Search

Background: The core to successful advance care planning (ACP) facilitation is helping people determine their values, beliefs and wishes, and understand substitute decision-making. Recognizing the potential for community members to support public awareness and education we developed a model of ACP education, whereby peer facilitators associated with community organizations host workshops that educate and assist members of the public with ACP. Objectives: Describe the development and evaluation of the model for community-led peer-facilitated ACP workshops for the public. Design: Descriptive mixed methods. Methods: A training curriculum and program model were co-developed with two community organizations that had been successful in delivering ACP workshops independently in their communities. Herein we describe a mixed-methods evaluation of three cycles of implementation and improvement of the model. Results: The model centers on three key concepts; the right content (based around three steps Think, Talk, Plan), the right facilitator, and the right approach. A suite of tools was designed to support the three groups involved in the delivery of the ACP workshops: the public participants, the peer facilitators, and the community-based organizations. The peer-facilitator training addresses the facilitator's learning needs of ACP content knowledge, facilitation skills, and understanding change behavior. Training evaluation data from 106 facilitators confirmed that the curriculum prepared them to facilitate the workshops. Qualitative data revealed that support from organizations with established reputations in their community is critical, with mentoring from more experienced facilitators beneficial. Conclusion: Our model demonstrates the potential of community-led, peer-facilitated ACP initiatives to enhance the capacity of community to upstream ACP conversations. Reaching a broader audience and creating a supportive, inclusive environment for individuals to comfortably learn about ACP can drive the much-needed culture shift to normalize ACP. Meaningful community engagement, empowerment, and partnerships are essential for the successful development and widespread impact of these initiatives. Plain language summary: A model for community-led peer-facilitated advance care planning workshops for the public Why was this study done? Advance care planning (ACP) allows people to reflect on and share their personal values, goals and preferences as they relate to their future healthcare. Despite the benefits of doing ACP, the number of people who have engaged in ACP remains low. Traditionally, most ways of supporting people to engage in ACP have involved healthcare providers. In British Columbia, two community-based organizations had developed successful peer-facilitated workshops to engage and educate the public. In these workshops, non-expert members of the community (peer-facilitators) conduct interactive workshops that help members of the public understand and begin ACP. What did the researchers do? We partnered with these two organizations to develop a training curriculum and other materials required to spread this approach to other community organizations throughout the province. The model is based on three key concepts: the right content, the right facilitator, and the right approach. The materials include a suite of tools for three groups: the public participants, the peer-facilitators and the organizations. What did the researchers find? The training and suite of tools we developed successfully prepared community members ("peers") associated with community organizations to facilitate ACP workshops for the public. Support from community organizations is essential, and mentoring from more experienced facilitators is beneficial. What do the findings mean? As a provincial organization we were able to successfully partner with community organizations to develop a model and spread the workshops provincially and confirm they were acceptable and effective, improving public access to information about advance care planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Palliative care is an evolving field with extensive studies demonstrating its benefits to patients, families, and the health care system. Many health systems have developed or are developing palliative care programs. The Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians (CSPCP) is often asked to recommend how many palliative care specialists are needed to implement and support an integrated palliative care program. This information would allow health service decision makers and educational institutions to plan resources accordingly to manage the needs of their communities. The CSPCP is well positioned to answer this question, as many of its members are Directors of palliative care programs and have been responsible for creating and overseeing the pioneering work of building these programs over the past few decades. In 2017, the CSPCP commissioned a working group to develop a staffing model for specialist palliative care teams based on the interdependence of three key professional roles, an extensive literature search, key stakeholder interviews, and expert opinions. This article is the Canadian Society of Palliative Care's recommended starting point that will be further evaluated as it is utilized across Canada. For more information and to see sample calculations go to the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians Staffing Model for Palliative Care Programs (https://www.cspcp.ca). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: There is a lack of evidence to guide constipation management in patients receiving palliative care. Data collection requires the systematic use of validated assessment tools. Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the usefulness of the Victoria Bowel Performance Scale (BPS) as an audit tool. Methods: Charts were reviewed before and after the implementation of a program to monitor constipation through repeated use of the Victoria Bowel Scale. The program was initiated at three oncology pain and symptom management clinics, four palliative care units, and four residential hospices. An additional “control” palliative care unit introduced new nursing assessment tools without the new scale. Results: The Victoria BPS was recorded at 86% of 192 postimplementation outpatient clinic visits and was easy to use in this setting. Documentation of bowel performance at comparable visits improved from 44% to 66% (P <0.001), and the frequency of changes to laxatives increased from 14% to 39% of visits (P <0.001). The scale was completed on 21%–55% of inpatient days, and variations in the proportion of recordings being rated as satisfactory between −1 and +1 (possible range from −4 to +4) revealed important deficiencies in bowel care, which led to change in management. Conclusion: The Victoria BPS was found to be an acceptable and a useful bowel function assessment tool, uniquely incorporating the patient’s usual bowel function. Modifications to the scale have been made to improve clarity and allow for the expected drop in bowel activity seen in end-of-life care. Considerable educational effort and appropriate organization of the charts are required for optimal implementation. The proportion of revised BPS scores ranging from −1 to +1 is proposed as an indicator of satisfactory bowel management for clinical, audit, and research purposes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Context The goal of end-of-life (EOL) communication and decision making is to create a shared understanding about a person’s values and treatment preferences that will lead to a plan of care that is consistent with these values and preferences. Improvements in communication and decision making at the EOL have been identified as a high priority from a patient and family point of view. Objectives The purpose of this study was to develop quality indicators related to EOL communication and decision making. Methods We convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop definitions, a conceptual framework of EOL communication and decision making, and quality indicators using a modified Delphi method. We generated a list of potential items based on literature review and input from panel members. Panel members rated the items using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = very little importance to 7 = extremely important) over four rounds of review until consensus was achieved. Results About 24 of the 28 panel members participated in all four rounds of the Delphi process. The final list of quality indicators comprised 34 items, divided into the four categories of our conceptual framework: Advance care planning (eight items), Goals of care discussions (13 items), Documentation (five items), and Organization/System aspects (eight items). Eleven items were rated “extremely important” (median score). All items had a median score of five (moderately important) or greater. Conclusion We have developed definitions, a conceptual framework, and quality indicators that researchers and health care decision makers can use to evaluate and improve the quality of EOL communication and decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]