Koper Ian, Pasman H Roeline W, Onwuteaka-Philipsen Bregje D
Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 7, NL-1081, BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Nov 8;18(1):841. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3644-2.
Generals practitioners (GPs) and district nurses (DNs) play a leading role in providing palliative care at home. Many services and facilities are available to support them in providing this complex care. This study aimed to examine the extent to which GPs and DNs involve these services, what their experiences are, and how involvement of these services and facilities can be improved.
Sequential mixed methods consisting of an online questionnaire with structured and open questions completed by 108 GPs and 258 DNs, followed by three homogenous online focus groups with 8 GPs and 19 DNs, analyzed through open coding.
Most GPs reported that they sometimes or often involved palliative home care teams (99%), hospices (94%), and palliative care consultation services (93%). Most DNs reported sometimes or often involving volunteers (90%), hospices (88%), and spiritual caregivers (80%). The least involved services and facilities were psychologists and psychiatrists (51% and 50%) and social welfare (44% and 57%). Main reason for not involving services and facilities was 'not needing' them. If they had used them, most GPs and DNs (68-93%) reported solely positive experiences. Hardly anyone (0-3%) reported solely negative experiences with any of the services and the facilities. GPs and DNs suggested improvements in three areas: (1) establishment of local centers giving information on available services and facilities, (2) presentation of services and facilities in local multidisciplinary meetings, and (3) support organizations to proactively offer their facilities and services.
Psychological, social, and spiritual services are involved less often, suggesting that the classic care model, which focuses strongly on somatic issues, is still well entrenched. More familiarity with services that can provide additional care in these areas, regarding their availability and their added value, could improve the quality of life for patients and relatives at the end of life.
全科医生(GPs)和社区护士(DNs)在提供居家姑息治疗方面发挥着主导作用。有许多服务和设施可支持他们提供这种复杂的护理。本研究旨在调查全科医生和社区护士在多大程度上利用这些服务,他们的体验如何,以及如何改善这些服务和设施的利用情况。
采用序贯混合方法,先由108名全科医生和258名社区护士完成一份包含结构化和开放式问题的在线问卷,随后进行三个同质性在线焦点小组讨论,分别有8名全科医生和19名社区护士参与,通过开放式编码进行分析。
大多数全科医生报告称他们有时或经常会利用姑息居家护理团队(99%)、临终关怀机构(94%)和姑息治疗咨询服务(93%)。大多数社区护士报告有时或经常会利用志愿者(90%)、临终关怀机构(88%)和精神关怀者(80%)。参与最少的服务和设施是心理学家和精神科医生(分别为51%和50%)以及社会福利机构(分别为44%和57%)。不利用某些服务和设施的主要原因是“不需要”它们。如果使用过这些服务和设施,大多数全科医生和社区护士(68 - 93%)报告的都是积极体验。几乎没有人(0 - 3%)报告对任何服务和设施只有负面体验。全科医生和社区护士建议在三个方面进行改进:(1)设立提供可用服务和设施信息的地方中心;(2)在当地多学科会议上介绍服务和设施;(3)支持组织主动提供其设施和服务。
心理、社会和精神服务的利用频率较低,这表明强烈关注躯体问题的传统护理模式仍然根深蒂固。更多地了解能够在这些领域提供额外护理的服务,包括其可用性和附加价值,可能会改善患者及其亲属在生命末期的生活质量。