End-of-life care in general practice: clinic-based data collection

Delphi Plus: A novel methodology for identifying evidence-based data standards for health service decision-making

The underlying tenet of evidence-based decision-making in health services is assessing all the relevant evidence. Using the traditional qualitative and quantitative approaches to identifying evidence may not capture the full spectrum of factors that need to be addressed. A selective mixed-method approach may provide a comprehensive assessment of the relevant knowledge. This paper adds to the methodological literature by outlining a novel sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process for identifying evidence-based data standards that may be used for health service decision-making. The three-phase process, entitled Delphi Plus, engages peer-nominated topic-specific experts to assess all publicly available and practice-based items and, through a series of reviews, reach an evidence-based consensus on standards for decision-making. Each process phase is outlined in-depth and supplemented by practical learnings gained through its implementation. The Delphi Plus methodology provides the first comprehensive process for combining the published and practised data to develop evidence-based data standards. The routine use of Delphi Plus would provide a framework for benchmarking in health services, enabling greater monitoring and evaluation of client outcomes and improving quality care. This manuscript describes the process of implementing Delphi Plus and provides an example of data standards generated from its use, which directly inform the Australian Government's Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan.

Minimum reporting standards for process and outcomes assessments for private practice dietitians working in Australian primary care: The Thought Leader Consensus study

AIM

To identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice.

METHODS

A sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process with peer-nominated Australian 'thought leaders'. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence-based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item-content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced-based standards for primary care practice.

RESULTS

Twenty-six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified-Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale-content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence-based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.

Delivery and outcomes of end-of-life care in the Australian context: Experiences and reflections of general practitioners

Previous research on general practitioners' (GPs') involvement in end-of-life care has largely focused on a specific aspect of care or has provided broad overviews that failed to capture individual variations in patient management. This qualitative study aimed to explore Australian GPs' feedback and reflections on the individual-level care provided for patients in their last year of life. The findings of the study were drawn from a nation-wide survey of GPs' experiences in end-of-life care. We analysed responses from 63 GPs for 267 of the 272 reported deaths. Factors influencing delivery of optimal end-of-life care reported by GPs were categorised into four groups: patient-related factors, carer-related factors, interactions between GPs and patients/carer-related factors and broader health system issues. Each group included both barriers and facilitators. Our study highlighted importance of the emotional dimensions of therapeutic relationships with patients and their family, availability and capacity of family support and smooth communication and continuity of care between GPs and hospitals in delivery of optimal end-of-life care. Lack of these facilitators, misconceptions of palliative care and conflicts on implementing care plans among patients and their family tended to impede delivery of such care. On the basis of our findings in the present study and previous literature, we conclude that improved end-of-life care in general practice requires comprehensive approaches to supporting both the GP and family to provide care in patients' preferred place, such as enhanced palliative care training and improved availability of external support for GPs, higher levels of hospital-based services reaching into community settings and broader community-based resources for families beyond simply the healthcare system.

Provision of end-of-life care in primary care: a survey of issues and outcomes in the Australian context

OBJECTIVES

To describe general practitioners' (GPs) involvement in end-of-life care, continuity and outcomes of care, and reported management challenges in the Australian context.

METHODS

Sixty-three GPs across three Australian states participated in a follow-up survey to report on care provided for decedents in the last year life using a clinic-based data collection process. The study was conducted between September 2018 and August 2019.

RESULTS

Approximately one-third of GPs had received formal palliative care training. Practitioners considered themselves as either the primary care coordinator (53.2% of reported patients) or part of the management team (40.4% of reported patients) in the final year of care. In the last week of life, patients frequently experienced reduced appetite (80.6%), fatigue (77.9%) and psychological problems (44.9%), with GPs reporting that the alleviation of these symptoms were less than optimal. Practitioners were highly involved in end-of-life care (eg, home visits, consultations via telephone and family meetings), and perceived higher levels of satisfaction with communication with palliative care services than other external services. For one-third of patients, GPs reported that the last year of care could potentially have been improved.

CONCLUSION

There are continuing needs for integration of palliative care training into medical education and reforms of healthcare systems to further support GPs' involvement in end-of-life care. Further, more extensive collection of clinical data is needed to evaluate and support primary care management of end-of-life patients in general practice.

Comparison of end-of-life care for people living in home settings versus residential aged care facilities: A nationwide study among Australian general practitioners

We have little knowledge of differences in end-of-life care between home settings and residential aged care facilities (RACFs) where people spend most of their last year of life. This study aimed to compare end-of-life care between home settings and RACFs from the perspective of Australian general practitioners (GPs). A descriptive study was conducted with 62 GPs from Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria. Participants were asked to provide reports on end-of-life care of decedents in their practice using a validated clinic-based data collection process developed by our team between September 2018 and August 2019. Of the 213 reported expected deaths, 66.2% mainly lived at home in the last year of life. People living at home were more likely to die at a younger age (median 77 vs. 88, p < 0.001), to be male (51.1% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.01) and to die of cancer (53.9% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001) compared to those in RACFs. There were no significant differences between the two patient groups for seven out of the eight assessed symptoms, except nausea. GPs' perceived roles in caring for patients and levels of their involvement in provision of common palliative care services were comparable between the two groups. The usual accommodation setting was most frequently considered the preferred place of death in both groups. However, more home residents ended up dying in hospital compared to RACF residents. There were significantly higher frequencies of end-of-life discussions (ORs ranged 5.46-9.82 for all topic comparisons) with GPs associated with people living at home versus RACFs. One opportunity for improved care is through promoting greater involvement of GPs in end-of-life discussions with RACF residents and staff. In general, more Australians could potentially remain at home until death if provided with greater access to essential specialist palliative care services and supportive services in home settings.

Experiences of family caregivers of patients with terminal disease and the quality of end-of-life care received: a mixed methods study

The aim of this study was to analyze the perceptions and experiences of relatives of patients dying from a terminal disease with regard to the care they received during the dying process, considering the oncological or non-oncological nature of the terminal disease, and the place where care was provided (at home, emergency department, hospital room, or palliative care unit). For this purpose, we conducted a mixed-methods observational study in which two studies were triangulated, one qualitative using semi-structured interviews (n = 30) and the other quantitative, using questionnaires (n = 129). The results showed that the perception of relatives on the quality of care was highly positive in the quantitative evaluation but more critical and negative in the qualitative interview. Experience of the support received and palliative measures was more positive for patients attended in hospital in the case of oncological patients but more positive for those attended at home in the case of non-oncological patients.