Dataset Information

Service change and innovation in community end-of-life care during the COVID-19 pandemic: Qualitative analysis of a nationwide primary care survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Primary healthcare teams (general practice and community nursing services) within the United Kingdom provided the majority of community end-of-life care during COVID-19, alongside specialist palliative care services. As international healthcare systems move to a period of restoration following the first phases of the pandemic, the impact of rapidly-implemented service changes and innovations across primary and specialist palliative care services must be understood.

Aim

To provide detailed insights and understanding into service changes and innovation that occurred in UK primary care to deliver end-of-life care during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

Cross-sectional online survey. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Setting/participants

United Kingdom survey of general practitioners and community nurses, circulated via regional and national professional networks.

Results

A total of 559 valid responses were received from 387 community nurses, 156 general practitioners and 16 'other'. Over a third of respondents (n = 224; 40.8%) experienced changes in the organisation of their team in order to provide end-of-life care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Three qualitative themes were identified: COVID-19 as a catalyst for change in primary palliative care; new opportunities for more responsive and technological ways of working; and pandemic factors that improved and strengthened interprofessional collaboration.

Conclusion

Opportunity has arisen to incorporate cross-boundary service changes and innovations, implemented rapidly at the time of crisis, into future service delivery. Future research should focus on which service changes and innovations provide the most benefits, who for and how, within the context of increased patient need and complexity.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8796165 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian intensive care unit (ICU) workers.MethodsBetween June and August 2020, we distributed a cross-sectional online survey of ICU workers evaluating the impact of the pandemic, coping strategies, symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Impact of Events Scale-Revised), and psychological distress, anxiety, and depression (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale). We performed regression analyses to determine the predictors of psychological symptoms.ResultsWe analyzed responses from 455 ICU workers (80% women; 67% from Ontario; 279 nurses, 69 physicians, and 107 other healthcare professionals). Respondents felt that their job put them at great risk of exposure (60%), were concerned about transmitting COVID-19 to family members (76%), felt more stressed at work (67%), and considered leaving their job (37%). Overall, 25% had probable PTSD and 18% had minimal or greater psychological distress. Nurses were more likely to report PTSD symptoms (33%) and psychological distress (23%) than physicians (5% for both) and other health disciplines professionals (19% and 14%). Variables associated with PTSD and psychological distress included female sex (beta-coefficient [B], 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20 to 2.10 and B, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.79 to 5.78, respectively; P < 0.001 for differences in scores across groups) and perceived increased risk due to PPE shortage or inadequate PPE training (B, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51 to 2.31 and B, 4.88; 95% CI, 3.34 to 6.43, respectively). Coping strategies included talking to friends/family/colleagues (80%), learning about COVID-19 (78%), and physical exercise (68%). Over half endorsed the following workplace strategies as valuable: hospital-provided scrubs, clear communication and protocols by hospitals, knowing their voice is heard, subsidized parking, and gestures of appreciation from leadership.ConclusionsThis survey study shows that ICU workers have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic with high levels of stress and psychological burden. Respondents endorsed communication, protocols, and appreciation from leadership as helpful mitigating strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Making ethically sound treatment limitations in prehospital care is a complex topic. Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) physicians were surveyed on their experiences with limitations of care orders in the prehospital setting, including situations where they are dispatched to healthcare facilities or nursing homes. METHODS:A nationwide multicentre study was conducted among all HEMS physicians in Finland in 2017 using a questionnaire with closed five-point Likert-scale questions and open questions. The Ethics Committee of the Tampere University Hospital approved the study protocol (R15048). RESULTS:Fifty-nine (88%) physicians responded. Their median age was 43 (IQR 38-47) and median medical working experience was 15 (IQR 10-20) years. All respondents made limitation of care orders and 39% made them often. Three fourths (75%) of the physicians were often dispatched to healthcare facilities and nursing homes and the majority (93%) regularly met patients who should have already had a valid limitation of care order. Every other physician (49%) had sometimes decided not to implement a medically justifiable limitation of care order because they wanted to avoid conflicts with the patient and/or the next of kin and/or other healthcare staff. Limitation of care order practices varied between the respondents, but neither age nor working experience explained these differences in answers. Most physicians (85%) stated that limitations of care orders are part of their work and 81% did not find them especially burdensome. The most challenging patient groups for treatment limitations were the under-aged patients, the severely disabled patients and the patients in healthcare facilities or residing in nursing homes. CONCLUSION:Making limitation of care orders is an important but often invisible part of a HEMS physician's work. HEMS physicians expressed that patients in long-term care were often without limitations of care orders in situations where an order would have been ethically in accordance with the patient's best interests.

Project description:BackgroundEnd of life (EoL) care becomes more complex and increasingly takes place in the community, but there is little data on the use of general practice (GP) services to guide care improvement. This study aims to determine the trends and factors associated with GP consultation, prescribing and referral to other care services amongst cancer patients in the last year of life.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of cancer patients who died in 2000-2014, based on routinely collected primary care data (the Clinical Practice Research DataLink, CPRD) covering a representative sample of the population in the United Kingdom. Outcome variables were number of GP consultations (primary), number of prescriptions and referral to other care services (yes vs no) in the last year of life. Explanatory variables included socio-demographics, clinical characteristics and the status of palliative care needs recognised or not. The association between outcome and explanatory variables were evaluated using multiple-adjusted risk ratio (aRR).ResultsOf 68,523 terminal cancer patients, 70% were aged 70+, 75% had comorbidities and 45.5% had palliative care needs recognised. In the last year of life, a typical cancer patient had 43 GP consultations (Standard deviation (SD): 31.7; total = 3,031,734), 71.5 prescriptions (SD: 68.0; total = 5,074,178), and 21(SD: 13.0) different drugs; 58.0% of patients had at least one referral covering all main clinical specialities. More comorbid conditions, prostate cancer and having palliative care needs recognised were associated with more primary care consultations, more prescriptions and a higher chance of referral (aRRs 1.07-2.03). Increasing age was related to fewer consultations (aRRs 0.77-0.96), less prescriptions (aRR 1.09-1.44), and a higher chance of referral (aRRs 1.08-1.16) but less likely to have palliative care needs recognised (aRRs 0.53-0.89).ConclusionsGPs are very involved in end of life care of cancer patients, most of whom having complex care needs, i.e. older age, comorbidity and polypharmacy. This highlights the importance of enhancing primary palliative care skills among GPs and the imperative of greater integration of primary care with other healthcare professionals including oncologists, palliative care specialists, geriatricians and pharmacists. Research into the potential of deprescribing is warranted. Older patients have poorer access to both primary care and palliative care need to be addressed in future practices.

Project description:BackgroundThere is an urgent need for community-based interventions that can be scaled up to meet the growing demand for palliative care. The purpose of this study was to scale out a volunteer navigation intervention called Nav-CARE by replicating the program in multiple contexts and evaluating feasibility, acceptability, sustainability, and impact.MethodsThis was a scale-out implementation and mixed-method evaluation study. Nav-CARE was implemented in 12 hospice and 3 nonhospice community-based organizations spanning five provinces in Canada. Volunteers visited clients in the home approximately every 2 weeks for 1 year with some modifications required by the COVID-19 public health restrictions. Qualitative evaluation data were collected from key informants (n = 26), clients/family caregivers (n = 57), and volunteers (n = 86) using semistructured interviews. Quantitative evaluation data included volunteer self-efficacy, satisfaction, and quality of life, and client engagement and quality of life.FindingsSuccessful implementation was influenced by organizational capacity, stable and engaged leadership, a targeted client population, and skillful messaging. Recruitment of clients was the most significant barrier to implementation. Clients reported statistically significant improvements in feeling they had someone to turn to, knowing the services available to help them in their community, being involved in things that were important to them, and having confidence in taking care of their illness. Improvements in clients' quality of life were reported in the qualitative data, although no statistically significant gains were reported on the quality of life measure. Volunteers reported good self-efficacy and satisfaction in their role.ConclusionThe feasibility, acceptability, and sustainability of the program were largely dependent on strong intraorganizational leadership. Volunteers reported that their involvement in Nav-CARE enabled them to engage in ongoing learning and have a meaningful and relational role with clients. Clients and families described the positive impact of a volunteer on their engagement and quality of life.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore the experiences of service users, carers and staff seeking or providing secondary mental health services during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignQualitative interview study, codesigned with mental health service users and carers.MethodsWe conducted semistructured, telephone or online interviews with a purposively constructed sample; a lived experience researcher conducted and analysed interviews with service users. Analysis was based on the constant comparison method.SettingNational Health Service (NHS) secondary mental health services in England between June and August 2020.ParticipantsOf 65 participants, 20 had either accessed or needed to access English secondary mental healthcare during the pandemic; 10 were carers of people with mental health difficulties; 35 were members of staff working in NHS secondary mental health services during the pandemic.ResultsExperiences of remote care were mixed. Some service users valued the convenience of remote methods in the context of maintaining contact with familiar clinicians. Most participants commented that a lack of non-verbal cues and the loss of a therapeutic 'safe space' challenged therapeutic relationship building, assessments and identification of deteriorating mental well-being. Some carers felt excluded from remote meetings and concerned that assessments were incomplete without their input. Like service users, remote methods posed challenges for clinicians who reported uncertainty about technical options and a lack of training. All groups expressed concern about intersectionality exacerbating inequalities and the exclusion of some service user groups if alternatives to remote care are lost.ConclusionsThough remote mental healthcare is likely to become increasingly widespread in secondary mental health services, our findings highlight the continued importance of a tailored, personal approach to decision making in this area. Further research should focus on which types of consultations best suit face-to-face interaction, and for whom and why, and which can be provided remotely and by which medium.