Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings

Barriers to and facilitators of advance care planning implementation for medical staff after the COVID-19 pandemic: an overview of reviews

OBJECTIVE

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the capacity for advance care planning (ACP) among patients, families and healthcare teams. We sought to identify and review the barriers to and facilitators of ACP implementation for medical staff in different settings (eg, hospitals, outpatient palliative care, nursing and care homes) during the pandemic.

DESIGN

This study employed an overview of reviews design. We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Embase databases for studies published between 8 December 2019 and 30 July 2023. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included seven reviews. Common barriers to ACP implementation included visitation restrictions, limited resources and personnel and a lack of coordination among healthcare professionals. In care and nursing homes, barriers included a dearth of palliative care physicians and the psychological burden on facility staff. Using telemedicine for information sharing was a common facilitator across settings. In hospitals, facilitators included short-term training in palliative care and palliative care physicians joining the acute care team. In care and nursing homes, facilitators included ACP education and emotional support for staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Visitation restrictions and limited resources during the pandemic posed obstacles; however, the implementation of ACP was further hindered by insufficient staff education on ACP in hospitals and facilities, as well as a scarcity of information sharing at the community level. These pre-existing issues were magnified by the pandemic, drawing attention to their significance. Short-term staff training programmes and immediate information sharing could better enable ACP.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022351362.

The impact of family care visitation programme on patients and caregivers in the intensive care unit: A mixed methods study

AIMS

To track changes in the haemodynamic and respiratory indicators of patients and evaluate families' caring experiences via the visitation programme in the intensive care unit (ICU).

BACKGROUND

Although most people recognise the importance of family care visitation programme in the ICU, objective research results on the effect on patients and caregivers are still insufficient.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

METHODS

In this a quasi-experimental investigation and qualitative study, after executing the programme with families of ICU patients in a general hospital in South Korea from June to July 2019, changes in haemodynamic and respiratory indicators for control (n = 28) and experimental groups (n = 28) were analysed; the experimental group families' experiences were analysed through in-depth interviews; the qualitative study's reporting rigour was checked against the COREQ guidelines and TREND checklist for a quasi-experimental study. Qualitative and quantitative data were examined using content analysis and repeated-measures analysis of variance, respectively.

RESULTS

There was a significant change in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the haemodynamic indicator, and the respiratory indicator in both groups increased slightly over time and then gradually stabilised; there were no significant differences or interactions between groups regarding time of systolic blood pressure. The respiratory rate significantly decreased only in the experimental group. There was a significant increase in oxygen saturation over time, as well as interactions between time and group and between groups. Four themes were extracted from families' experiences.

CONCLUSION

The haemodynamic and respiratory indicators of the group using patient- and family-centred care (PFCC) showed a stable effect on critically ill patients, which increased families' satisfaction. In future, interventions should encourage family participation in the ICU for successful PFCC.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The findings provided evidence for the importance of PFCC through changes in objective haemodynamic and respiratory indicators.

The Implementation of Evidence-Informed Family Nursing Practices: A Scoping Review of Strategies, Contextual Determinants, and Outcomes

There is a lack of knowledge about the successful implementation of family nursing practices. This scoping review maps current knowledge about the implementation of evidence-informed family nursing practices across settings and populations. A systematic search (CINAHL, PubMed, Medline) identified 24 publications, published between 2010 and 2020. We found nurses' implementation experience to be one of disruption, learning, and moving to new ways of practicing. The implementation resulted in benefits to families and self but was marked by fluctuation and partial integration of evidence-informed family nursing practices into care delivery. Uptake was shaped by various contextual determinants, with barriers mainly at the team and organizational levels. We identified low-quality, tentative evidence that capacity-building strategies coupled with dissemination-educational strategies may enable family nursing practice skills and increase the quality of family care. More rigorous research is needed to build further knowledge about effective implementation. Future implementation endeavors should utilize the evolving knowledge base in family nursing and tailor implementation strategies to contextual barriers.

When patients (and families) raise the alarm: Patient and family activated rapid response as a safety strategy for hospitals

Patients and those close to them often have an intimate understanding of their condition and can participate in a broad range of clinical processes. During times of deterioration, their concerns might go unheard. Advocacy of family and friends can fulfil an important safety function and can support patients and healthcare professionals looking after them. If concerns by patients are not heard by the patient's primary team in hospital, patient and family activated rapid response systems allow patients and family members to alert critical care outreach teams directly. These types of systems are stipulated by regulators in Australia and in parts of the USA, and there are examples in the UK built around the 'Call for Concern' model championed by the Royal Berkshire Hospital. Implementation is not without its problems and requires a deep understanding of barriers and enablers. Empowering patients to escalate directly might help to change safety culture and have protective effects for patients and staff. Policy makers are urged to consider standardised regulation to aid implementation.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.