Search

Introduction: This exploratory literature review seeks to examine the literature around commissioning processes in the co‐production of health and care services, focusing on two questions: How do health and care commissioning processes facilitate and/or pose barriers to co‐production in service design and delivery? What are the contextual factors that influence these processes? Method: A systematic search of three databases (Medline, Public Health and Social Policy and Practice) and a search platform (Web of Science) was conducted for the period 2008–2023. A total of 2675 records were retrieved. After deduplication, 1925 were screened at title and abstract level. Forty‐seven reports from 42 United Kingdom and Ireland studies were included in the review. A thematic synthesis of included studies was conducted in relation to the research questions. Results: The review identified one overarching theme across the synthesised literature: the complexity of the commissioning landscape. Three interconnected subthemes illuminate the contextual factors that influence this landscape: commissioners as leaders of co‐production; navigating relationships and the collective voice. Conclusion: Commissioning processes were commonly a barrier to the co‐production of health and care services. Though co‐production was an aspiration for many commissioners, the political and economic environment and service pressures meant that it was often not fully realised. More flexible funding models, longer‐term pilot projects, an increased emphasis in social value across the health and care system and building capacity for strong leadership in commissioning is needed. Patient and Public Contribution: Patients and the public did not contribute to this review as it was a small piece of work following on from a completed project, with no budget for public involvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Support from social networks is vital after the death of a partner. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people can face disenfranchisement and isolation in bereavement. The Acceptance-Disclosure Model (of LGBT+ bereavement) posits that experiences are shaped by the extent to which individuals feel able to disclose their bereavement to others, and whether that loss is acknowledged appropriately. Aim: To explore LGBT+ specific experiences of partner bereavement; determine decision-making processes regarding disclosure of relationships/identities; and appraise the Acceptance-Disclosure Model using primary qualitative data. Design: Exploratory in-depth qualitative interview study positioned within a social constructivist paradigm. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis. Setting/participants: 21 LGBT+ people from across England bereaved of their civil partner/spouse. Results: Participants described LGBT+ specific stressors in bereavement: lack of recognition of their loss; inappropriate questioning; unwanted disclosure of gender history; and fears of discrimination when accessing support. Disclosure of LGBT+ identities varied across social networks. Some participants described hiding their identities and bereavement to preserve relationships, and challenging intersections between LGBT+ identities and other aspects of culture or self. These findings provide primary evidence to support the Acceptance-Disclosure Model. Conclusions: LGBT+ people face additional stressors in bereavement. Not all LGBT+ people want to talk directly about their relationships/identities. Sensitive exploration of support needs, aligned with preferences around disclosure of identities, can help foster trust. Five recommendations for inclusive practice are presented. Further research should consider whether the Acceptance-Disclosure Model has utility to explain bereavement experiences for other isolated or disenfranchised groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Families and professionals caring for children with life-limiting conditions face difficult healthcare decisions. Shared decision-making is promoted in many countries, however little is known about factors influencing these processes. Aim: To explore the communication strategies used in shared decision-making for children with life-limiting conditions. Design: A longitudinal, qualitative, multiple-case study. Cases were centred around the child and parent/carer(s). Most cases also included professionals or extended family members. Data from interviews, observations and medical notes were re-storied for each case into a narrative case summary. These were subject to comparative thematic analysis using NVivo11. Setting/participants: Eleven cases recruited from three tertiary hospitals in England. 23 participants were interviewed (46 interviews). Cases were followed for up to 12 months between December 2015 and January 2017. 72 observations were conducted and the medical notes of nine children reviewed. Findings: Strategies present during shared decision-making were underpinned by moral work. Professionals presented options they believed were in the child's best interests, emphasising their preference. Options were often presented in advance of being necessary to prevent harm, therefore professionals permitted delay to treatment. Persuasion was utilised over time when professionals felt the treatment was becoming more urgent and when families felt it would not promote the child's psychosocial wellbeing. Conclusions: Communication strategies in shared decision-making are underpinned by moral work. Professionals should be aware of the models of shared decision-making which include such communication strategies. Open discussions regarding individuals' moral reasoning may assist the process of shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Family caregiving is common globally, but when a family member needs palliative and end-of-life care, this requires knowledge and expertise in dealing with symptoms, medication, and treatment side effects. Caring for a family member with advanced prostate cancer in the home presents practical and emotional challenges, especially in resource-poor contexts, where there are increasing palliative cases without adequate palliative care institutions. Aim: The study explored palliative and end-of-life care experiences of family caregivers and patients living at home in a resource-poor context in Ghana. Design: This is a qualitative study using thematic analysis of face-to-face interviews at two-time points. Participants: Men living with advanced prostate cancer (n = 23), family caregivers (n = 23), healthcare professionals (n = 12). Findings: Men with advanced prostate cancer face complex issues, including lack of access to professional care and a lack of resources for homecare. Family caregivers do not have easy access to professional support; they often have limited knowledge of disease progression. Patients have inadequate access to medication and other practical resources for homecare. Caregivers may be overburdened and perform the role of the patient's 'doctor' at home-assessing patient's symptoms, administering drugs, and providing hands-on care. Conclusion: Home-based care is promoted as an ideal and cost-effective model of care, particularly in Westernised palliative care models. However, in resource-poor contexts, there are significant challenges associated with the implementation of this model. This study revealed the scale of challenges family caregivers, who lack basic training on aspects of caring, face in providing home care unsupported by healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: There have been substantial achievements in legislative and human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) older people and their visibility in health and social care has equally increased. These appear to have surpassed the ability of care services to meet their needs given documented concerns about the accessibility, inclusiveness and safety of care services particularly institutionalised care. This requires systemic change not easy to operationalise. This paper describes an action research initiative where six care homes belonging to a national care provider, collaborated to assess and develop their services with the support of local LGBT “Community Advisors” and academic partners. Framed within Rogers’ (2003) change management framework and combined with a participatory leadership approach, a programme of intervention was implemented comprising structured activities around seven key areas thought to promote LGBT inclusion. A formal evaluation was conducted involving 35 pre‐ and post‐intervention qualitative interviews with 18 people (community advisors; care home managers and senior managers). The findings are presented across three key themes (1) starting points on the journey; (2) challenges encountered along the journey (organisational and interpersonal); and (3) making change happen; opportunities, initiatives and gains. We make recommendations on the value of a programme approach for achieving tangible outcomes that demonstrate increased inclusion for older LGBT people living in long‐term care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Midhurst Macmillan Specialist Palliative Care at Home Service was founded in 2006 to improve community-based palliative care provision. Principal components include; early referral; home-based clinical interventions; close partnership working; and flexible teamwork. Following a successful introduction, the model was implemented in six further sites across England. This article reports a mixed methods evaluation of the implementation across these 'Innovation Centres'. The evaluation aimed to assess the process and impact on staff, patients and carers of providing Macmillan Specialist Care at Home services across the six sites. Methods: The study was set within a Realist Evaluation framework and used a longitudinal, mixed methods research design. Data collection over 15 months (2014--2016) included: Quantitative outcome measures - Palliative Performance Scale [PPS] and Palliative Prognostic Index [PPI] (n = 2711); Integrated Palliative Outcome Scales [IPOS] (n = 1157); Carers Support Needs Assessment Tool [CSNAT] (n = 241); Views of Informal Carers --Evaluation of Services [VOICES-SF] (n = 102); a custom-designed Service Data Tool [SDT] that gathered prospective data from each site (n = 88). Qualitative data methods included: focus groups with project team and staff (n =32 groups with n = 190 participants), and, volunteers (n = 6 groups with n = 32 participants). Quantitative data were analysed using SPPS Vs. 21 and qualitative data was examined via thematic analysis. Results: Comparison of findings across the six sites revealed the impact of their unique configurations on outcomes, compounded by variations in stage and mode of implementation. PPS, PPI and IPOS data revealed disparity in early referral criteria, complicated by contrasting interpretations of palliative care. The qualitative analysis, CSNAT and VOICES-SF data confirmed the value of the Macmillan model of care but uptake of specialist home-based clinical interventions was limited. The Macmillan brand engendered patient and carer confidence, bringing added value to existing services. Significant findings included better co-ordination of palliative care through project management and a single referral point and multi-disciplinary teamwork including leadership from consultants in palliative medicine, the role of health care assistants in rapid referral, and volunteer support. Conclusions: Macmillan Specialist Care at Home increases patient choice about place of death and enhances the quality of end of life experience. Clarification of key components is advocated to aid consistency of implementation across different sites and support future evaluative work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans (LGBT) people have higher risk of certain life-limiting illnesses and unmet needs in advanced illness and bereavement. ACCESSCare is the first national study to examine in depth the experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness. Aim: To explore health-care experiences of LGBT people facing advanced illness to elicit views regarding sharing identity (sexual orientation/gender history), accessing services, discrimination/exclusion and best-practice examples. Design: Semi-structured in-depth qualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis. Setting/participants: In total, 40 LGBT people from across the United Kingdom facing advanced illness: cancer (n = 21), non-cancer (n = 16) and both a cancer and a non-cancer conditions (n = 3). Results: In total, five main themes emerged: (1) person-centred care needs that may require additional/different consideration for LGBT people (including different social support structures and additional legal concerns), (2) service level or interactional (created in the consultation) barriers/stressors (including heteronormative assumptions and homophobic/transphobic behaviours), (3) invisible barriers/stressors (including the historical context of pathology/criminalisation, fears and experiences of discrimination) and (4) service level or interactional facilitators (including acknowledging and including partners in critical discussions). These all shape (5) individuals' preferences for disclosing identity. Prior experiences of discrimination or violence, in response to disclosure, were carried into future care interactions and heightened with the frailty of advanced illness. Conclusion: Despite recent legislative change, experiences of discrimination and exclusion in health care persist for LGBT people. Ten recommendations, for health-care professionals and services/institutions, are made from the data. These are simple, low cost and offer potential gains in access to, and outcomes of, care for LGBT people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study explores with patients, carers and health care professionals if, when and how Advance Care Planning conversations about patients' preferences for place of care (and death) were facilitated and documented. Methods: The study adopted an exploratory case study design using qualitative interviews, across five services delivering palliative care to cancer and non-cancer patients within an urban and rural English region. The study recruited 18 cases made up of patients (N = 18; 10 men; 8 women; median age 75); nominated relatives (N = 11; 7 women; 4 men; median age 65) and healthcare professionals (N = 15) caring for the patient. Data collection included: 18 initial interviews (nine separate interviews with patients and 9 joint interviews with patients and relatives) and follow up interviews in 6 cases (involving a total of 5 patients and 5 relatives) within one year of the first interview. Five group interviews were conducted with 15 healthcare professionals; 8 of whom also participated in follow up interviews to review their involvement with patients in our study. Results: Patients demonstrated varying degrees of reticence, evasion or reluctance to initiate any conversations about end of life care preferences. Most assumed that staff would initiate such conversations, while staff were often hesitant to do so. Staff-identified barriers included the perceived risks of taking away hope and issues of timing. Staff were often guided by cues from the patient or by intuition about when to initiate these discussions. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the complexities surrounding the initiation of Advance Care Planning involving conversations about end of life care preferences with patients who are identified as having palliative care needs, in particular in relation to the risks inherent in the process of having conversations where mortality must be acknowledged. Future research is needed to examine how to develop interventions to help initiate conversations to develop person centred plans to manage the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]