Caregivers' three-cornered hats: Their tricornes

Perceptions of the care received from Australian palliative care services: A caregiver perspective

ABSTRACTBackground:Caregiver satisfaction and experience surveys help health professionals to understand, measure, and improve the quality of care provided for patients and their families.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to explore caregiver perceptions of the care received from Australian specialist palliative care services.

METHOD

Caregivers of patients receiving palliative care in services registered with Australia's Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration were invited to participate in a caregiver survey. The survey included the FAMCARE-2 and four items from the Ongoing Needs Identification: Caregiver Profile questionnaire.

RESULTS

Surveys were completed by 1,592 caregivers from 49 services. Most respondents reported high satisfaction and positive experiences. Caregivers receiving care from community-based palliative care teams were less satisfied with the management of physical symptoms and comfort (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI95%] = 0.14, 0.59), with patient psychological care (OR = 0.56; CI95% = 0.32, 0.98), and with family support (OR = 0.52; CI95% = 0.35, 0.77) than caregivers of patients in an inpatient setting. If aged over 60 years, caregivers were less likely to have their information needs met regarding available support services (OR = 0.98; CI95% = 0.97, 0.98) and carer payments (OR = 0.99; CI95% = 0.98, 1.00). Also, caregivers were less likely to receive adequate information about carer payments if located in an outer regional area (OR = 0.41; CI95% = 0.25, 0.64). With practical training, caregivers receiving care from community services reported inadequate information provision to support them in caring for patients (OR = 0.60; CI95% = 0.45, 0.81).

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

While our study identified caregivers as having positive and satisfactory experiences across all domains of care, there is room for improvement in the delivery of palliative care across symptom management, as well as patient and caregiver support, especially in community settings. Caregiver surveys can facilitate the identification and evaluation of both patients' and caregivers' experiences, satisfaction, distress, and unmet needs.

Protocol for a systematic review of preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes and their suitability for the palliative care setting

INTRODUCTION

Despite informal caregivers' integral role in supporting people affected by disease or disability, economic evaluations often ignore the costs and benefits experienced by this group, especially in the palliative setting. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes and provide guidance on the selection of instrument in palliative care economic evaluations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive search of the literature will be conducted from database inception (ASSIA; CINAHL; Cochrane library including DARE, NHS EED, HTA; Econlit; Embase; PsychINFO; PubMed). Published peer-reviewed, English-language articles reporting preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes in any clinical area will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and screen the results for potentially eligible studies. A randomly selected subset of 10% citations will be independently screened by two researchers. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus among the research team. Subsequently, a supplementary search will identify studies detailing the development, valuation, validation and application of the identified instruments. The degree of suitability of the instruments for palliative economic evaluations will be assessed using criteria in the International Society for Quality of Life Research minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures, the checklist for reporting valuation studies of multiattribute utility-based instruments and information on the development of the instrument in the palliative setting. A narrative summary of the included studies and instruments will be provided; similarities and differences will be described and possible reasons for variations explored. Recommendations for practice on selection of instruments in palliative care economic analyses will be provided.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This is a planned systematic review of published literature. Therefore, ethics approval to conduct this research is not required. Findings will be presented at leading palliative care and health economic conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016034188.

What Aspects of Quality of Life Are Important From Palliative Care Patients' Perspectives? A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research

CONTEXT

Despite the availability of numerous tools professing to measure quality of life (QOL) in the palliative care setting, no single instrument includes all patient-valued domains.

OBJECTIVES

To identify which aspects of QOL are important from palliative care patients' perspectives, aiding coverage, and content validity evaluation of available tools.

METHODS

A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and PubMed were searched from database inception to December 31, 2015. Published, peer-reviewed, English-language articles reporting primary qualitative data investigating QOL domains in adults with a progressive, life-limiting illness were included. Studies a priori exploring a chosen aspect of QOL were not included. Articles scoring ≤2 on reporting quality were excluded. Framework synthesis was used to identify key themes across the studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 3589 articles were screened and 24 studies were included. Eight important aspects of QOL were identified: physical; personal autonomy; emotional; social; spiritual; cognitive; healthcare; and preparatory. All but one study discussed spiritual aspects, whereas only six studies mentioned cognitive aspects.

CONCLUSION

A broad range of domains are important to the QOL of people with life-limiting illnesses receiving palliation. Refinement of measures is needed to help ensure services address issues valued by patients such as preparation for death and aspects of health care provision, elements which are seldom included in currently available preference-based measures used to inform value for money decisions in palliative care.

Communication differences when patients and caregivers are seen separately or together

BACKGROUND

Southern Adelaide Palliative Care Services introduced a nurse-led early introduction to a palliative care clinic in 2011. The clinic offers a thorough psychosocial assessment and the provision of information and an introduction to future care planning. The patients and their caregivers are seen together by the nurse practitioner initially for a physical assessment. They are then seen by a social worker to focus on advanced care planning and assessment of social and emotional factors. After the social work visit, the patient and caregiver are separated, and the patient sees the psychosocial nurse for coping and adjustment to illness and the carer sees the caregiver network facilitator to assess their informal supports to assist in the role of community-based caregiving. The pilot study looks at the nature of communication in the clinic where patient and carer are together and compares that to when they are separated.

METHODS

A total of 33 patients and their caregivers agreed for their coversations to be tape recorded between May and November of 2013. All tape recordings were transcribed verbatim. Ten patient transcripts (n=40) have been coded for quantitative analysis. The codes identify content and function of speech, cues for information and emotion and whether they are responded to by clinicians.

RESULTS

Pilot results reveal that caregivers contribute little in the combined clinics and dominate the conversation in the private clinic. Patients, when seen alone, predominantly express emotion related cues, opposed to cues for information. The clinicians focus on their area of specialty, which results in little duplication in this clinic setting.

CONCLUSION

An earlier evaluation of this clinic found that patients and their caregivers appreciate being separated in the clinic setting to have time and privacy to reveal fears and feelings related to end-of-life care. This current study quantifies the patient and caregiver experience and confirms those earlier findings.