Search

Background: Indigenous peoples in developed countries have reduced life expectancies, particularly from chronic diseases. The lack of access to and take up of palliative care services of Indigenous peoples is an ongoing concern. Objectives: To examine and learn from published studies on provision of culturally safe palliative care service delivery to Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand (NZ), Canada and the United States of America (USA); and to compare Indigenous peoples' preferences, needs, opportunities and barriers to palliative care. Methods: A comprehensive search of multiple databases was undertaken. Articles were included if they were published in English from 2000 onwards and related to palliative care service delivery for Indigenous populations; papers could use quantitative or qualitative approaches. Common themes were identified using thematic synthesis. Studies were evaluated using Daly's hierarchy of evidence-for-practice in qualitative research. Results: Of 522 articles screened, 39 were eligible for inclusion. Despite diversity in Indigenous peoples' experiences across countries, some commonalities were noted in the preferences for palliative care of Indigenous people: to die close to or at home; involvement of family; and the integration of cultural practices. Barriers identified included inaccessibility, affordability, lack of awareness of services, perceptions of palliative care, and inappropriate services. Identified models attempted to address these gaps by adopting the following strategies: community engagement and ownership; flexibility in approach; continuing education and training; a whole-of-service approach; and local partnerships among multiple agencies. Better engagement with Indigenous clients, an increase in number of palliative care patients, improved outcomes, and understanding about palliative care by patients and their families were identified as positive achievements. Conclusions: The results provide a comprehensive overview of identified effective practices with regards to palliative care delivered to Indigenous populations to guide future program developments in this field. Further research is required to explore the palliative care needs and experiences of Indigenous people living in urban areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) endorses integrated palliative care which has a significant impact on quality of life and satisfaction with care. Effective integration between hospices, palliative care services, hospitals and primary care services are required to support patients with palliative care needs. Studies have indicated that little is known about which aspects are regarded as most important and should be priorities for international implementation. The Integrated Palliative Care in cancer and chronic conditions (InSup-C) project, aimed to investigate integrated practices in Europe and to formulate requirements for effective palliative care integration. It aimed to develop recommendations, and to agree priorities, for integrated palliative care linked to the InSuP-C project. Methods: Transparent expert consultation was adopted at the approach used. Data were collected in two phases: 1) international transparent expert consultation using face-to-face roundtable discussions at a one day workshop in Brussels, and 2) via subsequent online cross-sectional survey where items were rated to indicate degree of agreement on their importance and ranked to indicate priority for implementation. Workshop discussions used content analysis to develop a list of 23 recommendations, which formed the survey questionnaire. Survey analysis used descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis of open responses. Results: Thirty-six international experts in palliative care and cancer care, including senior clinicians, researchers, leaders of relevant international organisations and funders, were invited to a face-to-face workshop. Data were collected from 33 (19 men, 14 women), 3 declined. They mostly came from European countries (31), USA (1) and Australia (1). Twenty one of them also completed the subsequent online survey (response rate 63%). We generated 23 written statements that were grouped into the organisational constructs: macro (10), meso (6) and micro (7) levels of integration of palliative care. Highest priority recommendations refer to education, leadership and policy-making, medium priority recommendations focused on funding and relationship-building, and lower priority recommendations related to improving systems and infrastructure. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that amongst a group of international experts there was overall good agreement on the importance of recommendations for integrated palliative care. Understanding expert's priorities is important and can guide practice, policymaking and future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: ACP involving a facilitated conversation with a health or care professional is more effective than document completion alone. In policy, there is an expectation that health and care professionals will provide ACP support, commonly within their existing roles. However, the potential contributions of different professionals are outlined only broadly in policy and guidance. Research on opportunities and barriers for involving different professionals in providing ACP support, and feasible models for doing so, is currently lacking. Methods: We identified twelve healthcare organizations aiming to offer system-wide ACP support in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. In each, we conducted an average 13 in-depth interviews with senior managers, ACP leads, dedicated ACP facilitators, physicians, nurses, social workers and other clinical and non-clinical staff. Interviews were analyzed thematically using NVivo software. Results: Organizations emphasized leadership for ACP support, including strategic support from senior managers and intensive day-to-day support from ACP leads, to support staff to deliver ACP support within their existing roles. Over-reliance on dedicated facilitators was not considered sustainable or scalable. We found many professionals, from all backgrounds, providing ACP support. However, there remained barriers, particularly for facilitating ACP conversations. A significant barrier for all professionals was lack of time. Physicians sometimes had poor communication skills, misunderstood medico-legal aspects and tended to have conversations of limited scope late in the disease trajectory. However, they could also have concerns about the appropriateness of ACP conversations conducted by others. Social workers had good facilitation skills and understood legal aspects but needed more clinical support than nurses. While ACP support provided alongside and as part of other care was common, ACP conversations in this context could easily get squeezed out or become fragmented. Referrals to other professionals could be insecure. Team-based models involving a physician and a nurse or social worker were considered cost-effective and supportive of good quality care but could require some additional resource. Conclusions: Effective staffing of ACP support is likely to require intensive local leadership, attention to physician concerns while avoiding an entirely physician-led approach, some additional resource and team-based frameworks, including in evolving models of care for chronic illness and end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]