Dataset Information

Burdens, resources, health and wellbeing of nurses working in general and specialised palliative care in Germany - results of a nationwide cross-sectional survey study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Palliative care in Germany is divided into general (GPC) and specialised palliative care (SPC). Although palliative care will become more important in the care sector in future, there is a large knowledge gab, especially with regard to GPC. The aim of this study was to identify and compare the burdens, resources, health and wellbeing of nurses working in GPC and SPC. Such information will be helpful for developing prevention programs in order to reduce burdens and to strengthen resources of nurses.

Methods

In 2017, a nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted. In total, 437 nurses in GPC and 1316 nurses in SPC completed a questionnaire containing parts of standardised instruments, which included parts of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the Resilience Scale (RS-13) Questionnaire, a single question about back pain from the health survey conducted by the Robert Koch Institute as well as self-developed questions. The differences in the variables between GPC and SPC nurses were compared.

Results

SPC nurses reported higher emotional demands as well as higher burdens due to nursing care and the care of relatives while GPC nurses stated higher quantitative demands, i.e. higher workload. SPC nurses more often reported organisational and social resources that were helpful in dealing with the demands of their work. Regarding health, GPC nurses stated a poorer health status and reported chronic back pain as well as a major depressive disorder more frequently than SPC nurses. Furthermore, GPC nurses reported a higher intention to leave the profession compared to SPC nurses.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study indicate that SPC could be reviewed as the best practice example for nursing care in Germany. The results may be used for developing target group specific prevention programs for improving health and wellbeing of nurses taking the differences between GPC and SPC into account. Finally, interventional and longitudinal studies should be conducted in future to determine causality in the relationship of burdens, resources, health and wellbeing.

SUBMITTER: Diehl E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419389 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGeneralists such as general practitioners and district nurses have been the main actors in community palliative care in Norway. Specialised oncology nurses with postgraduate palliative training are increasingly becoming involved. There is little research on their contribution. This study explores how general practitioners (GPs) and oncology nurses (ONs) experience their collaboration in primary palliative care.MethodsA qualitative focus group and interview study in rural Northern Norway, involving 52 health professionals. Five uni-professional focus group discussions were followed by five interprofessional discussions and six individual interviews. Transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsThe ideal cooperation between GPs and ONs was as a "meeting of experts" with complementary competencies. GPs drew on their generalist backgrounds, including their often long-term relationship with and knowledge of the patient. The ONs contributed longitudinal clinical observations and used their specialised knowledge to make treatment suggestions. While ONs were often experienced and many had developed a form of pattern recognition, they needed GPs' competencies for complex clinical judgements. However, ONs sometimes lacked timely advice from GPs, and could feel left alone with sick patients. To avoid this, some ONs bypassed GPs and contacted palliative specialists directly. While traditional professional hierarchies were not a barrier, we found that organization, funding and remuneration were significant barriers to cooperation. GPs often did not have time to meet with ONs to discuss shared patients. We also found that ONs and GPs had different strategies for learning. While ONs belonged to a networking nursing collective aiming for continuous quality improvement, GPs learned mostly from their individual experience of caring for patients.ConclusionsThe complementary competences and autonomous roles of a specialised nurse and a general practitioner represented a good match for primary palliative care. When planning high-quality teamwork in primary care, organizational barriers to cooperation and different cultures for learning need consideration.

Project description:BackgroundPalliative sedation has become widely accepted as a method to alleviate refractory symptoms in terminally ill patients. Controversies regarding this topic especially concern the use of palliative sedation for psychological symptoms, the use in patients who are not imminently dying and the simultaneous withdrawal of life-sustaining measures. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by symptoms including muscle weakness, dysphagia, dysarthria, muscle spasms and progressive respiratory insufficiency. Due to these characteristic symptoms, palliative sedation might be considered to be necessary to alleviate refractory suffering in ALS patients. However, palliative sedation in ALS is only rarely discussed in current medical literature and guidelines.MethodsA questionnaire survey was conducted among neurologists and palliative care practitioners in Germany. The participants were asked to evaluate the use of palliative sedation in different situations.ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-six completed questionnaires were analyzed. The results suggest high levels of support for the use of palliative sedation in ALS patients. 42% of the participants stated that they had already used palliative sedation in the treatment of ALS patients. Acceptance of palliative sedation was higher in case of physical symptoms than in case of psychological symptoms. Refusal of artificial nutrition did not lead to a lower acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care had already used palliative sedation in ALS patients more often and they were more likely to accept palliative sedation in different situations than the participants without a background in palliative care.ConclusionOur survey showed that palliative sedation in ALS is widely accepted by the attending doctors. In case of psychological symptoms, palliative sedation is looked at with more concern than in case of physical symptoms. The refusal of artificial nutrition does not result in a decreased acceptance of palliative sedation. Doctors with specialist training in palliative care are more likely to approve of palliative sedation in ALS.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Providing appropriate palliative care for older people is a major task for health care systems worldwide, and up to now it has also been one of the most neglected. Focusing on the German health care system, we sought to explore the attitudes of health professionals regarding their understanding of palliative care for older patients and its implementation. METHODS: In a qualitative study design, focus groups were established consisting of general practitioners, geriatricians, palliative care physicians, palliative care nurses and general nurses (a total of 29 participants). The group discussions were recorded, transcribed, coded and analysed using the methodological approach of Qualitative Description. RESULTS: Deficiencies in teamwork and conflicting role definitions between doctors and nurses and between family practitioners and medical specialists were found to be central problems affecting the provision of appropriate palliative care for older people. It was emphasized that there are great advantages to family doctors playing a leading role, as they usually have the longest contacts to the patients. However, the professional qualifications of family doctors were to some extent criticized. The general practitioners for their part criticized the increasing specialization on the field of palliative care. All groups complained that the German compensation system gives insufficient consideration to the time-consuming care of older patients, and about excessive bureaucracy. CONCLUSION: General practitioners are the central health professionals in the delivery of palliative care for older people. They should however be encouraged to involve specialized services such as palliative care teams where necessary. With the German health care reform of 2007, a legal framework has been created that allows for this. As far as its realization is concerned, it must be ensured that the spotlight remains on the needs of the patients and not on policy conflicts and rivalries between health care professionals. Older people might particularly benefit if "talking" medicine and time-consuming care were properly catered for, financially and organizationally, in the health care system.

Project description:BackgroundThe majority of severely ill and dying people in Germany can be administered primary palliative care (PPC) by general practitioners (GP). However, the current provision of PPC does not match the needs of the population. Although several public health strategies aim at strengthening the role of GPs in PPC provision, it remains challenging for GP teams to integrate PPC into their daily routines.AimA Delphi study with GPs was conducted to achieve consensus on specific measures for improving the integration of PPC into everyday GP practice.MethodsThe study is part of the junior research project "Primary Palliative Care in General Practice" (ALLPRAX). After having developed, tested and evaluated 26 practical measures for GP practices to improve their PPC, a Delphi consensus study among GPs took place. In 2020, 569 GPs were asked to rate the relevance and feasibility of the measures on a 4-point Likert scale via an anonymous online questionnaire. Consensus was defined as a sum percentage of 'strongly agree' and 'somewhat agree' responses ≥75% after two rounds. Between these rounds, measures that were not consented in the first round were adapted in light of respondents' free text comments and suggestions.ResultsThe response rate was 11.3% in round 1 (n = 64) and 53.1% in round 2 (n = 34). From the initial n = 26 measures, n = 20 measures achieved consensus and were included in the final intervention package. The consented measures pertained to four main topics: advance care planning with patients, consulting and informing patients and family caregivers, GP office organisation and continuing education. N = 6 measures did not achieve consensus, predominantly due to time and workload constraints.ConclusionThe consented measures provide valuable support to improve the provision of PPC by GPs. They can be used freely and flexibly, according to the needs of individual GP teams, and are thus suitable for implementation nationwide.Trial registrationThe study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (Registration N° DRKS00011821; 4 December 2017; https://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ) and the German Register of Health Care Research (Registration N° VfD_ALLPRAX_16_003817; 30 March 2017).

Project description:General practices are established microenterprises in Germany providing a variety of preventive and therapeutic health care services and procedures in a challenging working environment. For example, general practice teams are confronted increasingly with work-related demands, which have been associated with poor psychological and physical outcomes. It is therefore important to gain a better understanding of issues related to occupational health and safety for personnel working in the primary care setting. This study aims to gain an in-depth understanding of psychosocial demands and resources in the primary care setting. We applied an ethnographic design, comprising a combination of participating observations, individual interviews with general practitioners (GPs) (N = 6), and focus group discussion with practice assistants and administrative staff (N = 19) in five general practices in Germany. A grounded theory approach was applied to analyze all data. Our results identified psychosocial demands and resources exemplified mainly along two typical tasks in GP practices: the issuing of medical prescriptions and blood sampling. Main psychosocial demands included factors related to work content and tasks, organization of work, and the working environment. For example, daily routines across all practices were characterized by a very high work intensity including disturbances, interruptions, delegation, and the division of labor between GPs and practice staff. Work-related resources comprised the staff's influence on aspects related to work organization and social support. The triangulation of methods and data formats allowed the disclosure of interconnectedness between these factors. Although work processes in general practices are complex and required to comply with legal regulations, there are opportunities for practice owners and practice teams to establish working procedures in ways that reduce psychosocial risks and strengthen work-related resources.