Dataset Information

Last Year of Life Study-Cologne (LYOL-C) (Part II): study protocol of a prospective interventional mixed-methods study in acute hospitals to analyse the implementation of a trigger question and patient question prompt sheets to optimise patient-centred care.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Last Year of Life Study-Cologne Part I (LYOL-C I) has identified general hospital units as the most important checkpoints for transitions in the last year of life of patients. Yet, satisfaction with hospitals, as reported by bereaved relatives, is the lowest of all health service providers. Thus, the LYOL-C Part II (LYOL-C II) focuses on optimising patient-centred care in acute hospitals for patients identified to be in their last year of life. LYOL-C II aims to test an intervention for hospitals by using a two-sided (healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients) trigger question-based intervention to 'shake' the system in a minimally invasive manner.

Methods and analysis

Prospective interventional mixed-methods study following a two-phase approach: phase I, individual interviews with HCPs and patient representatives to design the intervention to maximise ease of implementation and phase II, exploratory study with two arms and a prepost design with patients in their last year of life. The intervention will consist of the Surprise Question and the German version of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-DE) for HCPs to identify patients and provide patient-centred care, plus question prompt sheets for patients, encouraging them to initiate discussions with their HCPs. Data on transitions, changes in therapy, quality of care, palliative care integration and death of patients will be analysed. Furthermore, a staff survey (pre/post) and guided interviews with staff, patients and relatives (post) will be conducted. Finally, a formative socioeconomic impact assessment to provide evidence regarding the sustainability of the intervention will be performed.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Cologne (#20-1431). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences.

Trial registration number

DRKS00022378.

SUBMITTER: Strupp J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8314737 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) are lists of questions that patients may want to discuss with clinicians. QPLs support person-centred care and have been associated with many beneficial outcomes including improved patient question-asking, and the amount and quality of the information provided by clinicians. The purpose of this study was to review published research on QPLs to explore how QPL design and implementation can be optimized.MethodsWe performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Joanna Briggs Database from inception to 8 May 2022, for English language studies of any design that evaluated QPLs. We used summary statistics and text to report study characteristics, and QPL design and implementation.ResultsWe included 57 studies published from 1988 to 2022 by authors in 12 countries on a range of clinical topics. Of those, 56% provided the QPL, but few described how QPLs were developed. The number of questions varied widely (range 9-191). Most QPLs were single-page handouts (44%) but others ranged from 2 to 33 pages. Most studies implemented a QPL alone with no other accompanying strategy; most often in a print format before consultations by mail (18%) or in the waiting room (66%). Both patients and clinicians identified numerous benefits to patients of QPLs (e.g., increased patient confidence to ask questions, and patient satisfaction with communication or care received; and reduced anxiety about health status or treatment). To support use, patients desired access to QPLs in advance of clinician visits, and clinicians desired information/training on how to use the QPL and answer questions. Most (88%) studies reported at least one beneficial impact of QPLs. This was true even for single-page QPLs with few questions unaccompanied by other implementation strategies. Despite favourable views of QPLs, few studies assessed outcomes amongst clinicians.ConclusionThis review identified QPL characteristics and implementation strategies that may be associated with beneficial outcomes. Future research should confirm these findings via systematic review and explore the benefits of QPLs from the clinician's perspective.Patient/public contributionFollowing this review, we used the findings to develop a QPL on hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and interviewed women and clinicians about QPL design including content, format, enablers and barriers of use, and potential outcomes including beneficial impacts and possible harms (will be published elsewhere).

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate, prior to an oncology consultation, the use of a pre-prepared list of evidence based questions, Question Prompt Sheet (QPS), compared with a Question List (QL), a patient self-generated list of questions.DesignMulti-centred, randomised controlled trial.SettingSecondary-care patients attending three outpatient oncology clinics in Northern Italy.Participants308 women completed the study. Inclusion criteria were an age between 18 and 75 years, a recent diagnosis of early stage, non-metastatic breast cancer, adequate Italian language skills, no previous oncology visits and no evidence of cognitive impairment.InterventionPatients received the QPS or the QL prior to the consultation, completed it without suggestion or coaching session and delivered back before the visit.The consultations were audio-recorded and analysed for the number and content of questions. Multilevel linear models were used to compare the two groups.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the comparison of questions asked between QPS and QL group. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction about questions asked, satisfaction with decision, and level of anxiety.ResultsPatients in the QPS and QL group asked 13 and 16 questions respectively. The difference was not significant (b=1.7, CI -0.3 to 3.6, p=0.10). A mean of 22 questions was selected in the QPS, while a mean of 2 questions was written in the QL. Patients in the QPS group were significantly less satisfied (t=3.60, p<0.01) with questions asked but wanted less additional information (t=2.20, p<0.05). Levels of patient decisional satisfaction were equivalent between groups. Similarly, anxiety levels were equal between groups prior to the consultation and decreased in similar way after the consultation.ConclusionsBoth interventions have similar impact on patients' participation in terms of question asking during the consultation. Future research is needed in order to explore which components of the interventions are really useful and efficacious.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01510964.

Project description:ImportanceThere are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer.ObjectiveTo compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter.Design, setting, and participantsThis controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022.InterventionQPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter.ResultsA total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P = .79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P = .03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P = .005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P = .01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P = .19).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03287492.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study involved the development of a question prompt list (QPL) booklet designed to facilitate communication and shared decision-making between parents/carers of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and their clinicians; and user-testing of the QPL to assess its usability.DesignBest practice in information writing and design was used to format the QPL content into a 16-page booklet. We then applied user-testing, which uses mixed methods to assess document performance with small cohorts of participants and then improves it in an iterative process. Individual interviews assessed the ability of QPL users to locate and understand key points of information, followed by a semistructured questionnaire, to ascertain their general views about the booklet.Setting and participantsTesting was undertaken with two cohorts of 10 parents/carers of children with ADHD (n=20); matched on age, gender and educational attainment.Tested documentsIn round 1, we tested 15 key points of information related to the QPL. Participant responses and feedback from round 1 informed a revised version of the booklet, tested in a subsequent round.Primary outcome measureThe target was for 8/10 of the participants to be able to find and demonstrate an understanding of all key information points, in accordance with European guidelines for medicine leaflet testing.ResultsAfter round 1, problems related to 4/15 information points were identified (booklet purpose; preparing for appointments; asking about a second medical opinion; selecting which questions to ask). Participants also made suggestions regarding the booklet's layout and design. After round 2, all information points were located and understood by at least 8/10 participants.ConclusionsThis is the first study to have developed a usable ADHD-specific QPL for use by parents/carers of children with ADHD during clinical consultations, and the first demonstration of the utility of user-testing methods in ensuring QPL usability.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Communication impairment is a frequent consequence of stroke. Patients who cannot articulate their needs respond with frustration and agitation, resulting in poor optimization of post-stroke functions. A key component of patient-centred care is the ability of staff to communicate in a way that allows them to understand the patient's needs. We developed a patient-centred communication intervention targeting registered and unregulated nursing staff caring for complex continuing care patients with communication impairments post stroke. Research objectives include 1) examining the effects of the intervention on patients' quality of life, depression, satisfaction with care, and agitation; and (2) examining the extent to which the intervention improves staff's attitudes and knowledge in caring for patients with communication impairments. The intervention builds on a previous pilot study. METHODS/DESIGN:A quasi-experimental repeated measures non-equivalent control group design in a complex continuing care facility is being used. Patients with a communication impairment post-stroke admitted to the facility are eligible to participate. All staff nurses are eligible. Baseline data are collected from staff and patients. Follow-up will occur at 1 and 3 months post-intervention. Subject recruitment and data collection from 60 patients and 30 staff will take approximately 36 months. The Patient-Centred Communication Intervention consists of three components: (1) development of an individualized patient communication care plan; (2) a one-day workshop focused on communication and behavioural management strategies for nursing staff; and (3) a staff support system. The intervention takes comprehensive patient assessments into account to inform the development of communication and behavioural strategies specifically tailored to each patient. DISCUSSION:The Patient-Centred Communication Intervention will provide staff with strategies to facilitate interactions with patients and to minimize agitation associated with considerable stress. The improvement of these interactions will lead to a reduction of agitation, which has the additional significance of increasing patients' well-being, quality of life, and satisfaction with care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01654029.