Search

Objective The aim of this study was to map end-of-life care in acute hospital settings against Elements 1-5 of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care's (ACSQHC) Essential Elements for Safe and High-Quality End-of-Life Care. Methods A retrospective medical record audit of deceased in-patients was conducted from 2016 at one public (n = 320) and one private (n = 132) hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Ten variables, key to end-of-life care according to the ACSQHC's Elements 1-5 were used to evaluate end-of-life care. Results Most patients (87.2%) had a limitation of medical treatment. In 91.97% (P < 0.0001) of cases, a written entry indicating poor prognosis preceded a documented decision to provide end-of-life care, with a documented decision noted in 81.1% of cases (P < 0.0001). Evidence of pastoral care involvement was found in 41.6% of cases (P < 0.0001), with only 33.1% of non-palliative care patients referred to specialist palliative care personnel (P = 0.059). An end-of-life care pathway was used in 51.1% of cases (P < 0.0001). Conclusion There is clear scope for improvement in end-of-life care provision. Health services need to mandate and operationalise Elements 1-5 of the ACSQHC's Essential Elements into care systems and processes, and ensure nationally consistent, high-quality end-of-life care. What is known about the topic? Acute care settings provide the majority of end-of-life care. Despite the ACSQHC's Ten Essential Elements, little is known about whether current end-of-life care practices align with recommendations. What does this paper add? There is room for improvement in providing patient-centred care, increasing family involvement and teamwork, describing and enacting goals of care and using triggers to prompt care. Differences between public and private hospitals may be the result of differences in standard practice or policy and differences in cultural diversity. What are the implications for practitioners? The Essential Ele

Objective This review was conducted to identify and synthesise the evidence around the use of telephone and video interpreter services compared with in-person services in healthcare. Methods A systematic search of articles published in the English language was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Joanna Briggs, Google Scholar and Google. Search terms included 'interpreter', 'patient satisfaction', 'consumer satisfaction' and 'client satisfaction'. Any study that did not compare in-person interpreter services with either telephone or video interpreter services was excluded from analysis. Studies were screened for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers, using criteria established a priori. Data were extracted via a custom form and synthesised. Results The database search yielded 196 studies, eight of which were included in the present review. The search using an Internet search engine did not identify any relevant studies. Of the studies included, five used telephone and three used video interpreter services. All studies, except one, compared levels of satisfaction regarding in-person interpretation and telephone or video interpretation. One study compared satisfaction of two versions of video interpretation. There is evidence of higher satisfaction with hospital-trained interpreters compared with ad hoc (friend or family) or telephone interpreters. There is no difference in satisfaction between in-person interpreting, telephone interpreting or interpretation provided by the treating bilingual physician. Video interpreting has the same satisfaction as in-person interpreting, regardless of whether the patient and the physician are in the same room. Higher levels of satisfaction were reported for trained telephone interpreters than for in-person interpreters or an external telephone interpreter service. Conclusions Current evidence does no

Objective This review was conducted to identify and synthesise the evidence around the use of telephone and video interpreter services compared with in-person services in healthcare. Methods A systematic search of articles published in the English language was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Joanna Briggs, Google Scholar and Google. Search terms included 'interpreter', 'patient satisfaction', 'consumer satisfaction' and 'client satisfaction'. Any study that did not compare in-person interpreter services with either telephone or video interpreter services was excluded from analysis. Studies were screened for inclusion or exclusion by two reviewers, using criteria established a priori. Data were extracted via a custom form and synthesised. Results The database search yielded 196 studies, eight of which were included in the present review. The search using an Internet search engine did not identify any relevant studies. Of the studies included, five used telephone and three used video interpreter services. All studies, except one, compared levels of satisfaction regarding in-person interpretation and telephone or video interpretation. One study compared satisfaction of two versions of video interpretation. There is evidence of higher satisfaction with hospital-trained interpreters compared with ad hoc (friend or family) or telephone interpreters. There is no difference in satisfaction between in-person interpreting, telephone interpreting or interpretation provided by the treating bilingual physician. Video interpreting has the same satisfaction as in-person interpreting, regardless of whether the patient and the physician are in the same room. Higher levels of satisfaction were reported for trained telephone interpreters than for in-person interpreters or an external telephone interpreter service. Conclusions Current evidence does no