Ernst Alexandra, Schade Franziska, Stiel Stephanie, van Baal Katharina, Herbst Franziska A
Institute for General Practice and Palliative Care, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Strasse 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
BMC Palliat Care. 2025 Apr 11;24(1):102. doi: 10.1186/s12904-025-01729-y.
Guidelines are essential tools for ensuring high-quality healthcare. However, discrepancies exist between their availability and practical implementation. In the context of palliative care, the extent to which guidelines are implemented and the barriers and facilitators that influence this process remain unknown.
The present study aimed at systematically reviewing the international literature on the implementation of palliative care guidelines to evaluate factors that support or hinder implementation of palliative care guidelines globally.
A scoping review was conducted following the methodological approach of Arksey and O'Malley (2005). After the formulation of research questions and development of a search string, relevant studies investigating the implementation of guidelines were identified and retrieved from the databases CINAHL, LIVIO, PubMed and Web of Science Core Collection on 4 January 2024. Two researchers independently selected articles for inclusion, employing a blinded process with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The results were subsequently categorised deductively by the same researchers using Petermann's (2014) taxonomy of implementation outcomes. The results were summarised and presented in tabular form.
The search yielded 2,086 records, of which 1,252 were included in the title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 113 full-text articles were reviewed for eligibility, resulting in 29 articles deemed suitable for the final analysis. Six implementation outcomes were identified in the included literature: (1) acceptability (n = 15 articles), (2) adoption (n = 6 articles), (3) appropriateness (n = 9 articles), (4) feasibility (n = 9 articles), (5) fidelity/adherence (n = 14 articles) and (6) penetration (n = 14 articles). The majority of studies employed quantitative approaches (n = 22) and considered the perspective of healthcare professionals and their opinions regarding guideline implementation in palliative care. Only 4 articles considered patient related outcomes or the perspectives of the family caregivers. Ten articles reported on facilitators and barriers. Facilitators included healthcare professionals' motivation and managerial support, while barriers primarily referred to time constraints and limited knowledge.
Guideline implementation in palliative care is highly variable. Future research should aim at comprehensively analysing facilitators of and barriers to this process, considering diverse implementation outcomes. For these evaluations, mixed-method approaches are recommended.
指南是确保高质量医疗保健的重要工具。然而,其可用性与实际实施之间存在差异。在姑息治疗的背景下,指南的实施程度以及影响这一过程的障碍和促进因素仍然未知。
本研究旨在系统回顾关于姑息治疗指南实施的国际文献,以评估全球范围内支持或阻碍姑息治疗指南实施的因素。
按照阿克西和奥马利(2005年)的方法进行了一项范围综述。在制定研究问题并开发搜索词后,于2024年1月4日从CINAHL、LIVIO、PubMed和科学网核心合集数据库中识别并检索了调查指南实施情况的相关研究。两名研究人员独立选择纳入的文章,采用盲法并依据预定义的纳入和排除标准进行筛选。随后,由相同的研究人员使用彼得曼(2014年)的实施结果分类法进行演绎分类。结果以表格形式进行总结和呈现。
搜索共得到2086条记录,其中1²52条记录被纳入标题和摘要筛选。随后,对113篇全文文章进行了资格审查,最终有29篇文章被认为适合进行最终分析。纳入文献中确定了六个实施结果:(1)可接受性(15篇文章),(2)采用(6篇文章),(3)适宜性(9篇文章),(4)可行性(9篇文章),(5)保真度/依从性(14篇文章)和(6)渗透率(14篇文章)。大多数研究采用定量方法(22篇),并考虑了医疗保健专业人员的观点及其对姑息治疗指南实施的看法。只有4篇文章考虑了与患者相关的结果或家庭护理人员的观点。10篇文章报告了促进因素和障碍。促进因素包括医疗保健专业人员的积极性和管理支持,而障碍主要指时间限制和知识有限。
姑息治疗中指南的实施差异很大。未来的研究应旨在全面分析这一过程的促进因素和障碍,同时考虑不同的实施结果。对于这些评估,建议采用混合方法。