Dataset Information

Factors influencing the integration of a palliative approach in intensive care units: a systematic mixed-methods review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While a palliative approach is generally perceived to be an integral part of the intensive care unit (ICU), the provision of palliative care in this setting is challenging. This review aims to identify factors (barriers and facilitators) influencing a palliative approach in intensive care settings, as perceived by health care professionals.

Method

A systematic mixed-methods review was conducted. Multiple electronic databases were used, and the following search terms were utilized: implementation, palliative care, and intensive care unit. In total, 1843 articles were screened, of which 24 met the research inclusion/exclusion criteria. A thematic synthesis method was used for both qualitative and quantitative studies.

Results

Four key prerequisite factors were identified: (a) organizational structure in facilitating policies, unappropriated resources, multi-disciplinary team involvement, and knowledge and skills; (b) work environment, including physical and psychosocial factors; (c) interpersonal factors/barriers, including family and patients' involvement in communication and participation; and (d) decision-making, e.g., decision and transition, goal conflict, multidisciplinary team communication, and prognostication.

Conclusion

Factors hindering the integration of a palliative approach in an intensive care context constitute a complex interplay among organizational structure, the care environment and clinicians' perceptions and attitudes. While patient and family involvement was identified as an important facilitator of palliative care, it was also recognized as a barrier for clinicians due to challenges in shared goal setting and communication.

SUBMITTER: Hamdan Alshehri H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7375204 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn awareness campaign set to accompany the Global Maternal Sepsis Study (GLOSS) was launched in 2017. In order to better develop and evaluate the campaign, we sought to understand the factors that influence awareness of maternal sepsis by exploring healthcare providers' knowledge, perception of enabling environments, and perception of severity of maternal sepsis.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods approach that included 13 semi-structured interviews to GLOSS regional and country coordinators and 1555 surveys of providers working in GLOSS participating facilities. Directed content analysis and grounded theory were used for qualitative analysis, based on a framework including four overarching themes around maternal health conditions, determinants of maternal health, barriers and facilitators to sepsis identification and management, plus 24 additional sub-topics that emerged during the interviews. Descriptive statistics for frequencies and percentages were used for the quantitative analysis; significance was tested using Pearson χ2. Logistic regressions were performed to adjust for selected variables.ResultsAnalysis of interviews described limited availability of resources, poor quality of care, insufficient training and lack of protocols as some of the barriers to maternal sepsis identification and management. Analysis from the quantitative survey showed that while 92% of respondents had heard of maternal sepsis only 15% were able to correctly define it and 43% to correctly identify initial management. Provider confidence, perceived availability of resources and of a supportive environment were low (33%, 38%, and 48% respectively). Overall, the predictor that most explained awareness was training. Respondents from the survey and interviewees identified sepsis among the main conditions affecting women at their facilities.ConclusionsAwareness on maternal sepsis, while acknowledged as important, remains low. Healthcare providers need resources and support to feel confident about the correct identification and management of sepsis, as a prerequisite for the improvement of awareness of maternal sepsis. Similarly, providers need to know about maternal sepsis and its severity to understand the importance of reducing sepsis-related mortality and morbidity. Awareness raising campaigns can help bring neglected maternal health conditions, such as sepsis, to the forefront of global and local agendas.

Project description:IntroductionGuidelines are important tools for supporting quality management in the care of patients with cancer. However, in clinical practice barriers exist to their implementation. Consequently, Quincie aims at: (1) gaining a comprehensive picture of the implementation of quality indicators from the national guideline on palliative care for patients with incurable cancer in palliative care units and (2) describing the factors that facilitate and hinder their implementation to develop recommendations.Methods and analysisThe Quincie study follows a mixed-methods approach across two study phases. In phase 1, routinely collected data of 845 patients with incurable cancer from eight palliative care units in the commuting area of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre Lower Saxony will be analysed, regarding the implementation of 10 quality indicators from the national guideline on palliative care. Structural characteristics of the palliative care units will also be collected. In phase 2, recommendations for the practical implementation of the quality indicators, focusing on the achievement of the quality objectives identified in phase 1, will be developed in an implementation workshop. These recommendations will be subsequently agreed on via a Delphi survey.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been given by the ethics committee of the Hannover Medical School (first vote, No. 10567_BO_K_2022) and other relevant institutions. The results will provide urgently needed insights on the implementation of the national guideline on palliative care in clinical care and on the factors that facilitate and hinder this implementation. The results are expected to promote better care for patients with incurable cancer. The results will be directly reported to the participating palliative care units and will be published in relevant peer-reviewed journals. They will also be presented at national conferences.Trial registration numberGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00029965).

Project description:IntroductionEarly access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration.MethodsMixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices.ResultsSites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care.ConclusionIntegration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Project description:BackgroundPalliative care phases (stable, unstable, deteriorating, terminal and bereavement) are routinely used in Australia and the UK to describe the clinical situation of patients and their families and to evaluate the associated care plan. In addition, it serves as a benchmark developed by the Australian Palliative Care Outcome Collaboration (PCOC) and is used nationwide for comparisons between services. In Germany, the concept is not used consistently due to various translations. Furthermore, there is no nationwide systematic approach to routinely assess clinical outcomes in palliative care. The study aims to develop a German version of the palliative care phase definitions by adapting them culturally, and to examine the inter-rater reliability of the adjusted definitions with healthcare professionals.MethodsMixed-methods approach: Cognitive interview study using 'think aloud' and verbal probing techniques and a consecutive multi-center cross-sectional study with two clinicians independently assigning the phase definitions. Interviewees/participants were selected through convenience and purposive sampling in specialist palliative care inpatient units, advisory and community services and in three specialist palliative care units with doctors, nursing staff and allied health professionals.ResultsFifteen interviews were conducted. Identified difficulties were: Some translated terms were 1) not self-explanatory (e.g. 'family/carer' or 'care plan') and (2) too limited to the medical dimension neglecting the holistic approach of palliative care. (3) Problems of comprehension regarding the concept in general occurred, e.g. in differentiating between the 'unstable' and 'deteriorating' phase. Inter-rater reliability was moderate (kappa = 0.44; 95% CI = 0.39-0.52). The assignment of the phase 'deteriorating' has caused the most difficulties.ConclusionOverall, the adapted palliative care phases are suitable to use in the German specialist palliative care setting. However, the concept of the phases is not self-explanatory. To implement it nationwide for outcome measurement/benchmarking, it requires further education, on-the-job training and experience as well as the involvement of healthcare professionals in implementation process. For the use of international concepts in different healthcare systems, a deeper discussion and cultural adaptation is necessary besides the formal translation.