal outcome metrics in the future.

Implementing ePROM in specialist palliative home care: the professionals' perspective - a mixed-methods study

Background

Over the last decades, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) have been developed for a better understanding of patient needs. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is an internationally recommended PROM in palliative care. The validated electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) was implemented in four German specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams for use in everyday clinical practice. Patients reported symptoms and concerns via eIPOS, which were transmitted directly to the electronic patient record of the respective SPHC team.

Objectives

The aim of the study was to describe and explore the health care professionals' (HCPs') experiences regarding acceptance and use of eIPOS in clinical practice in SPHC.

Design

The mixed-methods sequential explanatory design comprised an anonymized quantitative online survey followed by qualitative focus groups.

Methods

The online survey asked in both closed and open questions for HCP's experience with eIPOS. Ambiguous results from the survey were discussed in two focus groups. Survey data were analysed with descriptive and univariable statistics, and the framework approach was used for qualitative data. In a further step, we conducted integrated analysis of quantitative and qualitative results using joint displays.

Results

All HCPs of the four SPHC teams (n = 52) were invited to participate. HCPs participating in the survey (n = 32) and the focus groups (n = 7) saw potentials for implementing ePROM in palliative home care - as far as it is technically easy to handle and can be easily integrated into clinical practice.

Conclusion

Successful use of ePROMs is affected by the possibility of easy integration into the teams' different structures and processes and the HCPs' perceptions of potentials regarding ePROM use in SPHC.

Registration

The study is registered on clinicaltrials.org (NCT03879668).

An integrative review on the acceptance of artificial intelligence among healthcare professionals in hospitals

Artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of healthcare is increasing in prominence. Acceptance is an indispensable prerequisite for the widespread implementation of AI. The aim of this integrative review is to explore barriers and facilitators influencing healthcare professionals' acceptance of AI in the hospital setting. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Pertinent elements to the study such as the type of AI, factors influencing acceptance, and the participants' profession were extracted from the included studies, and the studies were appraised for their quality. The data extraction and results were presented according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The included studies revealed a variety of facilitating and hindering factors for AI acceptance in the hospital setting. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were the AI form included in most studies (n = 21). Heterogeneous results with regard to the perceptions of the effects of AI on error occurrence, alert sensitivity and timely resources were reported. In contrast, fear of a loss of (professional) autonomy and difficulties in integrating AI into clinical workflows were unanimously reported to be hindering factors. On the other hand, training for the use of AI facilitated acceptance. Heterogeneous results may be explained by differences in the application and functioning of the different AI systems as well as inter-professional and interdisciplinary disparities. To conclude, in order to facilitate acceptance of AI among healthcare professionals it is advisable to integrate end-users in the early stages of AI development as well as to offer needs-adjusted training for the use of AI in healthcare and providing adequate infrastructure.

Measurement equivalence of the paper-based and electronic version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS): A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) validly and reliably measures symptoms and concerns of those receiving palliative care.

AIM

To determine the equivalence of the paper version with an electronic version of the IPOS (eIPOS).

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised crossover trial (NCT03879668) with a within-subject comparison of the two modes (washout period 30 min).

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Convenience sample of specialist inpatient and palliative home care patients aged over 18 years with cancer and non-cancer conditions was recruited. Scores were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and via a mixed-effects analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were randomised to complete paper-electronic (n = 24) and electronic-paper (n = 26) IPOS with median age 69 years (range 24-95), 56% male, 16% non-cancer. The ICCs showed very high concordance for the total score (ICC 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.00), lowest ICCs being observed for symptoms 'Appetite loss' and 'Drowsiness' (ICC 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.97). Nine of seventeen items had ICCs above 0.98, as did all subscales. No statistically significant mode, order, age, and interaction effects were observed for IPOS total score and subscales, except for 'Communication' (F_mode = 5.9, p = 0.019). Fifty-eight percent preferred the electronic version. In the group 75+ years, 53% preferred the paper version. Only three entries in the free-text main problems differed between the versions.

CONCLUSION

The very high equivalence in scores and free text between the IPOS and the eIPOS demonstrates that eIPOS is feasible and reliable in an older palliative population.

Challenges developing an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement for palliative home care: A qualitative interview and focus group study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures have the potential to improve outcomes, quality, and effectiveness of care. Digital use of patient-reported outcome measures could be an option to foster implementation in palliative care. The Palli-MONITOR study focused on developing and testing an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in specialised palliative home care. As part of this study, we examined setting-specific challenges for the development of the measure.

AIM

We aimed to identify and explore challenges for the development of electronic patient-reported outcome measures as standardised assessment in specialised palliative home care.

DESIGN

Qualitative approach with semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Data were thematically analysed using the framework method.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Patients and professionals from five German palliative home care teams.

RESULTS

Patients described potential problems in using electronic questionnaires due to their deteriorating health. Answering the electronic questionnaire encouraged patients to reflect on their current palliative situation, which was partly perceived as burdensome. Identified concerns and questions regarding the future roll-out of electronic patient-reported outcome measurement addressed the process of receiving and using the provided information in clinical care routine. Challenging factors on organisational and structural level were the potential undermining of the established 24-h emergency call system and the potential use for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide a multifaceted picture of challenges developing electronic systems for patient-reported outcome measurement in palliative home care on the individual and organisational level. The study underpins the benefit of stakeholder involvement creating digital health innovations and emphasises the importance to therefore mind setting specific culture.

Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards.

METHOD

A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'.

CONCLUSIONS

While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).

State-wide implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in specialized outpatient palliative care teams (ELSAH): A mixed-methods evaluation and implications for their sustainable use

BACKGROUND

Such patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-centered outcome measures as the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS), Phase of Illness, and IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC), facilitate patient-centered care and help improve quality. To ensure sustainability, implementation and usage should be adapted according to setting. When settings involve several distinct teams that differ in terms of views and working practices, it is more difficult to integrate outcome measures into daily care. The ELSAH study aimed to learn how health professionals working in specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC) viewed the use of these outcome measures in daily care, and what they express is needed for successful sustainable, state-wide application.

METHODS

We used a parallel mixed-methods design involving three focus groups (n = 14) and an online-survey based on normalization process theory (n = 76). Most participants were nurses and physicians from 19 SOPC-teams in Hesse, Germany. We used a triangulation protocol including convergence coding matrices to triangulate findings.

RESULTS

The majority of health professionals were able to integrate the outcome measures into their working lives and said that it had become a normal part of their day-to-day work. To ensure their sustainable integration into daily care, the motivation and concerns of health professionals should be taken into consideration. Health professionals must clearly recognize how the measures help improve daily care and quality evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

To implement the outcome measures in a number of teams, it will be necessary to take individual team characteristics into account, because they influence motivation and concerncs. Further, it will be necessary to offer opportunities for them to engage in peer support and share information with other teams. The sustainable use of outcome measures in SOPC will require continuous support within each team as well as across teams. When several distinct teams are working in the same setting, a cross-team coordination unit can help to coordinate their work efficiently.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421; www.germanctr.de/DRKS00012421.

Integrating patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures into the daily care routines of specialised outpatient palliative care: a qualitative study (ELSAH) on feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness

Background

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC.

Methods

Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures.

Results

We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording.

Conclusions

SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be.

Trial registration

May 19th, 2017, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421.

Technology Recommendations to Support Person-Centered Care in Long-Term Care Homes during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed persistent inequities in the long-term care sector and brought strict social/physical distancing distancing and public health quarantine guidelines that inadvertently put long-term care residents at risk for social isolation and loneliness. Virtual communication and technologies have come to the forefront as the primary mode for residents to maintain connections with their loved ones and the outside world; yet, many long-term care homes do not have the technological capabilities to support modern day technologies. There is an urgent need to replace antiquated technological infrastructures to enable person-centered care and prevent potentially irreversible cognitive and psychological declines by ensuring residents are able to maintain important relationships with their family and friends. To this end, we provide five technological recommendations to support the ethos of person-centered care in residential long-term care homes during the pandemic and  in a post-COVID-19 pandemic world.

Monitoring of Palliative Care Symptoms and Concerns in Specialized Palliative Home Care Using an Electronic Version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (Palli-MONITOR): protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decades, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been developed to better understand the patient's perspective and enable patient-centred care. In palliative care, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is recommended as a PRO tool. Its implementation in specialised palliative home care (SPHC) would benefit from an electronic version validated for the setting.Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance, the study Palli-MONITOR is developing (phase 1) and testing the feasibility (phase 2) of implementing the electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) in the SPHC setting to inform a cluster-randomised phase 3 trial.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Palli-MONITOR is a multicentre, sequential mixed-methods, two-phase development and feasibility study. The study consists of four substudies. In phase 1 (MRC development phase), qualitative patient interviews and focus groups with SPHC professionals are used to identify barriers and facilitators of eIPOS (substudy I). Substudy II tests the equivalence of eIPOS and IPOS in a crossover randomised controlled trial. Phase 2 (MRC feasibility/piloting phase) includes a quasi-experimental study with two control groups (substudy III), and qualitative interviews as well as focus groups to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the developed intervention (substudy IV).Qualitative data will be analysed with thematic analysis following the framework approach. Quantitative analysis uses a two-way intraclass correlation coefficients model for the equivalence testing. Quantitative analysis of the quasi-experimental study will focus on the primary outcomes, recruitment rates and completeness of eIPOS. Secondary outcomes will include intraindividual change in palliative symptoms and concerns, quality of life and symptom burden.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval of the ethics committee of the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich was received for all study parts. Results and experiences will be presented at congresses and in written form. Additionally, participating SPHC teams will receive summarised results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03879668.