1
|
Walshe C, Dunleavy L, Preston N, Payne S, Ellershaw J, Taylor V, Mason S, Nwosu AC, Gadoud A, Board R, Swash B, Coyle S, Dickman A, Partridge A, Halvorsen J, Hulbert-Williams N. Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals. BMC Palliat Care 2024; 23:159. [PMID: 38918771 PMCID: PMC11202245 DOI: 10.1186/s12904-024-01488-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Accepted: 06/14/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research. METHODS A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities. CONCLUSIONS Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Catherine Walshe
- International Observatory On End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
| | - Lesley Dunleavy
- International Observatory On End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Nancy Preston
- International Observatory On End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Sheila Payne
- International Observatory On End-of-Life Care, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | | | | | | | | | - Amy Gadoud
- Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Ruth Board
- Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Preston, UK
| | | | - Seamus Coyle
- The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | - Andrew Dickman
- Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Jaime Halvorsen
- NIHR Clinical Research Network North West Coast, Liverpool, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Seeger I, Klausen AD, Günther U, Bienzeisler J, Schnack H, Lubasch JS. [Reasons for non-participation in a patient survey in the context of prehospital emergency medical care by community emergency paramedics - A retrospective observational study]. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ, FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAT IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN 2024; 187:61-68. [PMID: 38653638 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2024.03.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 03/05/2024] [Accepted: 03/21/2024] [Indexed: 04/25/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In order to evaluate whether the new rescue means "community emergency paramedics" (Gemeindenotfallsanitäter [G-NFS]) relieves the emergency medical service (EMS) in the care of low-priority emergencies, the perspective of general practitioners and patients was also surveyed in a written questionnaire as part of an innovation fund project. Recruitment for participation in the study proved to be difficult. The aim of this study is to evaluate why the G-NFS decided against providing information on study participation and what measures would be necessary to include more emergency patients in surveys in the future. METHODS Retrospective analysis of the assignment protocols from April 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022. In addition to patient characteristics, data on treatments, interventions and recommendations to patients as well as reasons for non-participation in the patient survey were collected. RESULTS 5,395 G-NFS protocols that contained information on non-participation were included in the analysis. The average age of the patients was 62.4 years (SD 22.7), and 50.2% were female. 57.4% of the cases were categorised as non-urgent, and 35.2% of the cases required an additional ambulance to be alerted. 404 (7.5%) patients used the EMS more than once, 1,120 (20.8%) did not have sufficient language skills, 1,012 (18.8%) patients declined study participation, and 2,975 (55.1%) patients were not able to participate according to the G-NFS assessment. Dementia/neurocognitive impairment (35%), acute/emergency situation (26.5%), mental health impairment (10.3%), and substance abuse (6.5%) were given as reasons for non-participation from the G-NFS perspective. DISCUSSION The results show that more than half of the patients were unable to take part in a written survey for various reasons, even though there was no need for urgent care. This could be due to a high demand for care and the complex consent procedure. In addition, further resources are required to provide needs-based care for these patients in order to relieve the burden on emergency medical care. Over half of the patients were unable to take part in a written survey for various reasons. Further research is needed to determine what consent procedures are appropriate to facilitate patients' study participation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Insa Seeger
- Oldenburger Forschungsnetzwerk Notfall- und Intensivmedizin, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland.
| | - Andrea Diana Klausen
- Oldenburger Forschungsnetzwerk Notfall- und Intensivmedizin, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland
| | - Ulf Günther
- Oldenburger Forschungsnetzwerk Notfall- und Intensivmedizin, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland; Universitätsklinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin, Schmerztherapie, Klinikum Oldenburg AöR, Oldenburg, Deutschland
| | - Jonas Bienzeisler
- Institut für Medizinische Informatik, Medizinische Fakultät Uniklinik RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Deutschland
| | - Helge Schnack
- Abteilung Organisationsbezogene Versorgungsforschung, Department für Versorgungsforschung, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland
| | - Johanna Sophie Lubasch
- Oldenburger Forschungsnetzwerk Notfall- und Intensivmedizin, Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Adeyemi O, Ginsburg AD, Kaur R, Cuthel AM, Zhao N, Siman N, Goldfeld KS, Emlet LL, DiMaggio C, Yamarik RL, Bouillon-Minois JB, Chodosh J, Grudzen CR. Serious illness communication skills training for emergency physicians and advanced practice providers: a multi-method assessment of the reach and effectiveness of the intervention. BMC Palliat Care 2024; 23:48. [PMID: 38378532 PMCID: PMC10880358 DOI: 10.1186/s12904-024-01349-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/07/2023] [Accepted: 01/08/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND EM Talk is a communication skills training program designed to improve emergency providers' serious illness conversational skills. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this study aims to assess the reach of EM Talk and its effectiveness. METHODS EM Talk consisted of one 4-h training session during which professional actors used role-plays and active learning to train providers to deliver serious/bad news, express empathy, explore patients' goals, and formulate care plans. After the training, emergency providers filled out an optional post-intervention survey, which included course reflections. Using a multi-method analytical approach, we analyzed the reach of the intervention quantitatively and the effectiveness of the intervention qualitatively using conceptual content analysis of open-ended responses. RESULTS A total of 879 out of 1,029 (85%) EM providers across 33 emergency departments completed the EM Talk training, with the training rate ranging from 63 to 100%. From the 326 reflections, we identified meaning units across the thematic domains of improved knowledge, attitude, and practice. The main subthemes across the three domains were the acquisition of Serious Illness (SI) communication skills, improved attitude toward engaging qualifying patients in SI conversations, and commitment to using these learned skills in clinical practice. CONCLUSION Our study showed the extensive reach and the effectiveness of the EM Talk training in improving SI conversation. EM Talk, therefore, can potentially improve emergency providers' knowledge, attitude, and practice of SI communication skills. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03424109; Registered on January 30, 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Oluwaseun Adeyemi
- Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, 227 East 30thStreet, New York, NY, 10016, USA
| | | | | | - Allison M Cuthel
- Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, 227 East 30thStreet, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
| | - Nicole Zhao
- Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, 227 East 30thStreet, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA
| | - Nina Siman
- Ronald O. Perelman Department of Emergency Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, 227 East 30thStreet, New York, NY, 10016, USA
| | - Keith S Goldfeld
- Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Lillian Liang Emlet
- Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Charles DiMaggio
- Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Surgery, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | | | | | - Joshua Chodosh
- Department of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
- Department of Medicine, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA
- Veteran's Affair, New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY, USA
| | - Corita R Grudzen
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Adeyemi O, Ginsburg AD, Kaur R, Cuthel A, Zhao N, Siman N, Goldfeld K, Emlet LL, DiMaggio C, Yamarik R, Bouillon-Minois JB, Chodosh J, Grudzen CR. Serious Illness Communication Skills Training for Emergency Physicians and Advanced Practice Providers: A Multi-Method Assessment of the Reach and Effectiveness of the Intervention. RESEARCH SQUARE 2023:rs.3.rs-2561749. [PMID: 36865121 PMCID: PMC9980220 DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2561749/v1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2023]
Abstract
Background EM Talk is a communication skills training program designed to improve emergency providers' serious illness conversational skills. Using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, this study aims to assess the reach of EM Talk and its effectiveness. Methods EM Talk is one of the components of Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (EM) intervention. It consisted of one 4-hour training session during which professional actors used role-plays and active learning to train providers to deliver serious/bad news, express empathy, explore patients' goals, and formulate care plans. After the training, emergency providers filled out an optional post-intervention survey, which included course reflections. Using a multi-method analytical approach, we analyzed the reach of the intervention quantitatively and the effectiveness of the intervention qualitatively using conceptual content analysis of open-ended responses. Results A total of 879 out of 1,029 (85%) EM providers across 33 emergency departments completed the EM Talk training, with the training rate ranging from 63-100%. From the 326 reflections, we identified meaning units across the thematic domains of improved knowledge, attitude, and practice. The main subthemes across the three domains were the acquisition of discussion tips and tricks, improved attitude toward engaging qualifying patients in serious illness (SI) conversations, and commitment to using these learned skills in clinical practice. Conclusion Effectively engaging qualifying patients in serious illness conversations requires appropriate communication skills. EM Talk has the potential to improve emergency providers' knowledge, attitude, and practice of SI communication skills. Trial registration NCT03424109.
Collapse
|
5
|
Affiliation(s)
| | - N Seth Trueger
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois
- Digital Media Editor, JAMA Network Open
| |
Collapse
|