Perspectives of patients, family caregivers and health professionals on the use of outcome measures in palliative care and lessons for implementation: a multi-method qualitative study

Background: Routine use of outcome measures in palliative care is recommended to demonstrate and improve quality of care. The use of outcome measures is relatively recent in UK specialist palliative care services and understanding their use in practice is key to successful implementation. We therefore aimed to explore how patient-centred outcome measures are used in specialist palliative care, and identify key considerations for implementation.Methods: Multi-method qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and non-participant observation). Patients, family caregivers and health professionals were purposively sampled from nine specialist palliative care services (hospice, hospital and community settings) in London, UK. Framework analysis, informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), was undertaken.Results: Thirty eight interviews and nine observations were conducted. Findings are presented according to the five CFIR domains: 1) Intervention: participants highlighted advantages, disadvantages and appropriateness of outcome measures in palliative care; 2) Outer setting: policy and national drivers are necessary to encourage use of outcome measures; 3) Inner setting: information technology infrastructure, organisational drive, and support from peers and leadership were institutional factors that shaped the use of outcome measures; 4) Individual: clear rationale for using outcome measures and skills to use them in practice were essential; 5) Implementation: stepwise introduction of outcome measures, regular feedback sessions, and champions/facilitators were important to strengthen routine use.Conclusion: All CFIR domains need consideration for effective implementation. Outcome data needs to be fed back to and interpreted for professionals in order to improve and sustain outcome data collection, and drive meaningful improvements in palliative care

Incidence Trends of Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes among Youths, 2002–2012

Diagnoses of type 1 and type 2 diabetes in youths present a substantial clinical and public health burden. The prevalence of these diseases increased in the 2001–2009 period, but data on recent incidence trends are lacking

Social and clinical determinants of preferences and their achievement at the end of life: Prospective cohort study of older adults receiving palliative care in three countries

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: Achieving choice is proposed as a quality marker. But little is known about what influences preferences especially among older adults. We aimed to determine and compare, across three countries, factors associated with preferences for place of death and treatment, and actual site of death. Methods: We recruited adults aged ≥65-years from hospital-based multiprofessional palliative care services in London, Dublin, New York, and followed them for >17 months. All services offered consultation on hospital wards, support for existing clinical teams, outpatient services and received funding from their National Health Service and/or relevant Insurance reimbursements. The New York service additionally had 10 inpatient beds. All worked with and referred patients to local hospices. Face-to-face interviews recorded most and least preferred place of death, treatment goal priorities, demographic and clinical information using validated questionnaires. Multivariable and multilevel analyses assessed associated factors. Results: One hundred and thirty eight older adults (64 London, 59 Dublin, 15 New York) were recruited, 110 died during follow-up. Home was the most preferred place of death (77/138, 56%) followed by inpatient palliative care/hospice units (22%). Hospital was least preferred (35/138, 25%), followed by nursing home (20%) and home (16%); hospice/palliative care unit was rarely least preferred (4%). Most respondents prioritised improving quality of life, either alone (54%), or equal with life extension (39%); few (3%) chose only life extension. There were no significant differences between countries. Main associates with home preference were: cancer diagnosis (OR 3.72, 95% CI 1.40-9.90) and living with someone (OR 2.19, 1.33-3.62). Adults with non-cancer diagnoses were more likely to prefer palliative care units (OR 2.39, 1.14-5.03). Conversely, functional independence (OR 1.05, 1.04-1.06) and valuing quality of life (OR 3.11, 2.89-3.36) were associated with dying at home. There was a mismatch between preferences and achievements - of 85 people who preferred home or a palliative care unit, 19 (25%) achieved their first preference. Conclusion: Although home is the most common first preference, it is polarising and for 16% it is the least preferred. Inpatient palliative care unit emerges as the second most preferred place, is rarely least preferred, and yet was often not achieved for those who wanted to die there. Factors affecting stated preferences and met preferences differ. Available services, notably community support and palliative care units, require expansion. Contrasting actual place of death with capacity for meeting patient and family needs may be a better quality indicator than simply 'achieved preferences'

How empowering is hospital care for older people with advanced disease? Barriers and facilitators from a cross-national ethnography in England, Ireland and the USA

Erworben im Rahmen der Schweizer Nationallizenzen (http://www.nationallizenzen.ch)Background: Patient empowerment, through which patients become self-determining agents with some control over their health and healthcare, is a common theme across health policies globally. Most care for older people is in the acute setting, but there is little evidence to inform the delivery of empowering hospital care. Objective: We aimed to explore challenges to and facilitators of empowerment among older people with advanced disease in hospital, and the impact of palliative care. Methods: We conducted an ethnography in six hospitals in England, Ireland and the USA. The ethnography involved: interviews with patients aged ≥65, informal caregivers, specialist palliative care (SPC) staff and other clinicians who cared for older adults with advanced disease, and fieldwork. Data were analysed using directed thematic analysis. Results: Analysis of 91 interviews and 340 h of observational data revealed substantial challenges to empowerment: poor communication and information provision, combined with routinised and fragmented inpatient care, restricted patients’ self-efficacy, self-management, choice and decision-making. Information and knowledge were often necessary for empowerment, but not sufficient: empowerment depended on patient-centredness being enacted at an organisational and staff level. SPC facilitated empowerment by prioritising patient-centred care, tailored communication and information provision, and the support of other clinicians. Conclusions: Empowering older people in the acute setting requires changes throughout the health system. Facilitators of empowerment include excellent staff-patient communication, patient-centred, relational care, an organisational focus on patient experience rather than throughput, and appropriate access to SPC. Findings have relevance for many high- and middle-income countries with a growing population of older patients with advanced disease

Cardiovascular autonomic neuropathy in adolescents and young adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Cohort Study

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143647/1/pedi12633_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/143647/2/pedi12633.pd

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study: Rationale, Findings, and Future Directions

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth (SEARCH) study was initiated in 2000, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, to address major knowledge gaps in the understanding of childhood diabetes. SEARCH is being conducted at five sites across the U.S. and represents the largest, most diverse study of diabetes among U.S. youth. An active registry of youth diagnosed with diabetes at age <20 years allows the assessment of prevalence (in 2001 and 2009), annual incidence (since 2002), and trends by age, race/ethnicity, sex, and diabetes type. Prevalence increased significantly from 2001 to 2009 for both type 1 and type 2 diabetes in most age, sex, and race/ethnic groups. SEARCH has also established a longitudinal cohort to assess the natural history and risk factors for acute and chronic diabetes-related complications as well as the quality of care and quality of life of persons with diabetes from diagnosis into young adulthood. Many youth with diabetes, particularly those from low-resourced racial/ethnic minority populations, are not meeting recommended guidelines for diabetes care. Markers of micro- and macrovascular complications are evident in youth with either diabetes type, highlighting the seriousness of diabetes in this contemporary cohort. This review summarizes the study methods, describes key registry and cohort findings and their clinical and public health implications, and discusses future directions

Migration Status in Relation to Clinical Characteristics and Barriers to Care Among Youth with Diabetes in the US

Migration status and the accompanying diversity in culture, foods and family norms, may be an important consideration for practitioners providing individualized care to treat and prevent complications among youth with diabetes. Approximately 20% of youth in the US have ≥ 1 foreign-born parent. However, the proportion and characteristics of youth with diabetes and ≥ 1 foreign-born parent have yet to be described. Study participants (n = 3,086) were from SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth, a prospective multi-center study in the US. Primary outcomes of interest included HbA1c, body mass index and barriers to care. Multivariable analyses were carried out using logistic regression and analysis of covariance. Approximately 17% of participants with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and 22% with type 2 diabetes (T2D) had ≥ 1 foreign-born parent. Youth with T1D and ≥ 1 foreign-born parent were less likely to have poor glycemic control [adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval): 0.70 (0.53, 0.94)]. Among youth with T2D, those with ≥ 1 foreign-born parent had lower odds of obesity [adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.35 (0.17, 0.70)]. This is the first study to estimate the proportion and characteristics of youth with diabetes exposed to migration in the US. Research into potential mechanisms underlying the observed protective effects is warranted

Trends in Incidence of Type 1 Diabetes Among Non-Hispanic White Youth in the U.S., 2002–2009

The SEARCH for Diabetes in Youth Study prospectively identified youth aged <20 years with physician-diagnosed diabetes. Annual type 1 diabetes (T1D) incidence per 100,000 person-years (95% CI) overall, by age-group, and by sex were calculated for at-risk non-Hispanic white (NHW) youth from 2002 through 2009. Joinpoint and Poisson regression models were used to test for temporal trends. The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of T1D increased from 24.4/100,000 (95% CI 23.9–24.8) in 2002 to 27.4/100,000 (26.9–27.9) in 2009 (P for trend = 0.0008). The relative annual increase in T1D incidence was 2.72% (1.18–4.28) per year; 2.84% (1.12–4.58) per year for males and 2.57% (0.68–4.51) per year for females. After adjustment for sex, significant increases were found for youth aged 5–9 years (P = 0.0023), 10–14 years (P = 0.0008), and 15–19 years (P = 0.004) but not among 0–4-year-olds (P = 0.1862). Mean age at diagnosis did not change. The SEARCH study demonstrated a significant increase in the incidence of T1D among NHW youth from 2002 through 2009 overall and in all but the youngest age-group. Continued surveillance of T1D in U.S. youth to identify future trends in T1D incidence and to plan for health care delivery is warranted

Consensus Statement on Bone Conduction Devices and Active Middle Ear Implants in Conductive and Mixed Hearing Loss

Nowadays, several options are available to treat patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Whenever surgical intervention is not possible or contra-indicated, and amplification by a conventional hearing device (e.g., behind-the-ear device) is not feasible, then implantable hearing devices are an indispensable next option. Implantable bone-conduction devices and middle-ear implants have advantages but also limitations concerning complexity/invasiveness of the surgery, medical complications, and effectiveness. To counsel the patient, the clinician should have a good overview of the options with regard to safety and reliability as well as unequivocal technical performance data. The present consensus document is the outcome of an extensive iterative process including ENT specialists, audiologists, health-policy scientists, and representatives/technicians of the main companies in this field. This document should provide a first framework for procedures and technical characterization to enhance effective communication between these stakeholders, improving health care