Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study

Background: Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this. Objective: To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. Design: A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting: Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each. Participants: Phase 1: interviews (n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops (n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews (n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire (n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire (n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire (n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews (n = 11); fidelity assessment (n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings). Interventions: (1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents\u27 physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings. Main outcome measures: A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement. Data sources: Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members. Results: The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents\u27 last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services\u27 complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality. Limitations: COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care. Conclusions: Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff. Future work: Conduct analysis of costs-benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from hospice teams and so may experience distressing symptoms at end of life if care home staff cannot fully meet their needs. We examined how an approach which worked well in Australia called ‘Palliative Care Needs Rounds’ (or ‘Needs Rounds’) could be used in the United Kingdom. We interviewed 28 people (care home staff, hospice staff and other National Health Service/social care professionals in the community) about their understanding of the United Kingdom setting, what might help trigger change and what results they would want. We discussed these interviews at online workshops with 43 people, where we started to develop a theory of ‘what would work, for whom, under what circumstances’ and determine what United Kingdom Needs Rounds would look like. Six specialist palliative care services, each partnered with three to six local care homes, used Needs Rounds for a year. We collected information on care home residents, staff experiences of using Needs Rounds, relatives’ perceptions of care quality, staff views of residents’ quality of death, and on their ability to provide a palliative approach to residents. We found that Needs Rounds can provide care home staff and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to work together during a protected time, to plan for residents’ last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while using each services’ expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication between care home staff, families, specialist palliative care staff and primary care. This improves the quality of resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and also benefits relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality

Supporting care home residents in the last year of life through ‘Needs Rounds’: Development of a pre-implementation programme theory through a rapid collaborative online approach

2023 Macgregor, McCormack, Spilsbury, Hockley, Rutherford, Ogden, Soulsby, Mckenzie, Hanratty and Forbat.Background: Realist evaluation aims to address the knowledge to practice gap by explaining how an intervention is expected to work, as well as what is likely to impact upon the success of its implementation, by developing programme theories that link contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Co-production approaches to the development of programme theories offer substantial benefits in addressing power relations, including and valuing different types of knowledge, and promoting buy-in from stakeholders while navigating the complex social systems in which innovations are embedded. This paper describes the co-production of an initial programme theory of how an evidence based intervention developed in Australia - called ‘Palliative Care Needs Rounds’ – might work in England and Scotland to support care home residents approaching their end of life. Methods: Using realist evaluation and iPARIHS (integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) we sought to determine how contexts and mechanisms of change might shape implementation outcomes. Pre-intervention online interviews (n = 28) were conducted (February-April 2021), followed by four co-design online workshops with 43 participants (April-June 2021). The online interviews and workshops included a range of stakeholders, including care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, paramedics, general practitioners, and relatives of people living in care homes. Results: This methodology paper reports developments in realist evaluation and co-production methodologies, and how they were used to develop context, mechanisms, outcomes (CMOs) configurations, and chains of inference. The initial (pre-intervention) programme theory is used to illustrate this process. Two developments to iPARIHS are described. First, involving stakeholders in the collaborative co-design workshops created opportunities to commence facilitation. Second, we describe developing iPARIHS’ innovation component, to include novel stakeholder interpretations, perceptions and anticipated use of the intervention as they participated in workshop discussions. Conclusions: This rapid and robust co-production methodology draws on interactive collaborative research practices (interviews, workshop discussions of data, illustrative vignettes and visual methods). These innovative and engaging methods can be packaged for online processes to develop, describe and interrogate the CMOs in order to co-produce a programme theory. These approaches also commence facilitation and innovation, and can be adopted in other implementation science and realist studies

General Practitioners’ perceptions of the stigma of dementia and the role of reciprocity

YesA qualitative exploration of the stigma of dementia reported that GPs described lack of reciprocity as one way in which people with dementia are perceived within society. This was closely linked to their perception of dementia as a stigma. In this paper, we explore whether GPs perceive people with dementia as lacking reciprocity and, so, if this is linked with societal opinions about dementia as a stigma. The implications of both perceptions of people with dementia failing to reciprocate and of stigma for timely diagnosis are explored. GPs’ perceptions of societal views of people with dementia included a perception of a lack of reciprocity. Specifically, an absence of reciprocity was linked with; failing to respond to human contact, the absence of an appropriate return on social investment and failing to contribute to, or being a burden to, society. GPs reported a link between societal perceptions of lack of reciprocity and stereotypes about advanced dementia, difficulties communicating with people with dementia and lack of opportunities for people with dementia to reciprocate. GPs occupy a key position, they can challenge stereotypes and, with support and targeted training about communicating with people living with dementia, can emphasise the ways in which people with dementia can communicate, thereby enhancing their potential to reciprocate. Such changes have implications for improved care and quality of life through the continued maintenance of social inclusion and perceptions of personhood.non

Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes: protocol for codesigning and implementing an appropriate scalable model of Needs Rounds in the UK

Introduction Palliative and end-of-life care in care homes is often inadequate, despite high morbidity and mortality. Residents can experience uncontrolled symptoms, poor quality deaths and avoidable hospitalisations. Care home staff can feel unsupported to look after residents at the end of life. Approaches for improving end-of-life care are often education-focused, do not triage residents and rarely integrate clinical care. This study will adapt an evidence-based approach from Australia for the UK context called ‘Palliative Care Needs Rounds’ (Needs Rounds). Needs Rounds combine triaging, anticipatory person-centred planning, case-based education and case-conferencing; the Australian studies found that Needs Rounds reduce length of stay in hospital, and improve dying in preferred place of care, and symptoms at the end of life. Methods and analysis This implementation science study will codesign and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. The Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will be used to identify contextual barriers and use facilitation to enable successful implementation. Six palliative care teams, working with 4–6 care homes each, will engage in two phases. In phase 1 (February 2021), stakeholder interviews (n=40) will be used to develop a programme theory to meet the primary outcome of identifying what works, for whom in what circumstances for UK Needs Rounds. Subsequently a workshop to codesign UK Needs Rounds will be run. Phase 2 (July 2021) will implement the UK model for a year. Prospective data collection will focus on secondary outcomes regarding hospitalisations, residents’ quality of death and care home staff capability of adopting a palliative approach. Ethics and dissemination Frenchay Research Ethics Committee (287447) approved the study. Findings will be disseminated to policy-makers, care home/palliative care practitioners, residents/relatives and academic audiences. An implementation package will be developed for practitioners to provide the tools and resources required to adopt UK Needs Rounds. Registration details Registration details: ISRCTN15863801

Lung cancer diagnosed following an emergency admission: exploring patient and carer perspectives on delay in seeking help

Purpose Compared to others, patients diagnosed with lung cancer following an emergency, unplanned admission to hospital (DFEA) have more advanced disease and poorer prognosis. Little is known about DFEA patients’ beliefs about cancer and its symptoms or about their help-seeking behaviours prior to admission. Methods As part of a larger single-centre, prospective mixed-methods study conducted in one University hospital, we undertook qualitative interviews with patients DFEA and their carers to obtain their understanding of symptoms and experiences of trying to access healthcare services before admission to hospital. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Framework analysis was employed. Results Thirteen patients and 10 carers plus 3 bereaved carers took part in interviews. Three patient/carer dyads were interviewed together. Participants spoke about their symptoms and why they did not seek help sooner. They described complex and nuanced experiences. Some (n = 12) had what they recalled as the wrong symptoms for lung cancer and attributed them either to a pre-existing condition or to ageing. In other cases (n = 9), patients or carers realised with hindsight that their symptoms were signs of lung cancer, but at the time had made other attributions to account for them. In some cases (n = 3), a sudden onset of symptoms was reported. Some GPs (n = 6) were also reported to have made incorrect attributions about cause. Conclusion Late diagnosis meant that patients DFEA needed palliative support sooner after diagnosis than patients not DFEA. Professionals and lay people interpret health and illness experiences differently

Who wants to be involved in health care decisions? Comparing preferences for individual and collective involvement in England and Sweden

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is framed as positive for individuals, the health system, public health, as well as for communities and society as a whole. We investigated whether preferences for PPI differed between two countries with Beveridge type health systems-Sweden and England. We measured willingness to be involved in individual treatment decisions and in decisions about the organization and provision of local health and social care services. Methods: This was a comparative cross-sectional study of the general population's preferences. Together, the two samples included 3125 respondents; 1625 in England and 1500 in Sweden. Country differences were analysed in a multinomial regression model controlling for gender, age and educational attainment. Results: Overall, 68% of respondents wanted a passive patient role and 44% wanted to be involved in local decisions about organization and provision of services. In comparison with in Sweden, they were in England less likely to want a health professional such as a GP or consultant to make decisions about their treatment and also more likely to want to make their own decisions. They were also less likely to want to be involved in local service development decisions. An increased likelihood of wanting to be involved in organizational decision-making was associated with individuals wanting to make their own treatment decisions. Women were less likely to want health professionals to make decisions and more likely to want to be involved in organizational decisions. Conclusions: An effective health system that ensures public health must integrate an effective approach to PPI both in individual treatment decisions and shaping local health and social care priorities. To be effective, involvement activities must take in to account the variation in the desire for involvement and the implications that this has for equity. More work is needed to understand the relationship between the desire to be involved and actually being involved, but both appear related to judgements of the impact of involvement on health care decisions

Heterosexual couples and prostate cancer support groups: a gender relations analysis.

Introduction: Men diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) can receive supportive care from an array of sources including female partners and prostate cancer support groups (PCSGs). However, little is known about how heterosexual gender relations and supportive care play out among couples who attend PCSGs. Distilling such gender relation patterns is a key to understanding and advancing supportive care for men who experience PCa and their families

Health care professionals' views on discussing sexual wellbeing with patients who have had a stroke: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES: To examine the experiences of health care professionals discussing sexual wellbeing with patients who have had a stroke. DESIGN: In-depth qualitative interview study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 30 health care professionals purposively recruited to include different roles and settings along the stroke patient pathway in secondary and primary care. SETTING: Two hospitals and three general practices in the West Midlands, UK. RESULTS: Sexual wellbeing was a topic that participants did not raise with patients and was infrequently raised by patients. Barriers to raising discussion were on four levels: structural, health care professional, patient, and professional-patient interface. Barriers within these levels included: sexual wellbeing not present within hospital stroke policy; the perception that sexual wellbeing was not within participants' role; participants' concern that raising the issue could cause harm to the patient; and the views that discussion would be inappropriate with older people or unimportant to women. Resources exist to aid discussion but many participants were unaware of them, and most of those that were, did not use them routinely. CONCLUSIONS: Participants lacked motivation, ownership, and the confidence and skills to raise sexual wellbeing routinely after stroke. Similar findings have been reported in cancer care and other taboo subjects such as incontinence potentially resulting in a sub-optimal experience for patients. Normalisation of the inclusion of sensitive topics in discussions post-stroke does not seem to need significant structural intervention and simple changes such as information provision and legitimisation through consideration of the issue in standard care policies may be all that is required. The experiences recounted by professionals in this study suggest that such changes are needed now