Hospital end-of-life care: families' free-text notes

End-of-life issues experienced by the nurse-led rapid response team: An analysis of extent and experiences

OBJECTIVES

To examine the frequency, clinical characteristics and nurse-led rapid response team experiences of calls that involve end-of-life issues.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN

The study consisted of two parts: 1) a retrospective journal audit of registered rapid response team calls for 2011-2019 that involved end-of-life issues, and 2) interviews with intensive care rapid response team nurses. The quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics and the qualitative data with content analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a Danish university hospital.

RESULTS

Twelve percent (269/2,319) of the rapid response team calls involved end-of-life issues. "No indication for intensive care therapy" and "Do not resuscitate" were the main medical end-of-life orders. The patients had a mean age of 80 years, and the main reason for the calls was a respiratory problem. Ten rapid response team nurses were interviewed, and four themes evolved from the analysis: "Uncertain roles for the rapid response team nurses", "Solidarity with ward nurses", "Lack of information" and "Timing of decision-making".

CONCLUSION

Twelve percent of the rapid response team calls involved end-of-life issues. The main reason for these calls was a respiratory problem, and the rapid response team nurses often found their role uncertain and experienced lack of information and sub-optimal timing of decision-making.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

Intensive care nurses working in a rapid response team often face end-of-life issues during calls. Therefore, end-of-life care should be included in training for rapid response team nurses. Furthermore, advanced care planning is recommended to secure high-quality end-of-life care and to decrease uncertainty in acute medical situations.

Opportunities and Barriers of Telemedicine in Rheumatology: A Participatory, Mixed-Methods Study

Despite all its promises, telemedicine is still not widely implemented in the care of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). The aim of this study is to investigate opportunities, barriers, acceptance, and preferences concerning telemedicine among RMD patients and professional stakeholders. From November 2017 to December 2019, a participatory, mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of (1) expert interviews (n = 27) with RMD patients and professional stakeholders, (2) a national paper-based patient survey (n = 766), and (3) focus groups (n = 2) with patient representatives and rheumatologists. The qualitative findings indicate that patients equate personal contact with physical face-to-face contact, which could be reduced by implementing telemedicine, thus negatively influencing the patient–doctor relationship. Correspondingly “no personal contact with the doctor” is the main reason (64%) why 38% of the surveyed patients refuse to try telemedicine. Professional stakeholders expect telemedicine to contribute to the effective allocation of scarce resources in rheumatology care. The main barriers reported by stakeholders were the scarcity of time resources in RMD care, the absence of physical examinations, and organizational challenges associated with the implementation of telemedicine in RMD care. While the exact integration of telemedicine into routine care has yet to be found, the consequences on the patient-physician relationship must be permanently considered.

Digital Health Transition in Rheumatology: A Qualitative Study

The global COVID-19 pandemic has led to drastic changes in the management of patients with rheumatic diseases. Due to the imminent risk of infection, monitoring intervals of rheumatic patients have prolonged. The aim of this study is to present insights from patients, rheumatologists, and digital product developers on the ongoing digital health transition in rheumatology. A qualitative and participatory semi-structured fishbowl approach was conducted to gain detailed insights from a total of 476 participants. The main findings show that digital health and remote care are generally welcomed by the participants. Five key themes emerged from the qualitative content analysis: (1) digital rheumatology use cases, (2) user descriptions, (3) adaptation to different environments of rheumatology care, and (4) potentials of and (5) barriers to digital rheumatology implementation. Codes were scaled by positive and negative ratings as well as on micro, meso, and macro levels. A main recommendation resulting from the insights is that both patients and rheumatologists need more information and education to successfully implement digital health tools into clinical routine.