Search

Objectives: In England, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) were introduced in 2008 to support care coordination and delivery in accordance with patient preferences. Despite policy supporting their implementation, there has been a lack of rigorous evaluation of EPaCCS and it is not clear how they have been translated into practice. This study sought to examine the current national implementation of EPaCCS, including their intended impact on patient and service outcomes, and barriers and facilitators for implementation. Methods: We conducted a national cross-sectional online survey of end-of-life care commissioning leads for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) in England. We enquired about the current implementation status of EPaCCS, their role in information sharing and intended impact, and requested routine patient-level data relating to EPaCCS. Results: Out of 135 CCGs, 85 (63.0%) responded, with 57 (67.1%) having operational EPaCCS. Use of EPaCCS were confined to healthcare providers with most systems (67%) not supporting information sharing with care homes and social care providers. Most systems (68%) sought to facilitate goal concordant care, although there was inconsonance between intended impacts and monitoring measures used. Common challenges to implementation included healthcare professionals' limited engagement. Only one-third of patients had an EPaCCS record at death with limited recording of patient preferences. Conclusions: Critical gaps exist in engagement with EPaCCS and their ability to facilitate information sharing across care providers. The limited alignment between stated goals of EPaCCS and their monitoring impedes efforts to understand which characteristics of systems can best support care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: With increased governmental interest in value assessment of technologies and where medical device manufacturers are finding it increasingly necessary to become more familiar with economic evaluation methods, the study sought to explore the levels of health economics knowledge within small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and to scope strategies they employ to demonstrate the value of their products to purchasers. Methods: A short questionnaire was completed by participants attending one of five workshops on product development in the medical device sector that took place in England between 2007 and 2011. From all responses obtained, a large proportion of participants were based in SMEs (N = 43), and these responses were used for the analysis. Statistical analysis using non-parametric tests was performed on questions with approximately interval scales. Qualitative data from participant responses were analysed to reveal emerging themes. Results: The questionnaire results revealed that 60% of SME participants (mostly company directors or managers, including product or project managers) rated themselves as having low or no knowledge of health economics prior to the workshops but the rest professed at least medium knowledge. Clinical trials and cost analyses or cost-effectiveness studies were the most highly cited means by which SMEs aim to demonstrate value of products to purchasers. Purchasers were perceived to place most importance on factors of safety, expert opinion, cost-effectiveness and price. However many companies did not utilise formal decision-making tools to prioritise these factors. There was no significant dependence of the use of decision-making tools in general with respect to professed knowledge of health economics methods. SMEs did not state a preference for any particular aspect of potential value when deciding whether to develop a product. A majority of SMEs stated they would use a health economics tool. Research and development teams or marketing and sales departments would most likely use one. Conclusion: This study points to the need for further research into the education requirements of SMEs in the area of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) and also for investigation into how SMEs engage with existing HTA processes as required by assessors such as NICE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which aimed to determine the feasibility of collecting pain data using a system accessed through various modes of technology to explore participant preferences for the different modes and gain participant input into potential uses of the data collected. The results indicate the feasibility of collecting pain data on a single system accessed using four modes of technology.

Internationally, the quality of death certification is poor although there are multiple efforts underway to improve the process. In England, a new medical certification system has been proposed to improve the quality of data. We surveyed general practitioners (n = 95) across the West Yorkshire area of England to appraise their views regarding whether further possible changes to the death certification system could promote their quality., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life for people with life-limiting illnesses. Advance care planning conversations that establish a patient's wishes and preferences for care are part of a person-centered approach. Internationally, electronic health record systems are digital interventions used to record and share patients' advance care plans across health care services and settings. They aim to provide tools that support electronic information sharing and care coordination. Within the United Kingdom, Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems (EPaCCS) are an example of this. Despite over a decade of policy promoting EPaCCS nationally, there has been limited implementation and consistently low levels of use by health professionals., Objective: The aim of this study is to explore the factors that influence the implementation of EPaCCS into routine clinical practice across different care services and settings in 2 major regions of England., Methods: A qualitative interview study design was used, guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). NPT explores factors affecting the implementation of complex interventions and consists of 4 primary components (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, and reflexive monitoring). Health care and social care practitioners were purposively sampled based on their professional role and work setting. Individual web-based semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed using thematic framework analysis to explore issues which affected the implementation of EPaCCS across different settings at individual, team, organizational, and technical levels., Results: Participants (N=52) representing a range of professional roles were recruited across 6 care settings (hospice, primary care, care home, hospital, ambulatory, and community). In total, 6 themes were developed which mapped onto the 4 primary components of NPT and represented the multilevel influences affecting implementation. At an individual level, these included (1) EPaCCS providing a clear and distinct way of working and (2) collective contributions and buy-in. At a team and organizational level, these included (3) embedding EPaCCS into everyday practice and (4) championing driving implementation. At a technical level, these included (5) electronic functionality, interoperability, and access. Breakdowns in implementation at different levels led to variations in (6) confidence and trust in EPaCCS in terms of record accuracy and availability of access., Conclusions: EPaCCS implementation is influenced by individual, organizational, and technical factors. Key challenges include problems with access alongside inconsistent use and engagement across care settings. EPaCCS, in their current format as digital advance care planning systems are not consistently facilitating electronic information sharing and care coordination. A redesign of EPaCCS is likely to be necessary to determine configurations for their optimal implementation across different settings and locations. This includes supporting health care practitioners to document, access, use, and share information across multiple care settings. Lessons learned are relevant to other forms of digital advance care planning approaches being developed internationally., (©Andy Bradshaw, Jacqueline Birtwistle, Catherine J Evans, Katherine E Sleeman, Suzanne Richards, Robbie Foy, Pablo Millares Martin, Paul Carder, Matthew J Allsop, Maureen Twiddy. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 16.08.2024.)