Search

Background: End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. Methods: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. Results: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). Conclusion: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of stakeholders in a way that enables medical EoL care and volunteering to co-exist. Further research is needed to explore how trust and equal partnerships between volunteers and professional staff can be built and sustained. Trial registration: NCT04678310. Registered 21/12/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. Methods: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. Results: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). Conclusion: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of stakeholders in a way that enables medical EoL care and volunteering to co-exist. Further research is needed to explore how trust and equal partnerships between volunteers and professional staff can be built and sustained. Trial registration: NCT04678310. Registered 21/12/2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spain currently lacks a competency framework for palliative care nursing. Having such a framework would help to advance this field in academic, governmental, and health management contexts. In phase I of a mixed-methods sequential study, we collected quantitative data, proposing 98 competencies to a sample of palliative care nurses. They accepted 62 of them and rejected 36. Methods: Phase II is a qualitative phase in which we used consensus techniques with two modified nominal groups to interpret the quantitative findings with the objective of understanding of why the 36 competencies had been rejected. Twenty nurses from different areas of palliative care (direct care, teaching, management, research) participated. We conducted a thematic analysis using NVivo12 to identify meaning units and group them into larger thematic categories. Results: Participants attributed the lack of consensus on the 36 competencies to four main reasons: the rejection of standardised nursing language, the context in which nurses carry out palliative care and other factors that are external to the care itself, the degree of specificity of the proposed competency (too little or too great), and the complexity of nursing care related to the end of life and/or death. Conclusions: Based on the results, we propose reparative actions, such as reformulating the competencies expressed in nursing terminology to describe them as specific behaviours and insisting on the participation of nurses in developing institutional policies and strategies so that competencies related to development, leadership and professional commitment can be implemented. It is essential ​​to promote greater consensus on the definition and levels of nursing intervention according to criteria of complexity and to advocate for adequate training, regulation, and accreditation of palliative care expert practice. Locally, understanding why the 36 competencies were rejected can help Spanish palliative care nurses reach a shared competency framework. More broadly, our consensus methodology and our findings regarding the causes for rejection may be useful to other countries that are in the process of formalising or reviewing their palliative care nursing model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Spain currently lacks a competency framework for palliative care nursing. Having such a framework would help to advance this field in academic, governmental, and health management contexts. In phase I of a mixed-methods sequential study, we collected quantitative data, proposing 98 competencies to a sample of palliative care nurses. They accepted 62 of them and rejected 36. Methods: Phase II is a qualitative phase in which we used consensus techniques with two modified nominal groups to interpret the quantitative findings with the objective of understanding of why the 36 competencies had been rejected. Twenty nurses from different areas of palliative care (direct care, teaching, management, research) participated. We conducted a thematic analysis using NVivo12 to identify meaning units and group them into larger thematic categories. Results: Participants attributed the lack of consensus on the 36 competencies to four main reasons: the rejection of standardised nursing language, the context in which nurses carry out palliative care and other factors that are external to the care itself, the degree of specificity of the proposed competency (too little or too great), and the complexity of nursing care related to the end of life and/or death. Conclusions: Based on the results, we propose reparative actions, such as reformulating the competencies expressed in nursing terminology to describe them as specific behaviours and insisting on the participation of nurses in developing institutional policies and strategies so that competencies related to development, leadership and professional commitment can be implemented. It is essential ​​to promote greater consensus on the definition and levels of nursing intervention according to criteria of complexity and to advocate for adequate training, regulation, and accreditation of palliative care expert practice. Locally, understanding why the 36 competencies were rejected can help Spanish palliative care nurses reach a shared competency framework. More broadly, our consensus methodology and our findings regarding the causes for rejection may be useful to other countries that are in the process of formalising or reviewing their palliative care nursing model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]