Integrating patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures into the daily care routines of specialised outpatient palliative care: a qualitative study (ELSAH) on feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness.
Home Care Services [MeSH]
Needs Assessment [MeSH]
Palliative Care [MeSH]
Patient Outcome Assessment [MeSH]
Patient Reported Outcome Measures [MeSH]
Qualitative Research [MeSH]
Quality of Health Care [MeSH]
Routinely Collected Health Data [MeSH]
Journal
BMC palliative care
ISSN: 1472-684X
Titre abrégé: BMC Palliat Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 May 2022
02 May 2022
Historique:
received:
01
12
2021
accepted:
12
04
2022
entrez:
3
5
2022
pubmed:
4
5
2022
medline:
6
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC. Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures. We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording. SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be. May 19
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC.
METHODS
METHODS
Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
May 19
Identifiants
pubmed: 35501844
doi: 10.1186/s12904-022-00944-1
pii: 10.1186/s12904-022-00944-1
pmc: PMC9063228
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
60Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Gesundheitswesen. 2018 Oct;80(10):864-870
pubmed: 28499321
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016 Jun;51(6):1033-1039.e3
pubmed: 27046299
Qual Health Res. 2018 Feb;28(3):381-388
pubmed: 29298584
Ann Palliat Med. 2019 Apr;8(2):104-111
pubmed: 29156896
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Apr 20;9:27
pubmed: 21507232
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Dec 27;2(1):64
pubmed: 30588562
Med Clin (Barc). 2005 May 7;124(17):651-3
pubmed: 15882512
Palliat Med. 2014 Oct;28(9):1128-38
pubmed: 24821709
Support Care Cancer. 2020 Nov;28(11):5185-5193
pubmed: 32060707
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2021 Jan 5;:
pubmed: 33402383
Palliat Med. 2014 Feb;28(2):158-75
pubmed: 23801463
J Palliat Med. 2018 Jan;21(S1):S76-S80
pubmed: 29283866
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 May;63(5):535-42
pubmed: 19836205
Palliat Med. 2016 Jan;30(1):6-22
pubmed: 26068193
Aging Ment Health. 2010 Mar;14(2):159-67
pubmed: 20336547
BMC Palliat Care. 2017 Aug 16;16(1):41
pubmed: 28814321
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2014 Sep;41(5):545-7
pubmed: 25158659
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Jun 17;4(1):47
pubmed: 32556794
Palliat Med. 2021 Dec;35(10):1844-1855
pubmed: 34169767
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jun;23(6):508-18
pubmed: 24505110
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Apr 4;19(1):45
pubmed: 32247316
J Neurooncol. 2018 Jun;138(2):321-333
pubmed: 29464662
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2017 Dec;7(4):470-479
pubmed: 28864449
Am J Prev Med. 2009 May;36(5):452-7
pubmed: 19362699
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 May 19;33(2):
pubmed: 33909051
Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):1058-1068
pubmed: 31185812
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2014 Jun;4(2):175-181
pubmed: 24644169
Ann Palliat Med. 2018 Oct;7(Suppl 3):S137-S150
pubmed: 30339764
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Nurs Inq. 2019 Oct;26(4):e12297
pubmed: 31132806
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 Oct 2;17(1):111
pubmed: 30285709
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Oct 03;2:46
pubmed: 30363333
Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011 Mar;38(2):65-76
pubmed: 20957426
JMIR Perioper Med. 2020 Apr 3;3(1):e15588
pubmed: 33393920
Ann Palliat Med. 2018 Oct;7(Suppl 3):S253-S261
pubmed: 30180734
Qual Health Care. 1999 Dec;8(4):219-27
pubmed: 10847883
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005 Jul;30(1):51-62
pubmed: 16043007
BMC Med. 2013 Apr 24;11:111
pubmed: 23618406
Palliat Med. 2012 Dec;26(8):1048-54
pubmed: 22179595
J Med Radiat Sci. 2021 Jun;68(2):186-195
pubmed: 32815314
BMC Med. 2015 Oct 13;13:263
pubmed: 26464185
Palliat Med. 2013 Dec;27(10):908-17
pubmed: 23695828