Palliative Care Leadership Centers Are Key To The Diffusion Of Palliative Care Innovation

Using Patient-Centered Dissemination and Implementation Frameworks and Strategies in Palliative Care Settings for Improved Quality of Life and Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

There is a need for patient-provider dissemination and implementation frameworks, strategies, and protocols in palliative care settings for a holistic approach when it comes to addressing pain and other distressing symptoms affecting the quality of life, function, and independence of patients with chronic illnesses. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore patient-centered D&I frameworks and strategies that have been adopted in PC settings to improve behavioral and environmental determinants influencing health outcomes through evidence-based programs and protocols.

METHODS

The five step Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) York methodology was adopted as a guiding framework: (1) identifying research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies relevant to the research questions; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results.

RESULTS

Only 6 out of the 38 (16%) included studies applied a D&I theory and/or framework. The RE-AIM framework was the most prominently cited (n = 3), followed by the Diffusion of Innovation Model (n = 2), the CONNECT framework (n = 1), and the Transtheoretical Stages of Change Model (n = 1). The most frequently reported ERIC strategy was strategy #6 "Develop and organize quality monitoring systems", as it identified in all 38 of the included studies.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identifies D&I efforts to translate research into practice in U.S. palliative care settings. Results may contribute to enhancing future D&I initiatives for dissemination/adaptation, implementation, and sustainability efforts aiming to improve patient health outcomes and personal satisfaction with care received.

Developing a national implementation strategy to accelerate uptake of evidence-based family caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers

OBJECTIVE

Characterize key factors and training needs of U.S. cancer centers in implementing family caregiver support services.

METHODS

Sequential explanatory mixed methods design consisting of: (1) a national survey of clinicians and administrators from Commission-on-Cancer-accredited cancer centers (N = 238) on factors and training needed for establishing new caregiver programs and (2) qualitative interviews with a subsample of survey respondents (N = 30) to elicit feedback on survey findings and the outline of an implementation strategy to facilitate implementation of evidence-based family caregiver support (the Caregiver Support Accelerator). Survey data was tabulated using descriptive statistics and transcribed interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Top factors for developing new caregiver programs were that the program be: consistent with the cancer center's mission and strategic plan (87%), supported by clinic leadership (86.5%) and providers and staff (85.7%), and low cost or cost effective (84.9%). Top training needs were how to: train staff to implement programs (72.3%), obtain program materials (63.0%), and evaluate program outcomes (62.6%). Only 3.8% reported that no training was needed. Qualitative interviews yielded four main themes: (1) gaining leadership, clinician, and staff buy-in and support is essential; (2) cost and clinician burden are major factors to program implementation; (3) training should help with adapting and marketing programs to local context and culture; and (4) the Accelerator strategy is comprehensive and would benefit from key organizational partnerships and policy standards.

CONCLUSION

Findings will be used to inform and refine the Accelerator implementation strategy to facilitate the adoption and growth of evidence-based cancer caregiver support in U.S. cancer centers.

Public Health and Palliative Care

Meeting the needs of people at the end of life (EOL) is a public health (PH) concern, yet a PH approach has not been widely applied to EOL care. The design of hospice in the United States, with its focus on cost containment, has resulted in disparities in EOL care use and quality. Individuals with non-cancer diagnoses, minoritized individuals, individuals of lower socioeconomic status, and those who do not yet qualify for hospice are particularly disadvantaged by the existing hospice policy. New models of palliative care (both hospice and non-hospice) are needed to equitably address the burden of suffering from a serious illness.

High-Quality Nursing Home and Palliative Care-One and the Same

Many individuals receiving post-acute and long-term care services in nursing homes have unmet palliative and end-of-life care needs. Hospice has been the predominant approach to meeting these needs, although hospice services generally are available only to long-term care residents with a limited prognosis who choose to forego disease-modifying or curative therapies. Two additional approaches to meeting these needs are the provision of palliative care consultation through community- or hospital-based programs and facility-based palliative care services. However, access to this specialized care is limited, services are not clearly defined, and the empirical evidence of these approaches' effectiveness is inadequate. In this article, we review the existing evidence and challenges with each of these 3 approaches. We then describe a model for effective delivery of palliative and end-of-life care in nursing homes, one in which palliative and end-of-life care are seen as integral to high-quality nursing home care. To achieve this vision, we make 4 recommendations: (1) promote internal palliative and end-of-life care capacity through comprehensive training and support; (2) ensure that state and federal payment policies and regulations do not create barriers to delivering high-quality, person-centered palliative and end-of-life care; (3) align nursing home quality measures to include palliative and end-of-life care-sensitive indicators; and (4) support access to and integration of external palliative care services. These recommendations will require changes in the organization, delivery, and reimbursement of care. All nursing homes should provide high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, and this article describes some key strategies to make this goal a reality.

Managerial and organisational prerequisites for the integration of palliative care in the intensive care setting: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore the association of organizational structures when integrating palliative care in intensive care units.

BACKGROUND

Palliative care within intensive care settings has been widely recognized as an area requiring improvement when caring for patients and their families. Despite this, intensive care units continue to struggle to integrate palliative care.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive methodology was used. Data were collected through research interviews with 15 managers and 36 health care professionals working in intensive care. The data were analysed adopting constant comparative analysis.

RESULTS

This study provides insight into a diverse range of perspectives on organizational structure in the context of facilitation and the challenges posed. Three themes were identified: Do not resuscitate policy as a gateway to palliative care, facilitating family members to enable participation and support and barriers for palliative care in intensive care unit as a result of intensive care organization.

CONCLUSIONS

In fostering a sustainable organizational culture and practice development in intensive care, the findings indicate the need for specific palliative care policies and implementation strategies tailored according to context.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT

Management has a responsibility to facilitate dialogue within any multidisciplinary team regarding palliative care and, in particular, to focus on 'do not resuscitate' policies as a gateway into this conversation.

Factors Associated with the Adoption and Closure of Hospital Palliative Care Programs in the United States

Background: In the United States, the percentage of hospitals over 50 beds with palliative care programs has risen substantially from 7% of hospitals in 2001 to 72% in 2017. Yet the dynamic nature of program adoption and closure over time is not known. Objective: To examine the rate of palliative care program adoption and closure and associated hospital and geographic characteristics in a national sample of U.S. hospitals. Design: Adoption and closure rates were calculated for 3696 U.S. hospitals between 2009 and 2017. We used multivariable logistic regression models to examine the association between adoption and closure status and hospital, geographic, and community characteristics. Setting/Subjects: All nonfederal general medical and surgical, cancer, heart, and obstetric or gynecological hospitals, of all sizes, in the United States in operation in both 2009 and 2017. Results: By 2017, 34.9% (812/2327) of the hospitals without palliative care in 2009 had adopted palliative care programs, and 15.0% (205/1369) of the hospitals with programs had closed them. In multivariable models, hospitals in metropolitan areas, nonprofit and public hospitals (compared to for-profit hospitals), and those with residency training approval by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were significantly more likely to adopt and significantly less likely to close palliative care programs during the study period. Conclusions: This study indicates that palliative care is not equitably adopted nor sustained by hospitals in the United States. Federal and state interventions may be required to ensure that high-quality care is available to our nation's sickest patients.

Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Health Sciences Education: a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This scoping review aimed to explore the connection between health education and entrepreneurship and to identify gaps in the current literature, educational models, and best practices regarding teaching medical professionals about entrepreneurship and innovation.

METHODS

The methodology for this review was based on the principles of Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) model for scoping review design. Results from Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Emcare, AMED, PubMed, and Google Scholar were scanned, filtered, and mapped.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine unique papers were found and mapped. The papers discussed common themes, including the entrepreneurial environment (n = 29), career planning and skill development (n = 3), and various skills crucial for the health entrepreneur. The satisfaction was high for most programs, but few reported more fulsome outcomes. The teaching techniques used to engage trainees or physicians in entrepreneurship were also fairly limited.

CONCLUSION

Though some programs are described, few have demonstrated efficacy. More attention should be paid towards faculty-level recruitment, development and reward, so that they may in turn teach these approaches. Those involved with educational planning can help close this gap.

Place of death by region and urbanization among gynecologic cancer patients: 2006-2016

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate associations between US region of residence and urbanization and the place of death among women with gynecologic malignancies in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using publicly available death certificate data from the National Center for Health Statistics. All gynecologic cancer deaths were included from 2006 to 2016. Comparisons among categories were performed with a two-tailed chi-square test, with p-values <0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2016, 328,026 women died from gynecologic malignancies in the US. Of these deaths, 40.1% (n = 134,333) occurred in the patient's home, 24.9%(n = 81,823) in the hospital, and 11.3% (37,188) in an inpatient hospice facility. Place of death varied by geographic region. The Northeast had the largest percentage of gynecologic cancer patients (31.3%) die as a hospital inpatient. The West had the highest percentage of deaths (49.3%) at home. Deaths in a hospice facility were the highest (14.1%) in the South. Place of death varied by urbanization; patients residing in large central metro or rural counties were the most likely to die during hospital admission (28.7% and 27.1%, respectively). Patients living in medium-sized metro areas were the least likely to die in hospitals (21.8%) and most likely to die in a hospice facility (14.3%). All comparisons were significant by study definition.

CONCLUSION

The place of death for patients with gynecologic malignancies varies by US region and urbanization. These disparities are multifactorial in nature, likely influenced by both sociodemographic factors and regional resource availability. In this study, however, rural and central metro areas are identified as regions that may benefit from further hospice development and advocacy.

The National Palliative Care Registry: A Decade of Supporting Growth and Sustainability of Palliative Care Programs

Background: Palliative care program service delivery is variable, and programs often lack data to support and guide program development and growth. Objective: To review the development and key features of the National Palliative Care Registry™ ("the Registry") and describe recent findings from its surveys on hospital palliative care. Description: Established in 2008, the Registry data elements align with National Consensus Project (NCP) guidelines related to palliative care program structures and operations. The Registry provides longitudinal and comparative data that palliative care programs can use to support programmatic growth. Results: As of 2018, >1000 hospitals and 120 community sites have submitted data on their palliative care programs to the Registry. Over the past decade, the percentage of hospital admissions seen by palliative care teams (penetration) has increased from 2.5% to 5.3%. Higher penetration is correlated with teaching hospital status, having a palliative care trigger, and hospital size (p < 0.05). Although overall staffing has expanded, only 42% of Registry programs include the recommended four key disciplines: physician, advanced practice or other registered nurse, social worker, and chaplain. Compliance with NCP guidelines on key structures and processes vary across adult and pediatric programs. Conclusions: The Registry allows palliative care programs to optimize core structures and processes and understand their performance relative to their peers.

Follow the trail: Using insights from the growth of palliative care to propose a roadmap for cancer rehabilitation

Despite research explicating the benefits of cancer rehabilitation interventions to optimize physical, social, emotional, and vocational functioning, many reports document low rates of referral to and uptake of rehabilitation in oncology. Cancer rehabilitation clinicians, researchers, and policy makers could learn from the multidisciplinary specialty of palliative care, which has benefited from a growth strategy and has garnered national recognition as an important and necessary aspect of oncology care. The purpose of this article is to explore the actions that have increased the uptake and integration of palliative care to yield insights and multimodal strategies for the development and growth of cancer rehabilitation. After examining the history of palliative care and its growth, the authors highlight 5 key strategies that may benefit the field of cancer rehabilitation: 1) stimulating the science in specific gap areas; 2) creating clinical practice guidelines; 3) building clinical capacity; 4) ascertaining and responding to public opinion; and 5) advocating for public policy change. Coordinated and simultaneous advances on these 5 strategies may catalyze the growth, utilization, and effectiveness of patient screening, timely referrals, and delivery of appropriate cancer rehabilitation care that reduces disability and improves quality of life for cancer survivors who need these services.

Supportive Care in Lung Cancer: Improving Value in the Era of Modern Therapies

Driven by a discipline-wide imperative to maximize patient centeredness and value, supportive care services have experienced remarkable growth and acceptance in oncology care. Two such services with a growing evidence base and examples of routine integration into usual oncology care are palliative care and integrative medicine. Both focus on the patient experience with cancer during and after cancer-directed treatments occur, from diagnosis through survivorship or end-of-life care. With a frame of increasing value for all in the oncology care ecosystem, we highlight the evidence for how these two disciplines can improve the experience of patients with cancer and their loved ones. We further highlight how additional focus in palliative care and integrative medicine can continue to build toward a shared vision of high-value, high-quality cancer care.