State-wide implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in specialized outpatient palliative care teams (ELSAH): A mixed-methods evaluation and implications for their sustainable use

Telemedicine Plus Standard Care Versus Standard Care Only in Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care: A Randomized Controlled Noninferiority Trial

Background: Patients suffering from incurable diseases are more likely to die in the hospital than at home. Specialized outpatient palliative care (PC) may be able to counteract this tendency. Similarly, potential benefits of telemedicine in health care were scientifically reported. The aim of this research was to compare patients receiving specialized outpatient PC plus telemedicine with those receiving standard specialized outpatient PC only. In this study, telemedicine is assumed to decrease the number of home visits and therefore should not be considered a mere add-on. Methods: This is a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Recruitment lasted between January 2020 and October 2021. Quality of care was evaluated using the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) at day 0, 7, and 14 after randomization. Change from day 0 to 7 was defined as the primary outcome (noninferiority margin = 4 points). This study was conducted in an urban setting in collaboration with a university hospital and a local specialized outpatient PC service. Results: A total of 196 patients were screened with 34 patients included (18 telemedicine/16 standard care). The mean change in the total score of the IPOS from day 0 to 7 amounted to -1.8 ± 3.9 (telemedicine) versus 1.2 ± 5.7 (standard care). The telemedicine group was statistically not relevantly inferior to the standard care group (t-test for noninferiority, p = 0.005). Conclusions: Although, due to COVID-19, the sample size remained rather small, our findings indicate that telemedical approaches offer a promising and equally effective option to provide specialized outpatient PC. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT06054048.

Integration of Psychosocial Theory into Palliative Care: Implications for Care Planning and Early Palliative Care

Palliative care improves patients' symptoms, quality of life and family satisfaction with caregiving, reduces hospital admissions and promotes alignment of medical care with the patient's needs and goals. This article proposes the utility of integrating three psychosocial theories into standard palliative care with implications for care planning, early palliative care and optimizing quality of life. First, Control Theory focuses on the complex juxtaposition of promoting agency/empowerment in patients and carers and coping with often highly uncertain outcomes. Second, Optimal Matching Theory accounts for the alignment of need and provision of care to potentiate the quality of life effects of supportive care in a complex social process involving health care providers, patients and carers. Third, Hope Theory represents a dynamic process, which is marked by variation in the qualities of hope as the patient and carer confront challenges during palliative care. Future work will be translational in nature to adapt both assessment and interventions based on this theoretically driven augmentation of palliative care as well as to evaluate whether it provides a conceptual framework that has incremental utility in palliative care planning.

Using normalization process theory to evaluate the use of patient-centred outcome measures in specialist palliative home care-a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Standardised use of patient-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) improves aspects of quality of care. Normalization Process Theory (NPT) considers the social (inter-)actions of implementation processes operationalised through four constructs: coherence-building, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring. The aim of the study was to identify barriers and enablers for the successful use of PCOMs in specialist palliative home care (SPHC) using NPT, to collect clinically meaningful and reliable data to improve patient outcomes.

METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with palliative care professionals from German SPHC teams who participated in a study using PCOMs. Data were analysed using Framework analysis, and contextualised within NPT.

RESULTS

Seventeen interviews across five teams were conducted. Some teams already had an understanding of what PCOMs are and how to use them, based on previous experience. In other teams, this understanding developed through the perception of the benefits (coherence). Participation and engagement depended on individuals and was decisive for coherence-building. The attitude of the management level also played a major role (cognitive participation). Integration of PCOMs into everyday clinical practice varied and depended on the manifestation of the first two constructs and other already established routines (collective action). In the context of appraisal, both positive (e.g. focus on patient) and negative aspects (e.g. additional work) of using PCOMs were mentioned (reflexive monitoring).

CONCLUSIONS

Although benefits of using PCOMs were partly recognised, not all teams continued standardised use. Here, not only the social (inter-)actions, but also the influence of the context (working environment) were decisive. Future implementation strategies should consider integrating PCOMs in existing electronic patient records, education sessions supporting coherence-building, internal facilitators/local champions, and ensuring frequent data analyses as it is beneficial and increases the readiness of using PCOMs.

Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes in palliative care enable early monitoring and management of symptoms that most impact patients' daily lives; however, there are several barriers to adopting electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures (e-PROMs) in daily practice. This study explored the experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding potential barriers and facilitators in implementing e-PROMs in palliative cancer care at home.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from two focus groups structured according to the conceptual framework of Grol. HCPs involved in home palliative cancer care of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan were enrolled. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 245 codes were generated, 171 for the first focus group and 74 for the second focus group. The results were subdivided into subthemes according to Grol's themes: Innovation, Individual professional, Patient, Social context, Organizational context, except Economic Political context. Nine HCPs attended the first focus group, and ten attended the second. According to these participants, e-PROMs could be integrated into clinical practice after adequate training and support of HCPs at all stages of implementation. They identified barriers, especially in the social and organizational contexts, due to the uniqueness of the oncological end-of-life setting and the intangible care interventions, as well as many facilitators for the innovation that these tools bring and for improved communication with the patient and the healthcare team.

CONCLUSIONS

e-PROMs are perceived by HCPs as adding value to patient care and their work; however, barriers remain especially related to the fragility of these patients, the adequacy of technological systems, lack of education, and the risk of low humanization of care.