Search

Recognition of the importance of end-of-life care will enable improvements in the quality of care delivered to patients and their families. Australia is experiencing an increasing number of deaths, (many expected), with an aging population who are living longer, often with multimorbidity. This makes end of life care a priority. The last year of someone's life takes place in a complex healthcare system, with increasing pressures on care delivery, placing the spotlight on health service providers to ensure that teams and individuals are supported and enabled to provide such care. Two rapid literature reviews identified best practice principles and processes for delivering safe and high-quality end-of-life care in acute care, aged care and community settings. The reviews identified that end-of-life care is experienced within the whole health and social care system, including hospital admissions interspersed with care in the community, outpatient and emergency department visits and potentially admission to a hospice. Much of this last year of life is spent at home, which may be a personal residence, an aged care facility, prison, supported accommodation or even on the streets. Transitions across settings requires seamless care, as well as organisational readiness to deliver safe and culturally appropriate care. This is more important now with end-of-life care subject to quality assurance mechanisms within the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards (2nd edn): Comprehensive care. This requires all sectors to work collaboratively when caring for someone at the end of their life in order to see positive changes in care outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Multimorbidity is prevalent in general practice and general practitioners internationally report challenges in its management. Understanding the perspectives of general practitioners at the frontline of care is important for system sustainability and accessibility as populations age. Objective To explore Australian general practitioner perspectives on managing multimorbidity, the factors supporting their work, and those impeding their ability to meet their own standards of care provision. Method A qualitative study conducted with Australian general practitioners using semistructured, in-depth interviews and inductive thematic data analysis. Results Twelve interviews with general practitioners were conducted. Three main themes were constructed from the data: Multimorbidity as an encounter with complexity and contingency; Evidence constraints in multimorbidity care; and Concerns for patient safety. System structure and the Australian general practice model restrict general practitioners' ability to provide care to their level of satisfaction by linking short consultation times to practice remuneration. Attitudes toward the applicability of guideline evidence were mixed despite most general practitioners questioning its generalizability. Patient safety concerns pervaded most interviews and largely centered on system fragmentation and insufficient intersectoral communication. General practitioners rely on multiple sources of information to provide patient-centered care but chiefly the accumulated knowledge of their patients. Conclusions Australian general practitioners share many multimorbidity concerns with international colleagues. While multimorbidity-specific evidence may be unrealistic to expect in the immediate term, system investment and adaptation is needed to support general practice sustainability and clinician ability to provide adequate multimorbidity care, suitably remunerated, into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed Australian clinical practice guidelines for life-limiting index conditions for the extent to which they acknowledged comorbidities and framed management recommendations within the context of older age and reduced life expectancy. A comprehensive search identified current, evidence-based Australian guidelines for chronic life-limiting conditions directed at general practitioners. Guideline content was analysed qualitatively before comorbidity acknowledgements were quantified using a 17-item checklist. Full guidelines were quality appraised using AGREE-II. Ten documents covering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, cancer pain, dementia and palliative care in aged care were identified. Most guidelines addressed one 'comorbid' condition and prompted clinicians to consider patient quality of life and personal preferences. Fewer addressed burden of treatment and half suggested modifying treatments to account for limited life expectancy, age or time horizon to benefit. Half warned of potential adverse drug interactions. Guidelines were of moderate to very high quality. Guidelines naturally prioritised their index condition, directing attention to only the most common comorbidities. However, there may be scope to include more condition-agnostic guidance on multimorbidity management. This might be modelled on the 'guiding principles' approach now emerging internationally from organisations such as the American Geriatrics Society in response to increasing multimorbidity prevalence and evidence limitations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed Australian clinical practice guidelines for life-limiting index conditions for the extent to which they acknowledged comorbidities and framed management recommendations within the context of older age and reduced life expectancy. A comprehensive search identified current, evidence-based Australian guidelines for chronic life-limiting conditions directed at general practitioners. Guideline content was analysed qualitatively before comorbidity acknowledgements were quantified using a 17-item checklist. Full guidelines were quality appraised using AGREE-II. Ten documents covering chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, cancer pain, dementia and palliative care in aged care were identified. Most guidelines addressed one 'comorbid' condition and prompted clinicians to consider patient quality of life and personal preferences. Fewer addressed burden of treatment and half suggested modifying treatments to account for limited life expectancy, age or time horizon to benefit. Half warned of potential adverse drug interactions. Guidelines were of moderate to very high quality. Guidelines naturally prioritised their index condition, directing attention to only the most common comorbidities. However, there may be scope to include more condition-agnostic guidance on multimorbidity management. This might be modelled on the 'guiding principles' approach now emerging internationally from organisations such as the American Geriatrics Society in response to increasing multimorbidity prevalence and evidence limitations. General practitioners provide frontline care for a growing number of patients with multimorbidity, which may involve a life-limiting, progressive condition. Most guidelines for life-limiting conditions acknowledge comorbidity; however, there may be missed opportunities to warn clinicians on the potential for inappropriate polypharmacy, drug–drug interactions, and guideline-imposed treatment burden. Guidelines might consider incorporating 'guiding principles' of multimorbidity care and reframing management in the context of reduced life expectancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: General practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care. Methods: Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search of Journal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies. Results: Thirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk. Conclusions: GPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient's unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual's capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart failure is a highly debilitating syndrome with a poor prognosis primarily affecting the elderly. Clinicians wanting timely access to heart failure evidence to provide optimal patient care can face many challenges in locating this evidence. This study developed and validated a search filter of high clinical utility for the retrieval of heart failure articles in OvidSP Medline. Methods: A Clinical Advisory Group was established to advise study investigators. The study set of 876 relevant articles from four heart failure clinical practice guidelines was divided into three datasets: a Term Identification Set, a Filter Development Set, and a Filter Validation Set. A further validation set (the Cochrane Validation Set) was formed using studies included in Cochrane heart failure systematic reviews. Candidate search terms were identified via word frequency analysis. The filter was developed by creating combinations of terms and recording their performance in retrieving items from the Filter Development Set. The filter's recall was then validated in both the Filter Validation Set and the Cochrane Validation Set. A precision estimate was obtained post-hoc by running the filter in Medline and screening the first 200 retrievals for relevance to heart failure. Results: The four-term filter achieved a recall of 96.9% in the Filter Development Set; 98.2% in the Filter Validation Set; and 97.8% in the Cochrane Validation Set. Of the first 200 references retrieved by the filter when run in Medline, 150 were deemed relevant and 50 irrelevant. The post-hoc precision estimate was therefore 75%. Conclusions: This study describes an objective method for developing a validated heart failure filter of high recall performance and then testing its precision post-hoc. Clinical practice guidelines were found to be a feasible alternative to hand searching in creating a gold standard for filter development. Guidelines may be especially appropriate given their clinical utility. A validated heart failure filter is now available to support health professionals seeking reliable and efficient access to the heart failure literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]