Search

Background: The number of older people dying in long-term care facilities is increasing; however, care at the end of life can be suboptimal. Interventions to improve palliative care delivery within these settings have been shown to be effective in improving care, but little is known about their implementation. Aim: The aim of this study was to describe the nature of implementation strategies and to identify facilitators and/or barriers to implementing palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities. Design: Scoping review with a thematic synthesis, following the ENTREQ guidelines. Data sources: Published literature was identified from electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Controlled, non-controlled and qualitative studies and evaluations of interventions to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities were included. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were sourced and data extracted on the study characteristics, the implementation of the intervention, and facilitators and/or barriers to implementation. Results: The review identified 8902 abstracts, from which 61 studies were included in the review. A matrix of implementation was developed with four implementation strategies (facilitation, education/training, internal engagement and external engagement) and three implementation stages (conditions to introduce the intervention, embedding the intervention within day-to-day practice and sustaining ongoing change). Conclusion: Incorporating an implementation strategy into the development and delivery of an intervention is integral in embedding change in practice. The review has shown that the four implementation strategies identified varied considerably across interventions; however, similar facilitators and barriers were encountered across the studies identified. Further research is needed to understand the extent to which different implementation strategies can facilitate the uptake of palliative care interventions in long-term care facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The PACE 'Steps to Success' programme is a complex educational and development intervention for staff to improve palliative care in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). In a cluster randomized controlled trial, this programme has been implemented in 37 LTCFs in 7 European countries. Alongside an effectiveness study, a process evaluation study was conducted. This paper reports on the results of this process evaluation, of which the aim was to provide a more detailed understanding of the implementation of the PACE Programme across and within countries.Methods: The process evaluation followed the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and involved various measures and tools, including diaries for country trainers, evaluation questionnaires for care staff, attendance lists and interviews (online and face-to-face, individual and in groups) with country trainers, managers, PACE coordinators and other staff members. Based on key elements of the PACE Programme, a priori criteria for a high, medium and low level of the RE-AIM components Reach, Adoption, Implementation and intention to Maintenance were defined. Qualitative data on factors affecting each RE-AIM component gathered in the online discussion groups and interviews were analysed according to the principles of thematic analysis.Results: The performance of the PACE Programme on the RE-AIM components was highly variable within and across countries, with a high or medium score for in total 28 (out of 37) LTCFs on Reach, for 26 LTCFs on Adoption, for 35 LTCFs on Implementation and for 34 LTCFs on intention to Maintenance. The factors affecting performance on the different RE-AIM components could be classified into three major categories: (1) the PACE Programme itself and its way of delivery, (2) people working with the PACE Programme and (3) contextual factors. Several country-specific challenges in implementing the PACE Programme were identified.Conclusions: The implementation of the PACE Programme was feasible but leaves room for improvement. Our analysis helps to better understand the optimal levels of training and facilitation and provides recommendations to improve implementation in the LTC setting. The results of the process evaluation will be used to further adapt and improve the PACE Programme prior to its further dissemination.Trial Registration: The PACE study was registered at www.isrctn.com-ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) July 30, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An ageing population in the EU leads to a higher need of long-term institutional care at the end of life. At the same time, healthcare costs rise while resources remain limited. Consequently, an urgency to extend our knowledge on factors affecting efficiency of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) arises. This study aims to investigate and explain variation in technical efficiency of end-of-life care within and between LTCFs of six EU countries: Belgium (Flanders), England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland. In this study, technical efficiency reflects the LTCFs’ ability to obtain maximal quality of life (QoL) and quality of dying (QoD) for residents from a given set of resource inputs (personnel and capacity). Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected by means of questionnaires on deceased residents identified by LTCFs over a three-month period. An output-oriented data-envelopment analysis (DEA) was performed, producing efficiency scores, incorporating personnel and capacity as input and QoL and QoD as output. Scenario analysis was conducted. Regression analysis was performed on explanatory (country, LTCF type, ownership, availability of palliative care and opioids) and case mix (disease severity) variables. Results: 133 LTCFs of only one type (onsite nurses and offsite GPs) were considered in order to reduce heterogeneity. Variation in LTCF efficiency was found across as well as within countries. This variation was not explained by country, ownership, availability of palliative care or opioids. However, in the ‘hands-on care at the bedside’ scenario, i.e. only taking into account nursing and care assistants as input, Poland (p = 0.00) and Finland (p = 0.04) seemed to be most efficient. Conclusions: Efficiency of LTCFs differed extensively across as well as within countries, indicating room for considerable efficiency improvement. Our findings should be interpreted cautiously, as comprehensive comparative EU-wide research is challenging as it is influenced by many factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The number of residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in need of palliative care is growing in the Western world. Therefore, it is foreseen that significantly higher percentages of budgets will be spent on palliative care. However, cost-effectiveness analyses of palliative care interventions in these settings are lacking. Therefore, the objective of this paper was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the 'PACE Steps to Success' intervention. PACE (Palliative Care for Older People) is a 1-year palliative care programme aiming at integrating general palliative care into day-to-day routines in LTCFs, throughout seven EU countries.Methods: A cluster RCT was conducted. LTCFs were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care. LTCFs reported deaths of residents, about whom questionnaires were filled in retrospectively about resource use and quality of the last month of life. A health care perspective was adopted. Direct medical costs, QALYs based on the EQ-5D-5L and costs per quality increase measured with the QOD-LTC were outcome measures.Results: Although outcomes on the EQ-5D-5L remained the same, a significant increase on the QOD-LTC (3.19 points, p value 0.00) and significant cost-savings were achieved in the intervention group (€983.28, p value 0.020). The cost reduction mainly resulted from decreased hospitalization-related costs (€919.51, p value 0.018).Conclusions: Costs decreased and QoL was retained due to the PACE Steps to Success intervention. Significant cost savings and improvement in quality of end of life (care) as measured with the QOD-LTC were achieved. A clinically relevant difference of almost 3 nights shorter hospitalizations in favour of the intervention group was found. This indicates that timely palliative care in the LTCF setting can prevent lengthy hospitalizations while retaining QoL. In line with earlier findings, we conclude that integrating general palliative care into daily routine in LTCFs can be cost-effective.Trial Registration: ISRCTN14741671 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: By 2030, 30% of the European population will be aged 60 or over and those aged 80 and above will be the fastest growing cohort. An increasing number of people will die at an advanced age with multiple chronic diseases. In Europe at present, between 12 and 38% of the oldest people die in a long-term care facility. The lack of nationally representative empirical data, either demographic or clinical, about people who die in long-term care facilities makes appropriate policy responses more difficult. Additionally, there is a lack of comparable cross-country data; the opportunity to compare and contrast data internationally would allow for a better understanding of both common issues and country-specific challenges and could help generate hypotheses about different options regarding policy, health care organization and provision. The objectives of this study are to describe the demographic, facility stay and clinical characteristics of residents dying in long-term care facilities and the differences between countries.Methods: Epidemiological study (2015) in a proportionally stratified random sample of 322 facilities in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and England. The final sample included 1384 deceased residents. The sampled facilities received a letter introducing the project and asking for voluntary participation. Facility manager, nursing staff member and treating physician completed structured questionnaires for all deaths in the preceding 3 months.Results: Of 1384 residents the average age at death ranged from 81 (Poland) to 87 (Belgium, England) (p < 0.001) and length of stay from 6 months (Poland, Italy) to 2 years (Belgium) (p < 0.05); 47% (the Netherlands) to 74% (Italy) had more than two morbidities and 60% (England) to 83% (Finland) dementia, with a significant difference between countries (p < 0.001). Italy and Poland had the highest percentages with poor functional and cognitive status 1 month before death (BANS-S score of 21.8 and 21.9 respectively). Clinical complications occurred often during the final month (51.9% England, 66.4% Finland and Poland).Conclusions: The population dying in long-term care facilities is complex, displaying multiple diseases with cognitive and functional impairment and high levels of dementia. We recommend future policy should include integration of high-quality palliative and dementia care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Care homes are a common place of death for older adults, especially those with complex health needs or dementia. Representative, internationally comparable data on care home facilities and their residents is needed to monitor health and wellbeing in this population. Identification and collection of data from care homes can be challenging and often underreported. This paper draws on the experiences of the PACE study, a cross sectional mortality follow back study conducted in six European countries. Results: Multiple challenges were encountered in creating a sampling framework and contacting, recruiting and retaining care homes in the PACE study. Recruiting a randomly identified, representative cohort from a stratified sampling framework was problematic, as was engaging with care homes to ensure high response rates. Variation in the funding of care homes across the six countries involved in the study may explain the additional challenges encountered in England. Awareness of the challenges encountered in England in implementing an international study in care homes can inform the design and implementation of future studies within care homes. Further discussion is needed to determine the barriers and facilitators to conducting research in care homes, and how this is shaped by the focus of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives interRAI launched this study to introduce a set of standardized self-report measures through which residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) could describe their quality of life and services. This article reports on the international development effort, describing measures relative to privacy, food, security, comfort, autonomy, respect, staff responsiveness, relationships with staff, friendships, and activities. First, we evaluated these items individually and then combined them in summary scales. Second, we examined how the summary scales related to whether the residents did or did not say that the LTCFs in which they lived felt like home. Design Cross-sectional self-report surveys by residents of LTCFs regarding their quality of life and services. Setting/Participants Resident self-report data came from 16,017 individuals who resided in 355 LTCFs. Of this total, 7113 were from the Flanders region of Belgium, 5143 residents were from Canada, and 3358 residents were from the eastern and mid-western United States. Smaller data sets were collected from facilities in Australia (20), the Czech Republic (72), Estonia (103), Poland (118), and South Africa (87). Measurements The interRAI Self-Report Quality of Life Survey for LTCFs was used to assess residents' quality of life and services. It includes 49 items. Each area of inquiry (eg, autonomy) is represented by multiple items; the item sets have been designed to elicit resident responses that could range from highly positive to highly negative. Each item has a 5-item response set that ranges from “never” to “always.” Results Typically, we scored individual items scored based on the 2 most positive categories: “sometimes” and “always.” When these 2 categories were aggregated, among the more positive items were: being alone when wished (83%); decide what clothes to wear (85%); get needed services (87%); and treated with dignity by staff (88%). Areas with a less positive response included: staff knows resident's life story (30%); resident has enjoyable things to do on weekends (32%); resident has people to do things with (33%); and resident has friendly conversation with staff (45%). We identified 5 reliable scales; these scales were positively associated with the resident statement that the LTCF felt like home. Finally, international score standards were established for the items and scales. Conclusions This study establishes a set of standardized, self-report items and scales with which to assess the quality of life and services for residents in LTCFs. The study also demonstrates that these scales are significantly related to resident perception of the home-like quality of the facilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]