Specialist palliative care, within hospices in particular, has historically led and set the standard for caring for patients at end of life. The focus of this care has been mostly for patients with cancer. More recently, health and social care services have been developing equality of care for all patients approaching end of life. This has mostly been done in the context of a service delivery approach to care whereby services have become increasingly expert in identifying health and social care need and meeting this need with professional services. This model of patient centred care, with the impeccable assessment and treatment of physical, social, psychological and spiritual need, predominantly worked very well for the latter part of the 20th century. Over the last 13 years, however, there have been several international examples of community development approaches to end of life care. The patient centred model of care has limitations when there is a fundamental lack of integrated community policy, development and resourcing. Within this article, we propose a model of care which identifies a person with an illness at the centre of a network which includes inner and outer networks, communities and service delivery organisations. All of these are underpinned by policy development, supporting the overall structure. Adoption of this model would allow individuals, communities, service delivery organisations and policy makers to work together to provide end of life care that enhances value and meaning for people at end of life, both patients and communities alike.

No abstract

BackgroundThe Brazilian healthcare system offers universal coverage but lacks information about how patients with PC needs are serviced by its primary care program, Estratégia Saúde da Família (ESF).MethodsCross-sectional study in community settings. Patients in ESF program were screened using a Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST). Included patients were assessed with Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS).ResultsPatients with PC needs are accessing the ESF program regardless of there being no specific PC support provided. From 238 patients identified, 73 (43 women, 30 men) were identified as having a need for PC, and the mean age was 77.18 (95 % Confidence Interval = ±2,78) years, with non-malignant neurologic conditions, such as dementia and cerebrovascular diseases, being the most common (53 % of all patients). Chronic conditions (2 or more years) were found in 70 % of these patients, with 71 % scoring 50 or less points in the KPS. Overall symptom intensity was low, with the exception of some cases with moderate and high score, and POS average score was 14.16 points (minimum = 4; maximum = 28). Most patients received medication and professional support through the primary care units, but limitations of services were identified, including lack of home visits and limited multi-professional approaches.ConclusionPatients with PC needs were identified in ESF program. Basic health care support is provided but there is a lack of attention to some specific needs. PC policies and professional training should be implemented to improve this area.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0125-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The inclusion of visual representations of design with accompanying explanatory text is recommended in reporting case study research methods.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundProviding end of life care in rural areas is challenging. We evaluated in a pilot whether nurse practitioner (NP)-led care, including clinical care plans negotiated with involved health professionals including the general practitioner(GP), ± patient and/or carer, through a single multidisciplinary case conference (SMCC), could influence patient and health system outcomes.MethodsSetting – Australian rural district 50 kilometers from the nearest specialist palliative care service. Participants: Adults nearing the end of life from any cause, life expectancy several months. Intervention- NP led assessment, then SMCC as soon as possible after referral. A clinical care plan recorded management plans for current and anticipated problems and who was responsible for each action. Eligible patients had baseline, 1 and 3 month patient-reported assessment of function, quality of life, depression and carer stress, and a clinical record audit. Interviews with key service providers assessed the utility and feasibility of the service.ResultsSixty-two patients were referred to the service, forty from the specialist service. Many patients required immediate treatment, prior to both the planned baseline assessment and the planned SMCC (therefore ineligible for enrollment). Only six patients were assessed per protocol, so we amended the protocol. There were 23 case conferences. Reasons for not conducting the case conference included the patient approaching death, or assessed as not having immediate problems. Pain (25 %) and depression (23 %) were the most common symptoms discussed in the case conferences. Ten new advance care plans were initiated, with most patients already having one. The NP or RN made 101 follow-up visits, 169 phone calls, and made 17 referrals to other health professionals. The NP prescribed 24 new medications and altered the dose in nine. There were 14 hospitalisations in the time frame of the project. Participants were satisfied with the service, but the service cost exceeded income from national health insurance alone.ConclusionsNP-coordinated, GP supported care resulted in prompt initiation of treatment, good follow up, and a care plan where all professionals had named responsibilities. NP coordinated palliative care appears to enable more integrated care and may be effective in reducing hospitalisations.

No abstract