Project description:Background: Approximately 40 million people in need of palliative care worldwide, while 80% of them live in low- and middle-income countries. Kazakhstan, a low-to middle-income country with a reforming healthcare system, is committed to improving quality and accessibility of care for its 100,000 terminal patients in need of palliative care. Policy Options and Recommendations: To join the group of countries where palliative care is available, accessible, and affordable, Kazakhstan must integrate palliative services into the mainstream healthcare system at all levels, from primary healthcare to hospices, and from major cities to remote villages. Based on the evidence thoroughly collected directly from the Ministry of Health, authors propose a feasible set of recommendations regarding palliative policy, pain relief, infrastructure, workforce, and education, which could be implemented in LMICs beyond Kazakhstan. Conclusion: This study presents an analysis of challenges, recent developments, and needs of palliative care in Kazakhstan, including funding, policy, workforce, education, and infrastructure, providing an evidence base and recommendations for future development of palliative care in Kazakhstan and in other LMICs.
Project description: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.
Project description:BackgroundWith 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.MethodsElectronic 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.DiscussionIdentifying, 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.
Project description:PURPOSE:To evaluate whether the early identification of patients who may benefit from palliative care impacts on the use of palliative, community and acute-based care services. METHODS:Between 2014 and 2017, physicians from eight sites were encouraged to systematically identify patients who were likely to die within one year and would were thought to benefit from early palliative care. Patients in the INTEGRATE Intervention Group were 1:1 matched to controls selected from provincial healthcare administrative data using propensity score-matching. The use of palliative care, community-based care services (home care, physician home visit, and outpatient opioid use) and acute care (emergency department, hospitalization) was each evaluated within one year after the date of identification. The hazard ratio (HR) in the Intervention Group was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS:Of the 1,185 patients in the Intervention Group, 951 (80.3%) used palliative care services during follow-up, compared to 739 (62.4%) among 1,185 patients in the Control Group [HR of 1.69 (95% CI 1.56 to 1.82)]. The Intervention Group also had higher proportions of patients who used home care [81.4% vs. 55.2%; HR 2.07 (95% CI 1.89 to 2.27)], had physician home visits [35.5% vs. 23.7%; HR 1.63 (95% CI 1.46 to 1.92)] or had increased outpatient opioid use [64.3% vs. 52.1%); HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.57]. The Intervention Group was also more likely to have a hospitalization that was not primarily focused on palliative care (1.42 (95% CI 1.28 to 1.58)) and an unplanned emergency department visit for non-palliative care purpose (1.47 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.64)). CONCLUSION:Physicians actively identifying patients who would benefit from palliative care resulted in increased use of palliative and community-based care services, but also increased use of acute care services.
Project description:Palliative care (PC) benefits patients with serious illness including end-stage liver disease (ESLD). As part of a cluster randomized trial, hepatologists were trained to deliver primary palliative care to patients with ESLD using an online course, Palliative Care Always: Hepatology (PCA:Hep). Here we present a multimethod formative evaluation (feasibility, knowledge acquisition, self-efficacy, and practice patterns) of PCA:Hep. Feasibility was measured by completion of coursework and achieving a course grade of >80%. Knowledge acquisition was measured through assessments before and throughout the course. Pre/post-course surveys were conducted to determine self-efficacy and practice patterns. The hepatologists (n = 39) enrolled in a 12-week online course and spent 1-3 hours on the course weekly. The course was determined to be feasible as 97% successfully completed the course and 100% passed. The course was acceptable to participants; 91.7 % reported a positive course experience and satisfaction with knowledge gained (91.6%). The pre/post knowledge assessment showed an improvement of 6.0% (pre 85.9% to post 91.9%, 95% CI [2.8, 9.2], P = 0.001). Self-efficacy increased significantly (P < 0.001) in psychological symptom management, hospice, and psychosocial support. A year after training, over 80% of the hepatologists reported integrating a variety of PC skills into routine patient care. Conclusion: PCA:Hep is feasible, acceptable, and improves learner knowledge and confidence in palliative care skills. This is a viable method to teach primary PC skills to specialists caring for patients with ESLD.
Project description:Primary palliative care is a fundamental aspect of high-quality care for patients with a serious illness such as dementia. The clinician caring for a patient and family suffering with dementia can provide primary palliative care in numerous ways. Perhaps the most important aspects are high quality communication while sharing a diagnosis, counseling the patient through progression of illness and prognostication, and referral to hospice when appropriate. COVID-19 presents additional risks of intensive care requirement and mortality which we must help patients and families navigate. Throughout all of these discussions, the astute clinician must monitor the patient's decision making capacity and balance respect for autonomy with protection against uninformed consent. Excellent primary palliative care also involves discussion of deprescribing medications of uncertain benefit such as long term use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine and being vigilant in the monitoring of pain with its relationship to behavioral disturbance in patients with dementia. Clinicians should follow a standardized approach to pain management in this vulnerable population. Caregiver burden is high for patients with dementia and comprehensive care should also address this burden and implement reduction strategies. When these aspects of care are particularly complex or initial managements strategies fall short, palliative care specialists can be an important additional resource not only for the patient and family, but for the care team struggling to guide the way through a disease with innumerable challenges.
Project description:IntroductionFederal recommendations for providing quality family planning services were published in 2014 and included preconception care (PCC). This paper aims to describe the prevalence of PCC delivery among publicly funded clinics, prior to the recommendations.MethodsPrevalence of providing occasional or frequent PCC in the last 3 months and having written protocols for recommended PCC screenings were estimated in 2015 using survey data collected from a nationally representative sample of publicly funded clinic administrators (2013-2014, N=1,615). Analyses included examination of differential distributions of outcomes by clinic characteristics (p<0.05) and multivariable regression.ResultsPrevalence of occasional or frequent PCC delivery was 81% for women and 38% for men. The percentage of clinics with written protocols for specific PCC screenings ranged from 74% to 88% (women) and 66% to 83% (men). Prevalence of having written protocols for all PCC screenings was 29% for women and 22% for men. Characteristics negatively associated with having written protocols for all PCC screenings for women and men (respectively) were as follows: not receiving Title X funding (adjusted prevalence ratio [APR]=0.6, 95% CI=0.50, 0.76; APR=0.6, 95% CI=0.47, 0.77) and being a community health center (APR=0.5, 95% CI=0.37, 0.72; APR=0.5, 95% CI=0.30, 0.67); health department (APR=0.7, 95% CI=0.61, 0.87; APR=0.6, 95% CI=0.49, 0.76); or hospital/other (APR=0.6, 95% CI=0.50, 0.79; APR=0.6, 95% CI=0.43, 0.75) (versus Planned Parenthood).ConclusionsProvision of PCC appears to differ by clinic characteristics and by interpretation of the phrase "preconception care," suggesting opportunities for education and improvement.
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to map existing emergency medical services (EMS) and palliative care literature by answering the question, what literature exists concerning EMS and palliative care? The sub-questions regarding this literature were, (1) what types of literature exist?, (2) what are the key findings? and (3) what knowledge gaps are present?DesignA scoping review of literature was performed with an a priori search strategy.Data sourcesMEDLINE via Pubmed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase via Scopus, PsycINFO, the University of Cape Town Thesis Repository and Google Scholar were searched.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEmpirical, English studies involving human populations published between 1 January 2000 and 24 November 2022 concerning EMS and palliative care were included.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts for inclusion. Extracted data underwent descriptive content analysis and were reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines.ResultsIn total, 10 725 articles were identified. Following title and abstract screening, 10 634 studies were excluded. A further 35 studies were excluded on full-text screening. The remaining 56 articles were included for review. Four predominant domains arose from included studies: (1) EMS' palliative care role, (2) challenges faced by EMS in palliative situations, (3) EMS and palliative care integration benefits and (4) proposed recommendations for EMS and palliative care integration.ConclusionEMS have a role to play in out-of-hospital palliative care, however, many challenges must be overcome. EMS provider education, collaboration between EMS and palliative systems, creation of EMS palliative care guidelines/protocols, creation of specialised out-of-hospital palliative care teams and further research have been recommended as solutions. Future research should focus on the prioritisation, implementation and effectiveness of these solutions in various contexts.
Project description:BackgroundPrior research indicates that hospice and palliative care delivered in outpatient settings are associated with reduced hospital readmissions for cancer patients. However, little is known about how inpatient palliative care affects readmissions in oncology.ObjectiveTo examine associations among inpatient palliative care consultation, hospice use (discharge), and 30-day readmissions among patients with solid tumor cancers.MethodsWe identified all live discharges from a large tertiary cancer hospital between 2010 and 2016. Palliative care consult data were abstracted from medical charts and linked to hospital encounter data. Propensity scores were used to match palliative care consult to usual care encounters. Modified Poisson regression models estimated adjusted relative risk (aRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of 30-day readmissions and hospice discharge. We compared predicted probabilities of readmission for palliative care consultation with hospice discharge, without hospice discharge, and usual care.ResultsOf 8085 eligible encounters, 753 involved a palliative care consult. The likelihood of having a 30-day readmission did not differ between palliative care consult and usual care groups (p > 0.05). However, the palliative care consult group was more likely than usual care to have a hospice discharge (aRR = 4.09, 95% CI: 3.07-5.44). The predicted probability of 30-day readmission was lower when palliative care consultation was combined with hospice discharge compared to usual care or consultation with discharge to nonhospice postacute care (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe effect of inpatient palliative care on readmissions in oncology is largely driven by hospice enrollment. Strategies that combine palliative care consultation with hospice discharge may decrease hospital readmissions and improve cancer care quality.