Faculty of Social Science, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2024 Jul;12(19):1-134. doi: 10.3310/KRWQ5829.
Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this.
To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds.
A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.
Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, = 4, and Scotland, = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each.
Phase 1: interviews ( = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops ( = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews ( = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire ( = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire ( = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire ( = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews ( = 11); fidelity assessment ( = 14 Needs Rounds recordings).
(1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents' physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings.
A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement.
Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members.
The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents' last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services' complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality.
COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care.
Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff.
Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care.
This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801.
This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in ; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
养老院的居民往往无法获得来自专业姑息治疗提供者的临终关怀。姑息治疗需求评估轮次是一种新颖的方法,可以解决这个问题,它是在澳大利亚开发和测试的。
共同设计和实施英国模式的需求评估轮次。
使用综合促进卫生服务研究实施行动框架的实用实施研究。
在六个案例研究地点(英格兰, = 4 个;苏格兰, = 2 个)实施,包括专门的姑息治疗服务与每个机构中的三到六家养老院合作。
第 1 阶段:访谈( = 28 名养老院工作人员、专业姑息治疗工作人员、家属、初级保健、急性护理和联合健康从业者)和四次研讨会( = 43 名养老院工作人员、专业姑息治疗团队的临床医生和管理人员以及患者和公众参与和参与代表)。第 2 阶段:访谈( = 58 名养老院和专业姑息治疗工作人员);家庭问卷( = 13 名家属);员工问卷( = 171 名养老院员工);死亡/临终质量问卷( = 81 名);患者和公众参与和参与评估访谈( = 11 名);保真度评估( = 14 次需求评估轮次录音)。
(1)每月进行一小时的居民身体、心理社会和精神需求讨论,同时进行案例学习、(2)临床工作和(3)家属/多学科团队会议。
描述英国需求评估轮次在何种情况下对谁有效用的方案理论。次要结果重点关注卫生服务利用和成本效益、死亡和临终质量、养老院员工信心和能力,以及患者和公众参与和参与的使用。
来自六个地点的主要利益相关者的半结构化访谈和研讨会;采用姑息治疗方法的能力、死亡和临终质量指数以及加拿大卫生保健评估项目精简版问卷;需求评估轮次的录音;养老院居民人口统计数据/卫生服务利用数据;需求评估轮次触发的评估和干预措施;学术和患者和公众参与和参与成员的半结构化访谈。
方案理论:尽管养老院工作人员面临劳动力挑战,例如高周转率、技能和信心的差异,但需求评估轮次可以为养老院和专业姑息治疗工作人员提供在受保护的时间内合作的机会,为居民的最后几个月的生命做好计划。需求评估轮次可以增强养老院工作人员的信心,并可以加强关系和信任,同时利用服务的互补专业知识。需求评估轮次可以增强对死亡、症状管理、预先/预期护理计划和沟通的理解。这可以改善居民的护理,使居民能够在他们喜欢的地方得到护理和死亡,并可能通过增加家属对护理质量的信心而使家属受益。
由于 COVID-19 的限制,干预和数据收集受到限制。由于样本量不足,无法对需求评估轮次进行成本效益分析,也无法计算治疗效果或家属对护理的看法。
我们的工作表明,需求评估轮次可以通过提高工作人员的技能和信心来改善养老院居民的生活质量和死亡质量,包括症状管理、与全科医生和家属的沟通以及加强养老院和专业姑息治疗工作人员之间的关系。
进行成本效益和治疗效果分析。与决策者的接触可以考虑将需求评估轮次纳入英国的养老院和初级保健机构,以确保公平获得专业护理。
这项研究在英国国家卫生与保健卓越研究所(NIHR)健康和社会保健交付研究计划(NIHR 奖 REF:NIHR128799)中注册,并在 ;第 12 卷,第 19 期全文发表。请访问 NIHR 资助和奖项网站,以获取更多的奖项信息。