Dataset Information

Unwelcome memento mori or best clinical practice? Community end of life anticipatory medication prescribing practice: A mixed methods observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Anticipatory medications are injectable drugs prescribed ahead of possible need for administration if distressing symptoms arise in the final days of life. Little is known about how they are prescribed in primary care.

Aim

To investigate the frequency, timing and recorded circumstances of anticipatory medications prescribing for patients living at home and in residential care.

Design

Retrospective mixed methods observational study using General Practitioner and community nursing clinical records.

Setting/participants

329 deceased adult patients registered with Eleven General Practitioner practices and two associated community nursing services in two English counties (30 most recent deaths per practice). Patients died from any cause except trauma, sudden death or suicide, between 4 March 2017 and 25 September 2019.

Results

Anticipatory medications were prescribed for 167/329 (50.8%) of the deceased patients, between 0 and 1212 days before death (median 17 days). The likelihood of prescribing was significantly higher for patients with a recorded preferred place of death (odds ratio [OR] 34; 95% CI 15-77; p < 0.001) and specialist palliative care involvement (OR 7; 95% CI 3-19; p < 0.001). For 66.5% of patients (111/167) anticipatory medications were recorded as being prescribed as part of a single end-of-life planning intervention.

Conclusion

The variability in the timing of prescriptions highlights the challenges in diagnosing the end-of-life phase and the potential risks of prescribing far in advance of possible need. Patient and family views and experiences of anticipatory medication care, and their preferences for involvement in prescribing decision-making, warrant urgent investigation.

SUBMITTER: Bowers B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796157 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of best practice guidelines (BPGs) has the potential to decrease the gap between best evidence and nursing and healthcare practices. We conducted an exploratory mixed method study to identify strategies, processes, and indicators relevant to the implementation and sustainability of two Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario (RNAO) BPGs at Best Practice Spotlight Organizations® (BPSOs).MethodsOur study had four phases. In Phase 1, we triangulated two qualitative studies: a) secondary analysis of 126 narrative reports detailing implementation progress from 21 BPSOs spanning four sectors to identify strategies and processes used to support the implementation and sustainability of BPGs and b) interviews with 25 guideline implementers to identify additional strategies and processes. In Phase 2, we evaluated correlations between strategies and processes identified from the narrative reports and one process and one outcome indicator for each of the guideline. In Phase 3, the results from Phases 1 and 2 informed indicator development, led by an expert panel. In Phase 4, the indicators were assessed internally by RNAO staff and externally by Ontario Health Teams. A survey was used to validate proposed indicators to determine relevance, feasibility, readability, and usability with knowledge users and BPSO leaders.ResultsTriangulation of the two qualitative studies revealed 46 codes of implementation and sustainability of BPGs, classified into eight overarching themes: Stakeholder Engagement, Practice Interventions, Capacity Building, Evidence-Based Culture, Leadership, Evaluation & Monitoring, Communication, and Governance. A total of 28 structure, process, or outcome indicators were developed. End users and BPSO leaders were agreeable with the indicators according to the validation survey.ConclusionsMany processes and strategies can influence the implementation and sustainability of BPGs at BPSOs. We have developed indicators that can help BPSOs promote evidence-informed practice implementation of BPGs.

Project description:BackgroundFew studies have specifically assessed the scope, nature and challenges of palliative and end-of-life care in rural general practice. These knowledge gaps limit the development of evidence-based policies and services for patients in the last months of life. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of general practitioners (GPs) and other stakeholders on rural GPs' involvement and challenges in providing palliative and end-of-life care in regional Australia.MethodsA qualitative study involving five focus groups with 26 GPs based in rural/regional Western Australia together with 15 individual telephone interviews with four GPs and 11 other stakeholders involved in end-of-life care across Australia.ResultsThe rural GPs' central role in end-of-life care was recognized by the majority of participants but multiple challenges were also identified. Some challenges were comparable to those found in urban settings but others were more pronounced, including resource limitations and lack of training. Inappropriate payment models discouraged GPs' involvement in some aspects of end-of-life care, such as case conferences and home visits. Compared to GPs in urban settings, those in rural/regional communities often reported closer doctor-patient relationships and better care integration and collaboration. These positive aspects of care could be further developed to enhance service provision. Our study highlighted the importance of regular interactions with other professionals and patients in providing end-of-life care, but many GPs and other stakeholders found such interactions more challenging than the more "technical" aspects of care.ConclusionsRural/regional GPs appear to be disproportionately affected by inappropriate payment models and limited resources, but may benefit from closer doctor-patient relationships and better care integration and collaboration relative to urban GPs. Systematic collection of empirical data on GP management at end-of-life is required to build on these strengths and address the challenges.

Project description:IntroductionPhysiotherapy assistants/support workers are an important part of the physiotherapy workforce in the UK. Many of them work in National Health Service (NHS) physiotherapy outpatient services treating patients with musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. In many services, they take responsibility, under professional supervision, for types of clinical work traditionally undertaken by physiotherapists such as leading exercise classes and treating individual patients. Nevertheless, their role(s) are relatively undefined and as such, there is considerable variation in the duties and tasks they undertake. This study aims to design a framework of 'best practice' in delegation to guide the work of clinicians in NHS physiotherapy MSK services and facilitate standardisation of practice to ensure that patients receive safe and effective treatment by the most appropriate person.Methods and analysisThis mixed-methods study will be conducted in four stages. In stage 1, a focused ethnography in two MSK outpatient physiotherapy services will explore how the current use of delegation is informed by the culture within the clinical setting as well as views, attitudes about, and experiences of, delegation among clinicians, managers and patients. In stage 2a, nominal group technique will be used with three separate groups (physiotherapists/physiotherapy assistants/support workers, managers) to reach a consensus about what components should be included in a best practice framework of delegation. In stage 2b, a discrete choice experiment will elicit patients' preferences between care from physiotherapists and physiotherapy assistants/support workers within MSK physiotherapy services. In the final stage, the results of all previous stages will be triangulated to inform the development of a best practice delegation framework for future testing and use within NHS MSK outpatient physiotherapy services.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the South West-Frenchay Research Ethics Committee. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations, the lay press and social media.

Project description:Importance:Management of antithrombotic medications presents a challenge for many clinicians and patients before procedures. Anticoagulation clinic involvement may improve preprocedure coordination, satisfaction on the part of patients and clinicians, last-minute procedure cancellations, and patient safety. Objective:To assess the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) best practice alert (BPA) and anticoagulation clinic referral process to assist with management of antithrombotic medication before gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants:This multimodal evaluation of a quality improvement intervention using EMRs and survey data included patients using oral antithrombotic medications who were scheduled for elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures at an academic medical center along with the clinicians who ordered these procedures. Data were collected from November 1, 2017, through December 19, 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2019. Exposures:Following a multidisciplinary intervention, a BPA and referral process for periprocedural antithrombotic medication management was implemented in November 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:The following implementation outcomes were assessed through EMR review and surveys through December 2018: use of BPAs, patient and clinician satisfaction with preprocedure anticoagulation management, procedure cancelation rates, reach, and spread by patient and clinician characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate variance in BPA use at the clinician level. Results:A total of 2082 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [11.9] years) and 144 clinicians were included in the analysis. The BPA was used broadly across the health system, resulting in anticoagulation clinic referral for 1389 patients (66.7%). Referral was more common for patients using anticoagulant vs antiplatelet medications (1041 of 1524 [68.3%] vs 346 of 556 [62.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15-1.98) and for procedures ordered by gastroenterologists vs primary care clinicians (933 of 1241 [75.2%] vs 365 of 618 [59.1%]; aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.46-3.17). Individual clinician behavior patterns explained 26.5% (95% CI, 18.7%-36.1%) of variation in anticoagulation clinic referrals. Implementation of the intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction and improvements in multidimensional measures of clinician satisfaction (clinician response rate, 44.2% [144 of 326]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of altered or canceled procedures because of medication mismanagement declined after implementation (8 of 50 [16.0%] vs 1 of 52 [1.9%]; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance:A newly implemented BPA and anticoagulation clinic referral process was broadly adopted and used, had high satisfaction by patients and clinicians, and was associated with fewer disruptions to planned procedures caused by medication mismanagement.