Dataset Information

Impact of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) on care at the end of life across multiple care sectors, in one clinical commissioning group area, in England: a realist evaluation protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) aim to support people approaching the end of life (EOL) to receive consistent care, according to their wishes, that is coordinated effectively across multiple care sectors. They are in use across the UK although empirical evidence into their effectiveness is poor. This paper presents a protocol of a mixed-methods study, to understand how, and by whom, EPaCCS are being used and whether EPaCCS are enabling Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) to coordinate patients' EOL care.

Methods and analysis

This is a mixed-methods study, carried out within a realist paradigm, to evaluate the impact of an EPaCCS on EOL care as provided by a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in England. This study has two aims: (1) Describe the socio-demographic characteristics of patients who die with an EPaCCS record, their underlying cause of death and place of death and compare these with patients who die without an EPaCCS record. (2) Explore the impact of an EPaCCS on the experience of receiving EOL care for patients and their carers, and understand HCPs' views and experiences of utilising an EPaCCS to coordinate care for their patients. The study will be conducted in five phases: (1) development of the initial programme theory; (2) focus group with CCG stakeholder board; (3) individual interviews with HCPs, patients, current and bereaved carers; (4) retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data on EPaCCS usage and (5) data analysis and synthesis of study findings.

Ethics and dissemination

The study has been approved by National Health Service South West-Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number: 18/SW/0198). Findings will be published in a wide range of outputs targeted at key audiences.

SUBMITTER: Pocock L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7170566 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) on care at the end of life across multiple care sectors, in one clinical commissioning group area, in England: a realist evaluation protocol.

Pocock Lucy L French Lydia L Farr Michelle M Morris Richard R Purdy Sarah S

BMJ open 20200331 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) aim to support people approaching the end of life (EOL) to receive consistent care, according to their wishes, that is coordinated effectively across multiple care sectors. They are in use across the UK although empirical evidence into their effectiveness is poor. This paper presents a protocol of a mixed-methods study, to understand how, and by whom, EPaCCS are being used and whether EPaCCS are enabling Healthcare Pro ...[more]

PMID: 32234738

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo improve health outcomes and address mounting costs pressures, policy-makers have encouraged primary care commissioners in the British National Health Service (NHS) to increase the usage of data in decision-making. However, there exists limited research on this topic. In this study, we aimed to understand how and why primary care commissioners use data (i.e. quantitative, statistical information) to inform commissioning, and what outcomes this leads to.MethodsA realist evaluation was completed to create context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOs) relating to the contexts influencing the usage of data in primary care commissioning. Using a realist logic of analysis and drawing on substantive theories, we analysed qualitative content from 30 interviews and 51 meetings (51 recordings and 19 accompanying meeting minutes) to develop CMOs. Purposive sampling was used to recruit interviewees from diverse backgrounds.ResultsThirty-five CMOs were formed, resulting in an overarching realist programme theory. Thirteen CMOs were identical and 3 were truncated versions of those formed in an existing realist synthesis on the same topic. Seven entirely new CMOs, and 12 refined and enhanced CMOs vis-à-vis the synthesis were created. The findings included CMOs containing contexts which facilitated the usage of data, including the presence of a data champion and commissioners' perceptions that external providers offered new skillsets and types of data. Other CMOs included contexts presenting barriers to using data, such as data not being presented in an interoperable way with consistent definitions, or financial pressures inhibiting commissioners' abilities to make evidence-based decisions.ConclusionsCommissioners are enthusiastic about using data as a source of information, a tool to stimulate improvements, and a warrant for decision-making. However, they also face considerable challenges when using them. There are replicable contexts available to facilitate commissioners' usage of data, which we used to inform policy recommendations. The findings of this study and our recommendations are pertinent in light of governments' increasing commitment to data-driven commissioning and health policy-making.

Project description:From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs).We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.

Project description:Background Since 2015, the Ambitions for Palliative and End of Life Care: a national framework for local action has provided guidance for care within England and beyond. Relaunched in 2021, the Framework sets out six Ambitions which, collectively, provide a vision to improve how death, dying and bereavement are experienced and managed. However, to date, there has been no central evaluation of how the Framework and its Ambitions have been implemented within service development and provision. To address this evidence gap, we investigated understanding and use of the Framework. Methods An online questionnaire survey was conducted to identify where the Framework has been used; examples of how it has been used; which Ambitions are being addressed; which foundations are being used; understanding of the utility of the Framework; and understanding of the opportunities and challenges involved in its use. The survey was open between 30 November 2021–31 January 2022, promoted via email, social media, professional newsletter and snowball sampling. Survey responses were analysed both descriptively, using frequency and cross-tabulations, and exploratively, using content and thematic analysis. Results 45 respondents submitted data; 86% were from England. Findings indicate that the Framework is particularly relevant to service commissioning and development across wider palliative and end of life care, with most respondents reporting a focus on Ambition 1 (Each person is seen as an individual) and Ambition 3 (Maximising comfort and wellbeing). Ambition 6 (Each community is prepared to help) was least likely to be prioritised, despite people welcoming the focus on community in national guidance. Of the Framework foundations, ‘Education and training’ was seen as most necessary to develop and/or sustain reported services. The provision of a shared language and collaborative work across sectors and partners were also deemed important. However, there is some indication that the Framework must give more prioritisation to carer and/or bereavement support, have greater scope to enhance shared practice and mutual learning, and be more easily accessible to non-NHS partners. Conclusions The survey generated valuable summary level evidence on uptake of the Framework across England, offering important insights into current and past work, the factors impacting on this work and the implications for future development of the Framework. Our findings suggest considerable positive potential of the Framework to generate local action as intended, although difficulties remain concerning the mechanisms and resources necessary to enact this action. They also offer a valuable steer for research to further understand the issues raised, as well as scope for additional policy and implementation activity. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-023-01207-3.

Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the relational challenges for general practitioner (GP) leaders setting up new network-centric commissioning organisations in the recent health policy reform in England, we use innovation network theory to identify key network leadership practices that facilitate healthcare innovation.DesignMixed-method, multisite and case study research.SettingSix clinical commissioning groups and local clusters in the East of England area, covering in total 208 GPs and 1 662 000 population.MethodsSemistructured interviews with 56 lead GPs, practice managers and staff from the local health authorities (primary care trusts, PCT) as well as various healthcare professionals; 21 observations of clinical commissioning group (CCG) board and executive meetings; electronic survey of 58 CCG board members (these included GPs, practice managers, PCT employees, nurses and patient representatives) and subsequent social network analysis.Main outcome measuresCollaborative relationships between CCG board members and stakeholders from their healthcare network; clarifying the role of GPs as network leaders; strengths and areas for development of CCGs.ResultsDrawing upon innovation network theory provides unique insights of the CCG leaders' activities in establishing best practices and introducing new clinical pathways. In this context we identified three network leadership roles: managing knowledge flows, managing network coherence and managing network stability. Knowledge sharing and effective collaboration among GPs enable network stability and the alignment of CCG objectives with those of the wider health system (network coherence). Even though activities varied between commissioning groups, collaborative initiatives were common. However, there was significant variation among CCGs around the level of engagement with providers, patients and local authorities. Locality (sub) groups played an important role because they linked commissioning decisions with patient needs and brought the leaders closer to frontline stakeholders.ConclusionsWith the new commissioning arrangements, the leaders should seek to move away from dyadic and transactional relationships to a network structure, thereby emphasising on the emerging relational focus of their roles. Managing knowledge mobility, healthcare network coherence and network stability are the three clinical leadership processes that CCG leaders need to consider in coordinating their network and facilitating the development of good clinical commissioning decisions, best practices and innovative services. To successfully manage these processes, CCG leaders need to leverage the relational capabilities of their network as well as their clinical expertise to establish appropriate collaborations that may improve the healthcare services in England. Lack of local GP engagement adds uncertainty to the system and increases the risk of commissioning decisions being irrelevant and inefficient from patient and provider perspectives.

Project description:Background and objectivesCare coordination and palliative care supports are associated with reduced anxiety, fewer hospital admissions, and improved quality of life for patients and their families. Early palliative care can result in savings in the end-of-life period, but there is limited evidence that larger-scale models can improve both utilization and the cost of care. Three models that received Health Care Innovation Awards from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services aimed to improve quality of care and reduce cost through the use of innovative care coordination models. This study explores the total cost of care and selected utilization outcomes at the end-of-life for these innovative models, each of which enrolled adults with multiple chronic conditions and featured care coordination with advance care planning as a component of palliative care. These included a comprehensive at-home supportive care model for persons predicted to die within a year and two models offering advance care planning in nursing facilities and during care transitions.Research design and methodsWe used regression models to assess model impacts on costs and utilization for high-risk Medicare beneficiaries participating in the comprehensive supportive care model (N = 3,339) and the two care transition models (N = 587 and N = 277) who died during the study period (2013-2016), relative to a set of matched comparison patients.ResultsComparing participants in each model who died during the study period to matched comparators, two of the three models were associated with significantly lower costs in the last 90 days of life ($2,122 and $4,606 per person), and the third model showed nonsignificant differences. Two of the three models encouraged early hospice entry in the last 30 days of life. For the comprehensive at-home supportive care model, we observed aggregate savings of nearly $19 million over the study period. One care transition model showed aggregate savings of over $500,000 during the same period. Potential drivers of these cost savings include improved patient safety, timeliness of care, and caregiver support.Discussion and implicationsTwo of the three models achieved significant lower Medicare costs than a comparison group and the same two models also sustained their models beyond the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services award period. These findings show promise for achieving palliative care goals as part of care coordination innovation.

Dataset Information

Impact of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) on care at the end of life across multiple care sectors, in one clinical commissioning group area, in England: a realist evaluation protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Publications

Impact of electronic palliative care coordination systems (EPaCCS) on care at the end of life across multiple care sectors, in one clinical commissioning group area, in England: a realist evaluation protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets