Dataset Information

Improving primary palliative care – a Delphi consensus study on measures for general practice in Germany

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Aim

A Delphi study with GPs was conducted to achieve consensus on specific measures for improving the integration of PPC into everyday GP practice.

Methods

The 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusion

The 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 registration

The 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).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01613-7.

SUBMITTER: Bilgin E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762944 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of early palliative care within a primary care setting is a recent academic topic. Recruiting General Practitioners (GPs) to participate in a palliative care study can be challenging. The pro-Spinoza project implemented a Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care in 5 areas in Belgium. During this project, the feasibility of the recruitment of GPs and palliative care patients was evaluated. METHODS:The recruitment process was recorded in detail via an electronic logbook combining quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative recordings included the contact types and the number of contacts with eligible GPs and were analysed descriptively. Qualitative recordings included field notes with feedback from the GPs and other stakeholders and were thematically analysed starting from the Grol and Wensing framework for professional behaviour change. RESULTS:Of 4065 eligible GPs working in 5 areas under research, 787 GPs (19%) were contacted individually, 398 GPs (9,8%) were contacted face-to-face and most of these 398 GPs showed high interest in the topic. 112 GPs (2,8%) signed the collaboration agreement, but finally only 65 GPs (1,6%) delivered at least a completed baseline-questionnaire. Despite the initial interest in participating, the unpredictable and busy daily workloads of the GPs, as well as inexperience with research protocols, impeded the ability of the GPs to fully engage in the study. This resulted in the high dropout rate. Participating GPs reported that they had underestimated the effort required to effectively participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:Recruitment of GPs to palliative care research is challenging. Primary care is a vital service to engage in palliative care research however the practical limitations reduce the ability of the service to effectively engage in the research. More research is needed to determine how GPs might be better supported in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02266069 , Registered 16th October 2014, retrospectively registered.

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:BackgroundDespite its high prevalence and impact on health, metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is inadequately addressed in European primary care (PC), with a large proportion of cases going undiagnosed or diagnosed too late. A multi-country European research consortium led a project to design and evaluate a patient-centered, integrated model for MASLD screening, diagnosis, and linkage to specialty care for European PC settings. Based on the lessons from this project, the latest research evidence, and existing guidelines for the management of MASLD, we sought to develop a set of practice recommendations for screening, referral, and management of MASLD in PC.MethodsThe Rand/UCLA modified Delphi panel method, with two rounds, was used to reach consensus on practice recommendations. The international panel consisted of experts from six countries, representing family medicine, gastroenterology, hepatology, cardiology, and public health. Initially, fifteen statements were drafted based on a synthesis of evidence from the literature and earlier findings from our consortium. Prior to the consensus meeting, the statements were rated by the experts in the first round. Then, in a hybrid meeting, the experts discussed findings from round one, adjusted the statements, and reassessed the updated recommendations in a second round.ResultsIn round one, there was already a high level of consensus on 10 out of 15 statements. After round 2, there were fourteen statements with a high degree of agreement (>90%). One statement was not endorsed. The approved recommendations addressed the following practice areas: risk screening and diagnosis, management of MASLD-lifestyle interventions, pharmacological treatment of MASLD/MASH, pharmacological treatment for co-morbidity, integrated care, surgical management, and other referrals to specialists.ConclusionsThe final set of 14 recommendations focuses on increasing comprehensive care for MASLD in PC. The recommendations provide practical evidence-based guidance tailored to PC practitioners. We expect that these recommendations will contribute to the ongoing discussion on systematic approaches to tackling MASLD and supporting European PC providers by integrating the latest evidence into practice.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may result in great impact on patients' quality of life, social relationships, and work productivity. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care could help capture disease burden to guide SLE management and optimize disease control. We aimed to explore the current situation, appropriateness, and feasibility of PROMs to monitor patients with SLE in routine care, from healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives.MethodsA scientific committee developed a Delphi questionnaire, based on a focus group with patients and a literature review, including 22 statements concerning: 1) Use of PROMs in routine care (n = 2); 2) PROMs in SLE management (n = 13); 3) Multidisciplinary management of patients with SLE (n = 4), and 4) Aspects on patient empowerment (n = 3). Statements included in Sects. 2-4 were assessed from three perspectives: current use, appropriateness, and feasibility (with currently available resources). For each statement, panellists specified their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale. A consensus was reached when ≥ 70% of the panellists agreed (6,7) or disagreed (1,2) on each statement.ResultsFifty-nine healthcare professionals and 16 patients with SLE participated in the Delphi-rounds. A consensus was reached on the value of PROMs to improve SLE management (83%) and the key role of healthcare professionals (77%) and the need for a digital tool connected to the electronic medical record (85%) to promote and facilitate PROMs collection. PROMs most frequently used in clinical practice are pain (56%), patient's global assessment (44%) and fatigue (39%), all on visual analogue scales. Panellists agreed on the need to implement multidisciplinary consultation (79%), unify complementary tests (88%), incorporate pharmacists into the healthcare team (70%), and develop home medication dispensing and informed telepharmacy programmes (72%) to improve quality of care in patients with SLE. According to panellists, patient associations (82%) and nurses (80%) are critical to educate and train patients on PROMs to enhance patient empowerment.ConclusionsAlthough pain, fatigue, and global assessment were identified as the most feasible, PROMs are not widely used in routine care in Spain. The present Delphi consensus can provide a road map for their implementation being key for SLE management.