Understanding complexity - the palliative care situation as a complex adaptive system.
Complex adaptive systems
Complexity
Palliative care
System theory, classification, qualitative research
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2019
12 Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
15
04
2018
accepted:
20
02
2019
entrez:
15
3
2019
pubmed:
15
3
2019
medline:
30
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The concept of complexity is used in palliative care (PC) to describe the nature of patients' situations and the extent of resulting needs and care demands. However, the term or concept is not clearly defined and operationalised with respect to its particular application in PC. As a complex problem, a care situation in PC is characterized by reciprocal, nonlinear relations and uncertainties. Dealing with complex problems necessitates problem-solving methods tailored to specific situations. The theory of complex adaptive systems (CAS) provides a framework for locating problems and solutions. This study aims to describe criteria contributing to complexity of PC situations from the professionals' view and to develop a conceptual framework to improve understanding of the concept of "complexity" and related elements of a PC situation by locating the complex problem "PC situation" in a CAS. Qualitative interview study with 42 semi-structured expert (clinical/economical/political) interviews. Data was analysed using the framework method. The thematic framework was developed inductively. Categories were reviewed, subsumed and connected considering CAS theory. The CAS of a PC situation consists of three subsystems: patient, social system, and team. Agents in the "system patient" are allocated to further subsystems on patient level: physical, psycho-spiritual, and socio-cultural. The "social system" and the "system team" are composed of social agents, who affect the CAS as carriers of characteristics, roles, and relationships. Environmental factors interact with the care situation from outside the system. Agents within subsystems and subsystems themselves interact on all hierarchical system levels and shape the system behaviour of a PC situation. This paper provides a conceptual framework and comprehensive understanding of complexity in PC. The systemic view can help to understand and shape situations and dynamics of individual care situations; on higher hierarchical level, it can support an understanding and framework for the development of care structures and concepts. The framework provides a foundation for the development of a model to differentiate PC situations by complexity of patients and care needs. To enable an operationalisation and classification of complexity, relevant outcome measures mirroring the identified system elements should be identified and implemented in clinical practice.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The concept of complexity is used in palliative care (PC) to describe the nature of patients' situations and the extent of resulting needs and care demands. However, the term or concept is not clearly defined and operationalised with respect to its particular application in PC. As a complex problem, a care situation in PC is characterized by reciprocal, nonlinear relations and uncertainties. Dealing with complex problems necessitates problem-solving methods tailored to specific situations. The theory of complex adaptive systems (CAS) provides a framework for locating problems and solutions. This study aims to describe criteria contributing to complexity of PC situations from the professionals' view and to develop a conceptual framework to improve understanding of the concept of "complexity" and related elements of a PC situation by locating the complex problem "PC situation" in a CAS.
METHODS
METHODS
Qualitative interview study with 42 semi-structured expert (clinical/economical/political) interviews. Data was analysed using the framework method. The thematic framework was developed inductively. Categories were reviewed, subsumed and connected considering CAS theory.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The CAS of a PC situation consists of three subsystems: patient, social system, and team. Agents in the "system patient" are allocated to further subsystems on patient level: physical, psycho-spiritual, and socio-cultural. The "social system" and the "system team" are composed of social agents, who affect the CAS as carriers of characteristics, roles, and relationships. Environmental factors interact with the care situation from outside the system. Agents within subsystems and subsystems themselves interact on all hierarchical system levels and shape the system behaviour of a PC situation.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This paper provides a conceptual framework and comprehensive understanding of complexity in PC. The systemic view can help to understand and shape situations and dynamics of individual care situations; on higher hierarchical level, it can support an understanding and framework for the development of care structures and concepts. The framework provides a foundation for the development of a model to differentiate PC situations by complexity of patients and care needs. To enable an operationalisation and classification of complexity, relevant outcome measures mirroring the identified system elements should be identified and implemented in clinical practice.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30866912
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-3961-0
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-3961-0
pmc: PMC6417077
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
157Références
BMJ. 2001 Sep 15;323(7313):625-8
pubmed: 11557716
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002 Apr;7(2):121-4
pubmed: 11934378
Palliat Med. 2003 Jun;17(4):308-9
pubmed: 12822845
Yale J Biol Med. 2002 Sep-Dec;75(5-6):247-60
pubmed: 14580107
Palliat Med. 2004 Apr;18(3):217-26
pubmed: 15198134
Palliat Med. 2004 Apr;18(3):227-33
pubmed: 15198135
Z Gerontol Geriatr. 2004 Aug;37(4):316-26
pubmed: 15338161
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2005 Feb;73(2):74-82
pubmed: 15685491
BMC Palliat Care. 2005 Nov 12;4:7
pubmed: 16283937
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2009 Jul;38(1):68-74
pubmed: 19615629
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):733-42
pubmed: 20818875
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Jun 10;29(17):2319-26
pubmed: 21555700
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012 Mar;43(3):593-605
pubmed: 22071164
Support Care Cancer. 2015 Feb;23(2):307-15
pubmed: 25063272
Palliat Med. 2015 Jan;29(1):22-30
pubmed: 25249239
Palliat Med. 2016 Jun;30(6):599-610
pubmed: 26415736
Palliat Med. 2016 May;30(5):479-85
pubmed: 26503920
Lancet. 2016 May 21;387(10033):2145-2154
pubmed: 26520231
BMC Health Serv Res. 2016 Mar 12;16:87
pubmed: 26968157
J Palliat Med. 2016 Jul;19(7):767-70
pubmed: 27104490
Palliat Med. 2017 Apr;31(4):296-305
pubmed: 28156188
BMC Med. 2017 May 18;15(1):102
pubmed: 28514961
Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Nov;100(11):2028-2034
pubmed: 28687278
Gesundheitswesen. 2018 Oct;80(10):871-877
pubmed: 28697523
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Jan;26(1):241-249
pubmed: 28780728
Palliat Med. 2018 Jun;32(6):1078-1090
pubmed: 29457743
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Jul 20;18(1):570
pubmed: 30029638