End-of-life discussions in residential care homes improves symptom control: a national register study

Symptom assessment in the dying: family members versus healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVES

Symptom management and support of the family members (FMs) are considered essential aspects of palliative care. During end of life, patients are often not able to self-report symptoms. There is little knowledge in the literature of how healthcare professionals (HCPs) assess symptoms compared with FMs. The objective was to compare the assessment of symptoms and symptom relief during the final week of life between what was reported by FMs and what was reported by HCPs.

METHODS

Data from the Swedish Register of Palliative Care from 2021 and 2022 were used to compare congruity of the assessments by the FMs and by HCPs regarding occurrence and relief of three symptoms (pain, anxiety and confusion), using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

A total of 1131 patients were included. The agreement between FMs and HCPs was poor for occurrence of pain and confusion (kappa 0.25 and 0.16), but fair for occurrence of anxiety (kappa 0.30). When agreeing on a symptom being present, agreement on relief of that symptom was poor (kappa 0.04 for pain, 0.10 for anxiety and 0.01 for confusion). The trend was that HCPs more often rated occurrence of pain and anxiety, less often occurrence of confusion and more often complete symptom relief compared with the FMs.

CONCLUSIONS

The views of FMs and HCPs of the patients' symptoms differ in the end-of-life context, but both report important information and their symptom assessments should be considered both together and individually. More communication between HCPs and FMs could probably bridge some of these differences.

Organizational readiness to implement the Serious Illness Care Program in hospital settings in Sweden

Background

The Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) is a model developed for structured communication, identifying patients, and training physicians to use a structured guide for conversations with patients and family members. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the sustainable implementation of this conversation model. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers during the implementation of the SICP in hospital settings.

Methods

The SICP was implemented at 20 units in two hospitals in Sweden. During the implementation process, seven individual interviews and two group interviews were conducted with seven facilitators (five physicians, one behavioral therapist, and one administrator). Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, first inductively, and then deductively using the organizational readiness for change as a theoretical framework.

Result

The analysis resulted in three factors acting as enablers and eight factors acting as enablers and/or barriers during the implementation of the SICP. The three factors considered as enablers were preliminaries, identifying patients, and facilitator’s role. The eight factors considered as enablers and/or barriers were broad implementation, leadership, time, confidence, building foundation, motivation to work change, motivation for training in serious illness conversations, and attitudes.

Conclusion

This study indicates limited readiness to implement the SICP in hospital settings due to considerable variation in organizational contextual factors, change efficacy, and change commitment. The identified enablers and barriers for implementation of the SICP could guide and support future implementations to be sustainable over time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07923-5.