[Similarities and differences in specialized outpatient palliative care for adults, children and adolescents: results from focus group discussions with health care professionals].

Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede in der spezialisierten ambulanten Palliativversorgung von Erwachsenen sowie Kindern und Jugendlichen: Ergebnisse aus Fokusgruppendiskussionen mit Leistungserbringer*innen.
Ambulante Versorgung Ambulatory care Health care providers Leistungserbringer Palliative care Palliativversorgung Pediatrics Pädiatrie Qualitative Forschung Qualitative research

Journal

Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen
ISSN: 2212-0289
Titre abrégé: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101477604

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2022
Historique:
received: 29 10 2021
revised: 22 02 2022
accepted: 05 03 2022
pubmed: 19 6 2022
medline: 24 8 2022
entrez: 18 6 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In Germany, people with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Requirements, delivery and goals of SOPC have been laid down by the Federal Joint Committee in a nationwide guideline. The guideline emphasizes the need to consider the special needs of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions. A specification of these needs has so far been missing. The focus group discussion presented here aimed at investigating similarities and differences between the specialized outpatient palliative care of adults (SOPC for adults) on the one hand, and children and adolescents (SOPPC) on the other hand, from the perspective of health care professionals in order to further define specifics of SOPPC. In three focus group discussions a total of 11 nursing and 8 medical professionals from SOPC for adults and SOPPC engaged in face-to-face discussions on the similarities and differences of both care forms. Discussions were designed openly and stimulated with three guiding questions only. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic analysis supported by the software MAXQDA. Within the following six themes, similarities as well as key differences between SOPC and SOPPC were identified: the participants discussed diseases, coverage area and locations, therapy goals, the psychosocial care situation, the role of relatives and end-of-life care. From the participants' perspective different underlying diseases constitute a main difference that causes further differences in the expertise required. Furthermore, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ in the dimension of areas covered by one team, the number of patients per team and the reasons for SOPC visits. Differences in terminal care and the mourning process within the team became evident. Some similarities existed regarding goal-setting, psychosocial care and the role of relatives, but concrete patterns and the importance of these aspects differed because a particularly complex and emotional communication is required when a child is dying. From the perspective of health care professionals, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ with regard to underlying diseases as well as care patterns such as collaboration with relatives and their need for psychosocial support. Therefore, the care for children, adolescents and young adults with life-limiting conditions and pediatric diseases all over Germany should be delivered within the frame of an independent care structure by teams whose members possess specific pediatric expertise.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
In Germany, people with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Requirements, delivery and goals of SOPC have been laid down by the Federal Joint Committee in a nationwide guideline. The guideline emphasizes the need to consider the special needs of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions. A specification of these needs has so far been missing. The focus group discussion presented here aimed at investigating similarities and differences between the specialized outpatient palliative care of adults (SOPC for adults) on the one hand, and children and adolescents (SOPPC) on the other hand, from the perspective of health care professionals in order to further define specifics of SOPPC.
METHOD METHODS
In three focus group discussions a total of 11 nursing and 8 medical professionals from SOPC for adults and SOPPC engaged in face-to-face discussions on the similarities and differences of both care forms. Discussions were designed openly and stimulated with three guiding questions only. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed by thematic analysis supported by the software MAXQDA.
RESULTS RESULTS
Within the following six themes, similarities as well as key differences between SOPC and SOPPC were identified: the participants discussed diseases, coverage area and locations, therapy goals, the psychosocial care situation, the role of relatives and end-of-life care. From the participants' perspective different underlying diseases constitute a main difference that causes further differences in the expertise required. Furthermore, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ in the dimension of areas covered by one team, the number of patients per team and the reasons for SOPC visits. Differences in terminal care and the mourning process within the team became evident. Some similarities existed regarding goal-setting, psychosocial care and the role of relatives, but concrete patterns and the importance of these aspects differed because a particularly complex and emotional communication is required when a child is dying.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
From the perspective of health care professionals, SOPC for adults and SOPPC differ with regard to underlying diseases as well as care patterns such as collaboration with relatives and their need for psychosocial support. Therefore, the care for children, adolescents and young adults with life-limiting conditions and pediatric diseases all over Germany should be delivered within the frame of an independent care structure by teams whose members possess specific pediatric expertise.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35717310
pii: S1865-9217(22)00043-5
doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2022.03.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

ger

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

54-60

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.

Auteurs

Cornelia Ploeger (C)

Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Deutschland.

Dania Schütze (D)

Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Deutschland. Electronic address: schuetze@allgemeinmedizin.uni-frankfurt.de.

Hannah Seipp (H)

Abteilung Allgemeinmedizin, Präventive und Rehabilitative Medizin, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.

Katrin Kuss (K)

Abteilung Allgemeinmedizin, Präventive und Rehabilitative Medizin, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Marburg, Deutschland.

Michaela Hach (M)

Fachverband SAPV Hessen, Wiesbaden, Deutschland.

Ferdinand M Gerlach (FM)

Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Deutschland.

Antje Erler (A)

Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Deutschland.

Jennifer Engler (J)

Institut für Allgemeinmedizin, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Deutschland.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH