Bußmann Anna, Pomorin Natalie
Essener Forschungsinstitut für Medizinmanagement GmbH, Essen, Germany.
Gesundheit & Soziales, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management gemeinnützige Gesellschaft mbH, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Gesundheitswesen. 2023 Jul;85(7):667-672. doi: 10.1055/a-1926-6942. Epub 2022 Oct 11.
Despite the existence of a legislative framework, palliative care and hospice support in nursing homes vary widely. Although most nursing homes have palliative care concepts by now, they are rarely integrated into everyday practice. This study aims to examine differences in palliative and hospice care and to determine the causes of discrepancies between theoretical framework and everyday practice.
Based on a pilot project, in depth structural and process analyses of two nursing homes in urban and rural areas in North Rhine-Westphalia were conducted. In addition, three nursing homes of an extended group of providers as well as an expert advisory board was included to minimize (provider-) specific characteristics and to expand findings.
Although the proportion of palliative residents and their average age was comparable, analyses revealed significant differences between the nursing homes regarding the palliative length of stay (213.2 days vs. 88.6 days) as well as the mortality rate of palliative residents among all death cases (26% vs. 63.6%). Furthermore, internal processes within the nursing homes differed vastly despite similar concepts and procedural instructions. As a result, palliative care formally started at an earlier stage in nursing home X. Besides that, the identification of palliative care situations, as well as communication, organizational processes and the inclusion of cooperation partners, took place without fixed structures and was based on the subjective handling of staff members in both facilities.
It turns out to be challenging for nursing homes to implement theoretical framework into everyday practice. To facilitate this process, aside from practicable assessments, defined responsibilities and organizational support, financing concepts at health policy level need to be established.
尽管存在立法框架,但养老院的姑息治疗和临终关怀支持差异很大。虽然现在大多数养老院都有姑息治疗理念,但它们很少融入日常实践。本研究旨在探讨姑息治疗和临终关怀的差异,并确定理论框架与日常实践之间存在差异的原因。
基于一个试点项目,对北莱茵-威斯特法伦州城乡地区的两家养老院进行了深入的结构和流程分析。此外,还纳入了一个扩大的供应商群体中的三家养老院以及一个专家咨询委员会,以尽量减少(供应商)特定特征并扩大研究结果。
尽管姑息治疗患者的比例及其平均年龄相当,但分析显示,各养老院在姑息治疗住院时间(213.2天对88.6天)以及所有死亡病例中姑息治疗患者的死亡率(26%对63.6%)方面存在显著差异。此外,尽管概念和程序说明相似,但各养老院内部的流程差异很大。结果,养老院X的姑息治疗在更早阶段正式开始。除此之外,姑息治疗情况的识别、沟通、组织流程以及合作伙伴的纳入都没有固定结构,而是基于两个机构工作人员的主观处理。
事实证明,养老院将理论框架落实到日常实践中具有挑战性。为促进这一过程,除了切实可行的评估、明确的职责和组织支持外,还需要在卫生政策层面建立融资概念。