Dataset Information

Implementing a quality improvement programme in palliative care in care homes: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

An increasing number of older people reach the end of life in care homes. The aim of this study is to explore the perceived benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of the Gold Standards Framework for Care Homes (GSFCH), a quality improvement programme in palliative care.

Methods

Nine care homes involved in the GSFCH took part. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine care home managers, eight nurses, nine care assistants, eleven residents and seven of their family members. We used the Framework approach to qualitative analysis. The analysis was deductive based on the key tasks of the GSFCH, the 7Cs: communication, coordination, control of symptoms, continuity, continued learning, carer support, and care of the dying. This enabled us to consider benefits of, and barriers to, individual components of the programme, as well as of the programme as a whole.

Results

Perceived benefits of the GSFCH included: improved symptom control and team communication; finding helpful external support and expertise; increasing staff confidence; fostering residents' choice; and boosting the reputation of the home. Perceived barriers included: increased paperwork; lack of knowledge and understanding of end of life care; costs; and gaining the cooperation of GPs. Many of the tools and tasks in the GSFCH focus on improving communication. Participants described effective communication within the homes, and with external providers such as general practitioners and specialists in palliative care. However, many had experienced problems with general practitioners. Although staff described the benefits of supportive care registers, coding predicted stage of illness and advance care planning, which included improved communication, some felt the need for more experience of using these, and there were concerns about discussing death.

Conclusions

Most of the barriers described by participants are relevant to other interventions to improve end of life care in care homes. There is a need to investigate the impact of quality improvement programmes in care homes, such as the GSFCH, on a wider range of outcomes for residents and their families, and to monitor the sustainability of any resulting improvements. It is also important to explore the impact of the different components of these complex interventions.

SUBMITTER: Hall S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3127758 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing a quality improvement programme in palliative care in care homes: a qualitative study.

Hall Sue S Goddard Cassie C Stewart Frances F Higginson Irene J IJ

BMC geriatrics 20110609

<h4>Background</h4>An increasing number of older people reach the end of life in care homes. The aim of this study is to explore the perceived benefits of, and barriers to, implementation of the Gold Standards Framework for Care Homes (GSFCH), a quality improvement programme in palliative care.<h4>Methods</h4>Nine care homes involved in the GSFCH took part. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine care home managers, eight nurses, nine care assistants, eleven residents and seven of thei ...[more]

PMID: 21658253

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe nationwide integration of palliative care best practices into general care settings is challenging but important in improving the quality of palliative care. This is why the Dutch National Quality Improvement Programme for Palliative Care has recently been launched. This four-year programme consists of about 70 implementation trajectories of best practices. A large evaluation study has been set up to evaluate this national programme and separate implementation trajectories.Methods/designThis paper presents the protocol of the evaluation study consisting of a quantitative effect evaluation and a qualitative process evaluation. The effect evaluation has a pre-test post-test design, with measurements before implementation (month 0) and after implementation (month 9) of a best practice. Patients are eligible if they have a life expectancy of less than six months and/or if they are undergoing palliative treatment and provided they are physically and mentally capable of responding to questionnaires. Bereaved relatives are eligible if they have been involved in the care of a deceased patient who died after a sickbed between six weeks and six months ago. Three types of measurement instruments are used: (1) numerical rating scales for six symptoms (pain, fatigue, breathlessness, obstipation, sadness and anxiety), (2) the Consumer Quality Index Palliative Care - patient version and (3) the version for bereaved relatives.The process evaluation consists of analysing implementation plans and reports of the implementation, and individual and group interviews with healthcare professionals. This will be done nine to eleven months after the start of the implementation of a best practice.DiscussionThis mixed-method evaluation study gives more insight into the effects of the total programme and the separate implementation trajectories. However, evaluation of large quality improvement programmes is complicated due to changing, non-controlled environments. Therefore, it is important that an effect evaluation is combined with a process evaluation.Trial registrationNTR-4085.

Project description:IntroductionThe Perioperative Quality Improvement Programme (PQIP) is designed to measure complications after major elective surgery and improve these through feedback of data to clinicians. Previous research suggests that despite the significant resources which go into collecting data for national clinical audits, the information they contain is not always used effectively to improve local services.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a formative process evaluation of PQIP comprising a multisited qualitative study to analyse PQIP's programme theory, barriers, facilitators and wider contextual factors that influence implementation. The research will be carried out with the PQIP project team and six National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England, selected according to geographical location, type of hospital, size and level of engagement with PQIP. We will include one Trust which has not expressed interest in the PQIP for comparison and to explore the role of secular trend in any changes in practice. We will use semi-structured interviews (up to 144 in Trusts and 12 with the project team), non-participant observations (up to 150 ?hours) and documentary analysis. We will track the lifecycle of perioperative data, exploring the transformations it undergoes from creation to use. We will use framework analysis with categories both from our research questions and from themes emerging from the data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted from the University College London Research Ethics Committee (ref 10375/001). Permissions to conduct research at NHS Trusts have been granted by local Research and Development offices in coordination with the Health Research Authority. We will follow guidelines for data security, confidentiality and information governance. Findings will be shared at regular time points with the PQIP project team to inform the implementation of the programme, and with participating NHS Trusts to help them reflect on how they currently use data for improvement of perioperative services.

Project description:IntroductionObstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASI) can have severe debilitating consequences to women and health systems. The OASI Care Bundle quality improvement programme was introduced in 16 maternity units across England, Scotland and Wales (January 2017 to March 2018) to address increasing OASI rates.ObjectivesTo explore clinicians' (midwives' and obstetricians') perspectives of the OASI Care Bundle with respect to (1) acceptability, (2) feasibility, and (3) sustainability.DesignA qualitative exploratory study using focus groups methodology.SettingA total of 16 focus groups were conducted in 16 maternity units in England, Scotland and Wales where the OASI Care Bundle was implemented. Focus groups took place approximately 3 months following initial implementation of the care bundle in each unit.ParticipantsA total of 101 clinicians participated, with an average of six per focus group. Participants volunteered to take part and compromised of 37 obstetricians and 64 midwives (including eight students). The majority were female and the mean age was 36.5 years.ResultsFour main themes emerged: 'Implementation strategies', 'Opportunities to use the OASI Care Bundle', 'Does current practice need to change?' and 'Perceptions of what women want'. Midwives were more likely than obstetricians to report themes alluding to 'what women want' and variations in intrapartum perineal protection techniques. Both professional groups reported similar views of other themes, in particular regarding the supporting clinical evidence. Gaps were identified in clinicians' knowledge and experience of intrapartum perineal management.ConclusionsAdoption of the OASI Care Bundle was associated with a number of cognitive and interpersonal factors, such as personal values, interprofessional working and how the intervention was launched; which both facilitated and impeded adoption. The 'what women want' theme has implications for maternal autonomy and needs further exploration. Our findings can be used by similar initiatives to reduce perineal trauma both nationally and internationally.Trial registration numberISCTRN 12143325; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12143325.

Project description:ObjectivesInitiation of advance care planning (ACP) and palliative care (PC) assessments in general practice is key to quality end-of-life care. The Advance Project promotes a team-based approach to initiating ACP and PC needs assessment in general practices through training, resources and practical support for implementation from local primary health networks (PHNs). This paper aims to understand: (1) general practice participants' experiences of undertaking Advance Project training and implementing the Advance Project resources in their practices; (2) barriers and facilitators to implementation of Advance Project resources; and (3) PHN staff experiences of supporting general practices through training and practical support for implementation of the Advance Project resources.DesignQualitative study using semistructured interviews and thematic analysis.SettingTwenty-one general practices and four PHNs from three Australian states were recruited between June 2019 and May 2020.ParticipantsGeneral practitioners (GPs), general practice nurses, practice managers (PMs) and PHN staff.Results45 participants comprising 13 GPs, 13 general practice nurses, 9 PMs, 3 allied health staff and 7 PHN staff were interviewed. The general practice participants generally agreed that the Advance Project training/resources led to changes in their own behaviour and increased their awareness of the importance of ACP/PC discussion with their patients. Participants reported the following benefits for patients: increased awareness of ACP; engagement with families/carers and peace of mind. Key facilitators for successful implementation were a team-based approach, the role of the PHN, the role of practice champions, training facilitators' ability to influence peers and facilitate change, and mentoring support. Barriers to implementation included issues related to workplace culture, cost, time/workload, patients and health system.ConclusionFindings suggest that the Advance Project approach facilitated successful implementation of ACP and PC needs assessment into usual care in general practices that encouraged teamwork among GPs and general practice nurses. The ability of the practice to make the best use of practical support and guidance available to them through their local PHN both before and during implementation was a key factor in integration of Advance Project resources into routine practice.

Project description:BackgroundImproving quality of palliative and end of life care in older people's care homes is essential. Increasing numbers of people die in these settings, yet access to high quality palliative care is not routinely provided. While evidence for models of care are growing, there remains little insight regarding how to translate evidence-based models into practice. Palliative Care Needs Rounds (hereafter Needs Rounds) have a robust evidence base, for providing palliative care in care homes, reducing resident hospitalisations, improving residents' quality of death, and increasing staff confidence in caring for dying residents. This study aimed to identify and describe the context and mechanisms of change that facilitate implementation of Needs Rounds in care homes, and enable other services to reap the benefits of the Needs Rounds approach to care provision.MethodsQualitative interviews, embedded within a large randomised control trial, were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 staff from 11 care homes using Needs Rounds. The sample included managers, nurses, and care assistants. Staff participated in individual or dyadic semi-structured interviews. Implementation science frameworks and thematic analysis were used to interpret and analyse the data.ResultsContextual factors affecting implementation included facility preparedness for change, leadership, staff knowledge and skills, and organisational policies. Mechanisms of change that facilitated implementation included staff as facilitators, identifying and triaging residents, strategizing knowledge exchange, and changing clinical approaches to care. Care home staff also identified planning and documentation, and shifts in communication. The outcomes reported by staff suggest reductions in hospitalisations and problematic symptoms for residents, improved staff skills and confidence in caring for residents in their last months, weeks and days of life.ConclusionsThe significance of this paper is in offering care homes detailed insights into service contexts and mechanisms of change that will enable them to reap the benefits of Needs Rounds in their own services. The paper thus will support the implementation of an approach to care that has a robust evidence base, for a population under-served by specialist palliative care.Trial registrationACTRN12617000080325 .

Dataset Information

Implementing a quality improvement programme in palliative care in care homes: a qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Implementing a quality improvement programme in palliative care in care homes: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets