Developing primary palliative care: primary palliative care services must be better funded by both day and night.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murray SA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC554951 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Developing primary palliative care: primary palliative care services must be better funded by both day and night.
Murray Scott A SA Boyd Kirsty K Sheikh Aziz A
BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20050301 7492
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC539883 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10476099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrance allows deep sedation for pain relief, but not for euthanasia. In anticipation of an increase in home-based palliative care, the role of general practitioners is central to the design of outpatient palliative care services. This study aimed to describe the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of general practitioners in mainland France regarding palliative and end of life care.MethodsThis was a national descriptive cross-sectional study within the Sentinelles network. Self-report questionnaires were distributed to general practitioners between November 2020 and November 2021. A descriptive analysis was carried out.ResultsOut of the 123 participating general practitioners, 84% had received academic training in palliative care (n = 104). While a significant majority (69%) expressed comfort in pain management, only a quarter (25%) declared that they were competent at indicating deep and continuous sedation for pain relief. Awareness of outpatient palliative care facilities close to their place of practice such as hospitalization at home was over 97% (n = 117/120). Awareness of hospital facilities, including identified palliative care beds on hospital wards and palliative care units, was lower (75% (n = 59/79) and 86% (n = 86/100), respectively).ConclusionsOur results suggest that French general practitioners are reasonably aware of palliative care resources available. However, there is room for improvement, particularly in understanding hospital-based facilities. Furthermore, a quarter of the general practitioners expressed discomfort with deep and continuous sedation for pain relief, highlighting the need for increased training in this specific aspect of palliative and end of life care.
| S-EPMC11264423 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6350181 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5434637 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6994244 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8948550 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8791082 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients admitted with cardiogenic shock (CS) have high mortality rates, readmission rates, and healthcare costs. Palliative care services (PCS) may be underused, and the association with 30-day readmission and other predictive factors is unknown. We studied the frequency, etiologies, and predictors of 30-day readmission in CS admissions with and without PCS in the United States.Methods and resultsUsing the 2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified admissions for (1) CS, (2) CS with PCS, and (3) CS without PCS. We compared differences in outcomes and predictors of readmission using multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for survey design. Of 133,738 CS admissions nationally in 2017, 36.3% died inpatient. Among those who survived, 8.6% used PCS and 21% were readmitted within 30 days. Difference between CS with and without PCS groups included mortality (72.8% vs 27%), readmission rate (11.6% vs 21.9%), most frequent discharge destination (50.2% skilled nursing facilities vs 36.4% home), hospitalization cost per patient ($51,083 ± $2,629 vs $66,815 ± $1,729). The primary readmission diagnoses for both groups were heart failure (32.1% vs 24.4%). PCS use was associated with lower rates of readmission (odds ratio, 0.462; 95% confidence interval, 0.408-0.524; P < .001). Do-not-resuscitate status, private pay, self-pay, and cardiac arrest were negative predictors, and multiple comorbidities was a positive predictor of readmission.ConclusionsThe use of PCS in CS admissions remains low at 8.6% in 2017. PCS use was associated with lower 30-day readmission rates and hospitalization costs. PCS are associated with a decrease in future acute care service use for critically ill cardiac patients but underused for high-risk cardiac patients.
| S-EPMC8310778 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5379123 | biostudies-literature