Qualitative study of transitions provides valuable insights into end-of-life care, even in countries where there are few financial barriers to services. This study has highlighted a need for continued attention to basic aspects of care and communication between professionals and with patients.
BackgroundThe end of life may be a time of high service utilisation for older adults. Transitions between care settings occur frequently, but may produce little improvement in symptom control or quality of life for patients. Ensuring that patients experience co-ordinated care, and moves occur because of individual needs rather than system imperatives, is crucial to patients’ well-being and to containing health-care costs.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to understand the experiences, influences and consequences of transitions between settings for older adults at the end of life. Three conditions were the focus of study, chosen to represent differing disease trajectories.SettingEngland.ParticipantsThirty patients aged over 75 years, in their last year of life, diagnosed with heart failure, lung cancer and stroke; 118 caregivers of decedents aged 66–98 years, who had died with heart failure, lung cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or selected other cancers; and 43 providers and commissioners of services in primary care, hospital, hospice, social care and ambulance services.Design and methodsThis was a mixed-methods study, composed of four parts: (1) in-depth interviews with older adults; (2) qualitative interviews and structured questionnaire with bereaved carers of older adult decedents; (3) telephone interviews with care commissioners and providers using case scenarios derived from the interviews with carers; and (4) analysis of linked Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and mortality data relating to hospital admissions for heart failure and lung cancer in England 2001–10.ResultsTransitions between care settings in the last year of life were a common component of end-of-life care across all the data sets that made up this study, and many moves were made shortly before death. Patients’ and carers’ experiences of transitions were of a disjointed system in which organisational processes were prioritised over individual needs. In many cases, the family carer was the co-ordinator and provider of care at home, excluded from participation in institutional care but lacking the information and support to extend their role with confidence. The general practitioner (GP) was a valued, central figure in end-of-life care across settings, though other disciplines were critical of GPs’ expertise and adherence to guidelines. Out-of-hours services and care homes were identified by many as contributors to unnecessary transitions. Good relationships and communication between professionals in different settings and sectors was recognised by families as one of the most important influences on transitions but this was rarely acknowledged by staff.ConclusionsDevelopment of a shared understanding of professional and carer roles in end-of-life transitions may be one of the most effective ways of improving patients’ experiences. Patients and carers manage many aspects of end-of-life care for themselves. Identifying ways to extend their skills and strengthen their voices, particularly in hospital settings, would be welcomed and may reduce unnecessary end-of-life transitions. Why the experiences of carers appear to have changed little, despite the implementation of a range of relevant policies, is an important question that has not been answered. Recommendations for future research include the relationship between policy interventions and the experiences of end-of-life carers; identification of ways to harmonise understanding of the carers’ role and strengthen their voice, particularly in hospital settings; identification of ways to reduce the influence of interprofessional tensions in end-of-life care; and development of interventions to enhance patients’ experiences across transitions.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
PurposeTo compare patient-triggered follow-up (PTFU) for curatively treated colorectal cancer against traditional outpatient follow-up (OPFU). MethodsQuestionnaires were mailed at four time points over one-year post-treatment to two prospectively-recruited cohorts: A, patients entering follow-up and receiving OPFU pre-implementation of PTFU; B, patients entering follow-up (FU) and receiving either OPFU (B1) or PTFU (B2) post-implementation of PTFU. Bi-variate tests were used to compare patient characteristics and outcomes eight months after entering follow-up (generic and cancer-specific quality of life (QoL), satisfaction). Regression analysis explored associations between follow-up model and outcomes. Resource implications and costs of models were compared.ResultsPatients in Cohort B1 were significantly more likely to have received chemotherapy (p < 0.001), radiotherapy (p < 0.05), and reported poorer QoL (p = 0.001). Having a longstanding co-morbid condition was the most important determinant of QoL (p < 0.001); model of care was not significant. Patients were satisfied with their follow-up care regardless of model. Health service costs were higher in PTFU over the first yearConclusionsPTFU is acceptable to patients with colorectal cancer and can be considered to be a realistic alternative to OPFU for clinically suitable patients. The initial costs are higher due to provision of a self-management (SM) programme and remote surveillance. Further research is needed to establish long-term outcomes and costs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00520-017-3595-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
BackgroundFamily carers play a significant role in managing pain and associated medicines for people with advanced cancer. Research indicates that carers often feel inadequately prepared for the tasks involved, which may impact on carers’ and patients’ emotional state as well as the achievement of optimal pain control. However, little is known about effective methods of supporting family carers with cancer pain medicines.AimsTo systematically identify and review studies of interventions to help carers manage medicines for pain in advanced cancer. To identify implications for practice and research.MethodA systematic literature search of databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED) was carried out to identify studies of pain medication management interventions that involved family carers of patients with advanced cancer, and reported specific outcomes for family carers. Patient pain outcomes were also sought. Studies were quality appraised; key aspects of study design, interventions and outcomes were compared and a narrative synthesis of findings developed.Results8 studies were included; all had significant methodological limitations. The majority reported improvements in family carer knowledge and/or self-efficacy for managing pain medicines; no effect on patient pain outcomes; and no adverse effects. It was not possible to discern any association between particular intervention characteristics and family carer outcomes.ConclusionsCurrent evidence is limited, but overall suggests face-to-face educational interventions supported by written and/or other resources have potential to improve carers’ knowledge and self-efficacy for pain management. Further research is needed to identify how best to help family carers manage pain medicines for patients with advanced cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.