Dataset Information

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA.

ABSTRACT: Background:patient empowerment, through which patients become self-determining agents with some control over their health and healthcare, is a common theme across health policies globally. Most care for older people is in the acute setting, but there is little evidence to inform the delivery of empowering hospital care. Objective:we aimed to explore challenges to and facilitators of empowerment among older people with advanced disease in hospital, and the impact of palliative care. Methods:we conducted an ethnography in six hospitals in England, Ireland and the USA. The ethnography involved: interviews with patients aged ?65, informal caregivers, specialist palliative care (SPC) staff and other clinicians who cared for older adults with advanced disease, and fieldwork. Data were analysed using directed thematic analysis. Results:analysis of 91 interviews and 340 h of observational data revealed substantial challenges to empowerment: poor communication and information provision, combined with routinised and fragmented inpatient care, restricted patients' self-efficacy, self-management, choice and decision-making. Information and knowledge were often necessary for empowerment, but not sufficient: empowerment depended on patient-centredness being enacted at an organisational and staff level. SPC facilitated empowerment by prioritising patient-centred care, tailored communication and information provision, and the support of other clinicians. Conclusions:empowering older people in the acute setting requires changes throughout the health system. Facilitators of empowerment include excellent staff-patient communication, patient-centred, relational care, an organisational focus on patient experience rather than throughput, and appropriate access to SPC. Findings have relevance for many high- and middle-income countries with a growing population of older patients with advanced disease.

SUBMITTER: Selman LE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5860377 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA.

Selman Lucy Ellen LE Daveson Barbara A BA Smith Melinda M Johnston Bridget B Ryan Karen K Morrison R Sean RS Pannell Caty C McQuillan Regina R de Wolf-Linder Suzanne S Pantilat Steven Z SZ Klass Lara L Meier Diane D Normand Charles C Higginson Irene J IJ

Age and ageing 20170301 2

<h4>Background</h4>patient empowerment, through which patients become self-determining agents with some control over their health and healthcare, is a common theme across health policies globally. Most care for older people is in the acute setting, but there is little evidence to inform the delivery of empowering hospital care.<h4>Objective</h4>we aimed to explore challenges to and facilitators of empowerment among older people with advanced disease in hospital, and the impact of palliative care ...[more]

PMID: 27810850

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesImproving detection of depression in people with diabetes is recommended. However, little is known about how different health systems compare in depression detection. We estimated and compared the (1) prevalence of depression detection in people with and without diabetes, and (2) association between diabetes and undiagnosed depression across three health systems.DesignCross-sectional analysis of three nationally representative studies: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing and the Health and Retirement Study.SettingCommunity-dwelling adults in Ireland, England and the USA.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥50 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was depression diagnosis. The secondary outcome was any depression. Any depression was defined by the presence of self-reported doctor-diagnosed depression or current depression symptoms on the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale. Depression diagnosis was categorised as: undiagnosed, symptomatic and diagnosed, and asymptomatic and diagnosed. We estimated age-standardised prevalence of depression diagnosis by country and diabetes status. Anyone who self-reported having ever received a doctor diagnosis of diabetes was classified as having diabetes. Among respondents with depression, we estimated the association between diabetes and undiagnosed depression by country using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThe prevalence of depression (diagnosed and undiagnosed) was higher in people with diabetes in each country with absolute rates varying by country; undiagnosed prevalence (Ireland: diabetes 10.1% (95% CI 7.5% to 12.8%) vs no diabetes 7.5% (95% CI 6.8% to 8.2%), England: diabetes 19.3% (95% CI 16.5% to 22.2%) vs no diabetes 11.8% (95% CI 11.0% to 12.6%), USA: diabetes 7.4% (95% CI 6.4% to 8.4%) vs no diabetes 6.1% (95% CI 5.7% to 6.6%)). In the fully adjusted model, there was no clear pattern of association between diabetes status and undiagnosed depression; Ireland: OR=0.82 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3), England: OR=1.47 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1), USA: OR=0.80 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0).ConclusionsAlthough undiagnosed depression was more prevalent among people with diabetes, the relationship between diabetes and undiagnosed depression differed by country. Targeted efforts are needed to improve depression detection among community-dwelling older adults, particularly those with diabetes.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication error at transitions of care is common. The implementation of medicines reconciliation processes to improve this issue has been recommended by many regulatory and safety organisations. The aim of this study was to gain insight from healthcare professionals on the barriers and facilitators to the medicines reconciliation implementation process. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted in Ireland with a wide range of healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved with medicines reconciliation at transitions of care. Thematic analysis was undertaken using an adaptation of a combined theoretical framework of Grol, Cabana and Sluisveld to classify the barriers and facilitators to implementation of medicines reconciliation. RESULTS:Thirty-five participants were interviewed, including eleven community pharmacists (CPs), eight hospital pharmacists (HPs), nine hospital consultants (HCs), five general practitioners (GPs), and two non-consultant hospital doctors (NCHDs). Themes were categorized into barriers and facilitators. Barriers included resistance from existing professional cultures, staff interest and training, poor communication and minimal information and communications technology (ICT) support. Solutions (facilitators) suggested included supporting effective multidisciplinary teams, greater involvement of pharmacists in medicines reconciliation, ICT solutions (linked prescribing databases, decision support systems) and increased funding to provide additional (e.g. admission and discharge reconciliation) and more advanced services (e.g. community pharmacist delivered medicines use review). CONCLUSIONS:Medicines reconciliation is advocated as a solution to the known problem of medication error at transitions of care. This study identifies the key challenges and potential solutions that policy makers, managers and HCPs should consider when reviewing the practices and processes of medicines reconciliation in their own organisations.

Project description:BackgroundIreland's Model of Care for the Management of Overweight and Obesity outlines a plan for treating adolescent and child obesity (CO). However, engagement with key stakeholders is required to support its implementation and improve health services.AimThis study aims to map the perceived barriers and facilitators related to CO management across healthcare settings, professional disciplines, and regions in the Republic of Ireland (ROI).Materials and methodsAn online cross-sectional survey of registered healthcare professionals (HPs), designed to adhere to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was co-developed by a project team consisting of researchers, healthcare professionals, and patient advocates. The survey was pilot tested with project stakeholders and distributed online to professional groups and via a social media campaign, between September 2021 and May 2022, using "SurveyMonkey." Data were summarised using descriptive statistics and thematic analyses. Themes were mapped to the CFIR framework to identify the type of implementation gaps that exist for treating obesity within the current health and social care system.ResultsA total of 184 HPs completed the survey including nurses (18%), physicians (14%), health and social care professionals (60%), and other HPs (8%). The majority were female (91%), among which 54% reported conducting growth monitoring with a third (32.6%) giving a diagnosis of paediatric/adolescent obesity as part of their clinical practice. Nearly half (49%) of the HPs reported having the resources needed for clinical assessment. However, 31.5% of the HPs reported having enough "time," and almost 10% of the HPs reported having no/limited access to suitable anthropometric measurement tools. Most HPs did not conduct obesity-related clinical assessments beyond growth assessment, and 61% reported having no paediatric obesity training. CFIR mapping identified several facilitators and barriers including time for clinical encounters, suitable materials and equipment, adequate training, perceived professional competency and self-efficacy, human equality and child-centredness, relative priorities, local attitudes, referral protocols, and long waiting times.ConclusionsThe findings provide actionable information to guide the implementation of the Model of Care for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Ireland. Survey findings will now inform a qualitative study to explore implementation barriers and facilitators and prioritise actions to improve child and adolescent obesity management.

Project description:BackgroundPeople Who Use Drugs (PWUD) have lower vaccination uptake than the general population, and disproportionately experience the burden of harms from vaccine-preventable diseases. We conducted a national qualitative study to: (1) identify the barriers and facilitators to receiving COVID-19 vaccinations among PWUD; and (2) identify interventions to support PWUD in their decision-making.MethodsBetween March and October 2022, semi-structured interviews with PWUD across Canada were conducted. Fully vaccinated (2 or more doses) and partially or unvaccinated (1 dose or less) participants were recruited from a convenience sample to participate in telephone interviews to discuss facilitators, barriers, and concerns about receiving COVID-19 vaccines and subsequent boosters, and ways to address concerns. A total of 78 PWUD participated in the study, with 50 participants being fully vaccinated and 28 participants partially or unvaccinated. Using thematic analysis, interviews were coded based on the capability, opportunity, and motivation-behavior (COM-B) framework.ResultsMany partially or unvaccinated participants reported lacking knowledge about the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly in terms of its usefulness and benefits. Some participants reported lacking knowledge around potential long-term side effects of the vaccine, and the differences of the various vaccine brands. Distrust toward government and healthcare agencies, the unprecedented rapidity of vaccine development and skepticism of vaccine effectiveness were also noted as barriers. Facilitators for vaccination included a desire to protect oneself or others and compliance with government mandates which required individuals to get vaccinated in order to access services, attend work or travel. To improve vaccination uptake, the most trusted and appropriate avenues for vaccination information sharing were identified by participants to be people with lived and living experience with drug use (PWLLE), harm reduction workers, or healthcare providers working within settings commonly visited by PWUD.ConclusionPWLLE should be supported to design tailored information to reduce barriers and address mistrust. Resources addressing knowledge gaps should be disseminated in areas and through organizations where PWUD frequently access, such as harm reduction services and social media platforms.

Project description:BackgroundLittle is known about patient engagement in the context of large teams or networks. Quantitative data from a larger sample of CHILD-BRIGHT Network members suggest that patient engagement was beneficial and meaningful. To extend our understanding of the barriers, facilitators, and impacts identified by patient-partners and researchers, we conducted this qualitative study.MethodsParticipants completed semi-structured interviews and were recruited from the CHILD-BRIGHT Research Network. A patient-oriented research (POR) approach informed by the SPOR Framework guided the study. The Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2-SF) was used to report on involvement of patient-partners. The data were analyzed using a qualitative, content analysis approach.ResultsTwenty-five CHILD-BRIGHT Network members (48% patient-partners, 52% researchers) were interviewed on their engagement experiences in the Network's research projects and in network-wide activities. At the research project level, patient-partners and researchers reported similar barriers and facilitators to engagement. Barriers included communication challenges, factors specific to patient-partners, difficulty maintaining engagement over time, and difficulty achieving genuine collaboration. Facilitators included communication (e.g., open communication), factors specific to patient-partners (e.g., motivation), and factors such as respect and trust. At the Network level, patient-partners and researchers indicated that time constraints and asking too much of patient-partners were barriers to engagement. Both patient-partners and researchers indicated that communication (e.g., regular contacts) facilitated their engagement in the Network. Patient-partners also reported that researchers' characteristics (e.g., openness to feedback) and having a role within the Network facilitated their engagement. Researchers related that providing a variety of activities and establishing meaningful collaborations served as facilitators. In terms of impacts, study participants indicated that POR allowed for: (1) projects to be better aligned with patient-partners' priorities, (2) collaboration among researchers, patient-partners and families, (3) knowledge translation informed by patient-partner input, and (4) learning opportunities.ConclusionOur findings provide evidence of the positive impacts of patient engagement and highlight factors that are important to consider in supporting engagement in large research teams or networks. Based on these findings and in collaboration with patient-partners, we have identified strategies for enhancing authentic engagement of patient-partners in these contexts.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:BRIGHTLIGHT is a national evaluation of cancer services for teenagers and young adults in England. Following challenges with recruitment, our aim was to understand more fully healthcare professionals' perspectives of the challenges of recruiting young people to a low-risk observational study, and to provide guidance for future recruitment processes. DESIGN:Qualitative. SETTING:National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England. METHODS:Semistructured telephone interviews with a convenience sample of 23 healthcare professionals. Participants included principal investigators/other staff recruiting into the BRIGHTLIGHT study. Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS:The emergent themes were linked to levels of research organisational management, described using the levels of social network analysis: micro-level (the individual; in this case the target population to be recruited-young people with cancer); meso-level (the organisation; refers to place of recruitment and people responsible for recruitment); and macro-level (the large-scale or global structure; refers to the wider research function of the NHS and associated policies). Study-related issues occurred across all three levels, which were influenced by the context of the study. At the meso-level, professionals' perceptions of young people and communication between professionals generated age/cancer type silos, resulting in recruitment of either children or adults, but not both by the same team, and only in the cancer type the recruiting professional was aligned to. At the macro-level the main barrier was discordant configuration of a research service with a clinical service. CONCLUSIONS:This study has identified significant barriers to recruitment mainly at the meso-level and macro-level, which are more challenging for research teams to influence. We suggest that interconnected whole-system changes are required to facilitate the success of interventions designed to improve recruitment. Interventions targeted at study design/management and the micro-level only may be less successful. We offer solutions to be considered by those involved at all levels of research for this population.

Dataset Information

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA.

Publications

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets