152 research outputs found

    Supporting bereavement and complicated grief in primary care: a realist review.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Bereavement can have significant impacts on physical and mental health, and a minority of people experience complicated and prolonged grief responses. Primary care is ideally situated to offer bereavement care, yet UK provision remains variable and practitioners feel uncertain how best to support bereaved patients. AIM: To identify what works, how, and for whom, in the management of complicated grief (CG) in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: A review of evidence on the management of CG and bereavement in UK primary care settings. METHOD: A realist approach was taken that aims to provide causal explanations through the generation and articulation of contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes. RESULTS: Forty-two articles were included. Evidence on the primary care management of complicated or prolonged grief was limited. GPs and nurses view bereavement support as part of their role, yet experience uncertainty over the appropriate extent of their involvement. Patients and clinicians often have differing views on the role of primary care in bereavement. Training in bereavement, local systems for reporting deaths, practitioner time, and resources can assist or hinder bereavement care provision. Practitioners find bereavement care can be emotionally challenging. Understanding patients' needs can encourage a proactive response and help identify appropriate support. CONCLUSION: Bereavement care in primary care remains variable and practitioners feel unprepared to provide appropriate bereavement care. Patients at higher risk of complicated or prolonged grief may fail to receive the support they need from primary care. Further research is required to address the potential unmet needs of bereaved patients

    Support needs of patients with COPD: a systematic literature search and narrative review

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Understanding the breadth of patients’ support needs is important for the delivery of person-centered care, particularly in progressive long-term conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Existing reviews identify important aspects of managing life with COPD with which patients may need support (support needs); however, none of these comprehensively outlines the full range of support needs that patients can experience. We therefore sought to systematically determine the full range of support needs for patients with COPD to inform development of an evidence-based tool to enable person-centered care. Methods: We conducted a systematic search and narrative review of the literature. Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched for papers which included data addressing key aspects of support need, as identified by patients with COPD. Relevant data were extracted, and a narrative analysis was conducted. Results: Thirty-one papers were included in the review, and the following 13 domains (broad areas) of support need were identified: 1) understanding COPD, 2) managing symptoms and medication, 3) healthy lifestyle, 4) managing feelings and worries, 5) living positively with COPD, 6) thinking about the future, 7) anxiety and depression, 8) practical support, 9) finance work and housing, 10) families and close relationships, 11) social and recreational life, 12) independence, and 13) navigating services. These 13 domains of support need were mapped to three of the four overarching categories of need commonly used in relevant national strategy documents (ie, physical, psychological, and social); however, support needs related to the fourth category (spiritual) were notably absent. Conclusion: This review systematically identifies the comprehensive set of domains of support need for patients with COPD. The findings provide the evidence base for a tool to help patients identify and express their support needs, which underpins a proposed intervention to enable the delivery of person-centered care: the Support Needs Approach for Patients (SNAP)

    Interventions to increase referral and uptake to pulmonary rehabilitation in people with COPD: a systematic review.

    Get PDF
    Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) reduces the number and duration of hospital admissions and readmissions, and improves health-related quality of life in patients with COPD. Despite clinical guideline recommendations, under-referral and limited uptake to PR contribute to poor treatment access. We reviewed published literature on the effectiveness of interventions to improve referral to and uptake of PR in patients with COPD when compared to standard care, alternative interventions, or no intervention. The review followed recognized methods. Search terms included "pulmonary rehabilitation" AND "referral" OR "uptake" applied to MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ASSIA, BNI, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to January 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full papers were reviewed independently and quality appraised. The protocol was registered (PROSPERO # 2016:CRD42016043762). We screened 5,328 references. Fourteen papers met the inclusion criteria. Ten assessed referral and five assessed uptake (46,146 patients, 409 clinicians, 82 hospital departments, 122 general practices). One was a systematic review which assessed uptake. Designs, interventions, and scope of studies were diverse, often part of multifaceted evidence-based management of COPD. Examples included computer-based prompts at practice nurse review, patient information, clinician education, and financial incentives. Four studies reported statistically significant improvements in referral (range 3.5%-36%). Two studies reported statistically significant increases in uptake (range 18%-21.5%). Most studies had methodological and reporting limitations. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of study designs. This review demonstrates the range of approaches aimed at increasing referral and uptake to PR but identifies limited evidence of effectiveness due to the heterogeneity and limitations of study designs. Research using robust methods with clear descriptions of intervention, setting, and target population is required to optimize access to PR across a range of settings

    What are the key elements of educational interventions for lay carers of patients with advanced disease? A systematic literature search and narrative review of structural components, processes and modes of delivery

    Get PDF
    Context: Educating carers about symptom management may help meet patient and carer needs in relation to distressing symptoms in advanced disease. Reviews of the effectiveness of carer interventions exist, but few have focused on educational interventions and none on the key elements that comprise them but which could inform evidence-based design. Objectives: To identify the key elements (structural components, processes, and delivery modes) of educational interventions for carers of patients with advanced disease. Methods: We systematically searched seven databases, applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, conducted quality appraisal, extracted data, and performed a narrative analysis. Results: We included 62 articles related to 49 interventions. Two main delivery modes were identified: personnel-delivered interventions and stand-alone resources. Personnel-delivered interventions targeted individuals or groups, the former conducted at single or multiple time points, and the latter delivered as series. Just more than half targeted carers rather than patient-carer dyads. Most were developed for cancer; few focused purely on symptom management. Stand-alone resources were rare. Methods to evaluate interventions ranged from postintervention evaluations to fully powered randomized controlled trials but of variable quality. Conclusion: Published evaluations of educational interventions for carers in advanced disease are limited, particularly for non-cancer conditions. Key elements for consideration in developing such interventions were identified; however, lack of reporting of reasons for nonparticipation or dropout from interventions limits understanding of the contribution of these elements to interventions' effectiveness. When developing personnel-delivered interventions for carers in advanced disease, consideration of the disease (and, therefore, caring) trajectory, intervention accessibility (timing, location, and transport), and respite provision may be helpful

    Do Patients Want to Die at Home? A Systematic Review of the UK Literature, Focused on Missing Preferences for Place of Death.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: End-of-life care policy has a focus on enabling patients to die in their preferred place; this is believed for most to be home. This review assesses patient preferences for place of death examining: the extent of unreported preferences, the importance of patient factors (place of care and health diagnosis) and who reports preferences. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Systematic literature review of 7 electronic databases, grey literature, backwards citations from included studies and Palliative Medicine hand search. Included studies published between 2000-2015, reporting original, quantifiable results of adult UK preferences for place of death. Of 10826 articles reviewed, 61 met the inclusion criteria. Summary charts present preferences for place of death by health diagnosis, where patients were asked and who reported the preference. These charts are recalculated to include 'missing data,' the views of those whose preferences were not asked, expressed or reported or absent in studies. Missing data were common. Across all health conditions when missing data were excluded the majority preference was for home: when missing data were included, it was not known what proportion of patients with cancer, non-cancer or multiple conditions preferred home. Patients, family proxies and public all expressed a majority preference for home when missing data were excluded: when included, it was not known what proportion of patients or family proxies preferred home. Where patients wished to die was related to where they were asked their preference. Missing data calculations are limited to 'reported' data. CONCLUSIONS: It is unknown what proportion of patients prefers to die at home or elsewhere. Reported preferences for place of death often exclude the views of those with no preference or not asked: when 'missing data' are included, they supress the proportion of preferences for all locations. Caution should be exercised if asserting that most patients prefer to die at home.This is the final version of the article. It was first available from PLOS via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.014272
    • …
    corecore