Search

Background: Access to community palliative care 'out-of-hours' – defined as care provided after the normal hours of work – is advocated globally. Healthcare assistants, who provide care under the direction of a qualified professional, are increasingly employed to help deliver such care, yet there is a little understanding regarding their role, responsibilities or contribution. Aim: The aim of this study was to identify the roles, responsibilities and contributions of healthcare assistants in out-of-hours community palliative care. Design: Scoping review Data sources: Five bibliographic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus) and grey literature were searched using a predefined search strategy. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews statement. Results: The search yielded six papers using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Results highlighted a lack of recognition of the role and contribution of healthcare assistants. A concurrent theme was that healthcare assistants continually monitored and responded to patient's and family's physical and emotional needs; there was also self-reported evidence indicating patient and family benefit, such as maintaining a sense of normality and support to remain at home. Discussion: This review highlighted a dearth of evidence relating to the healthcare assistant role in out-of-hours palliative care. Limited evidence suggests they play a role, but that it is hidden and undervalued. Such invisibility will have a significant impact on the planning and delivery of out-of-hours palliative care. Future research is needed on role development for the benefit of patients and caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transfers from hospital or 'hospice palliative care units' to care homes for end-of-life care are an increasingly common part of clinical practice but are a source of anxiety and distress for patients, relatives and healthcare professionals. Aim: To understand the experiences of patients discharged to care homes for end-of-life care. Design: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of the UK literature concerning inpatient transfer from a hospital or hospice palliative care unit to a care home for end-of-life care. Results: The published literature is very limited: only three papers and one conference abstract were identified, all of low quality using Gough's weight of evidence assessment. No papers examined transfer from hospital: all were of transfers from hospices and were retrospective case note reviews. Many patients were reported to have been negative or ambivalent about moving and experienced feelings of anxiety or abandonment when transferred. Relatives were often either vehemently opposed or ambivalent. Although some came to accept transfer, others reported the transfer to have seriously affected their loved one's quality of life and that the process of finding a care home had been traumatic. No studies investigated patients' views prospectively, the views of staff or the processes of decision-making. Conclusion: The UK literature is very limited, despite such transfers being an increasingly common part of clinical practice and a source of concern to patients, relatives and staff alike. Further research is urgently needed in this area, especially studies of patients themselves, in order to understand their experiences and views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) are outcome measures assessing quality of care in palliative care patients. This review aims to appraise their use in clinical care and research. Five electronic databases were searched (February 2010) for original papers describing the validation or use of POS and/or STAS. Of the 83 papers included, 43 studies were on POS, 39 on STAS and one study using both. Eight STAS studies validated the original version, four an adaptation; 20 studies applied the STAS in another culture and 19 in other languages. POS papers reported included: 14 adapted POS versions, 12 translations of the POS and 15 studies of use in different cultures. Both measures have been used in cancer, HIV/AIDS and in mixed groups. POS has also been applied in neurological, kidney, pulmonary and heart disease. Both tools were used in different areas such as the evaluation of care or interventions, description of symptom prevalence and implementation of outcome measures in clinical practice. Overall, they seem to be well accepted tools for outcome measurement in palliative care, both in clinical care and research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Action research is beginning to be utilized within palliative care research to address questions concerned with practice and organizational change. An understanding of appropriate evaluation practices is required in order to ensure that high-quality action research is conducted.Aim: The aim of this paper is to present an account of participatory action research and illustrate the way in which evaluation approaches are integrated within this methodology.Design: Participatory action research will be described identifying its origins, principles and its relationship with evaluation frameworks. The key features of the evaluation process in regard to participatory research are outlined.Setting: Two studies are presented which illustrate the integration of evaluation within a participatory action research framework. The first approach uses a before–after summative evaluation approach in a study undertaken to develop palliative care practice within a UK nursing home context. The evaluation focused upon the impact of the intervention. The second study utilized similar methods and addressed the process of the action research using the Äldreväst Sjuhärad (ÄVS) model to evaluate participation in a peer education programme for advance care planning amongst older adults.Results: These examples of evaluation within action research illustrate how diverse methods can be used. The use of a specific participatory evaluation model ensures the process reflects the underlying participatory principle of action research.Conclusions: Evaluation processes are integral to action research approaches. The specific evaluative methods adopted will reflect the nature and focus of the evaluation being undertaken. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study aimed to evaluate health professionals’ views about palliative care provision in prisons in the counties of Cumbria and Lancashire in the North West of England. Seventeen prison healthcare staff and nine specialist palliative care staff participated in semi-structured interviews and 16 prison healthcare staff completed a questionnaire designed to measure knowledge, skills and confidence in relation to palliative care. The findings highlighted tensions between the philosophies of care and custody, and the many challenges in providing palliative care in a custodial setting. This paper presents two illustrative case study examples, and suggests ways in which some of these challenges can be overcome in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Setting goals and assessing outcomes are essential elements in palliative care. This paper describes a multiprofessional project, conducted under the auspices of clinical audit, which attempted to evaluate important outcomes of care. Over a six-month period there were 123 consecutive admissions to the hospice. These patients and their carers, as well as the staff, were encouraged to set explicit goals for, and evaluate outcomes of, their care. As anticipated, we encountered many difficulties in this, but there were benefits. We were able to record goals of admission from the patient in 97 cases (79%), their main carer in 74 cases (63%) and from hospice staff in 120 cases (98%). Patient and carer goals were often more functional and specific whereas the staff goals tended to be more problem or symptom focused. The achievement of these goals was evaluated by patients, carers and staff at discharge or death (where possible) with the majority being fully or partially met. Only 15 patients and 9 carers thought that some or all of their goals had not been achieved with just 4 recording that their goals had changed. Overall, it was a worthwhile (although time-consuming) exercise and, as a result of the 'audit', clear goals and outcomes from patient, carer and staff perspectives are now routinely recorded for all admissions to the hospice and are used to focus multiprofessional patient review. Having analysed the process as well as the results of the 'audit', we would encourage others not to be daunted from undertaking similar projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]