Search

Background: Due to the uncertain disease trajectory and variable rate of progression in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), health care professionals (HCPs) are challenged in explaining what the future may hold for patients compared to those with lung cancer (LC). Support and communication of timely information can significantly improve health outcomes.Objective: This study sought to identify factors that impact communication and support and recommend ways to improve patients' understanding of living with life-threatening illness.Methods: Semi-structured interviews with patients with LC (n = 22) and advanced COPD (n = 18), their informal carers (21 LC and 18 COPD) and HCPs (n = 51). Patients were recruited from primary and secondary care in the East of England, UK, during 2010-12.Results: Directness and clarity characterized communication in LC, whereas uncertainty and limited explanations predominated in COPD. Discussions on how the disease might impact on decisions and preferences to be made in the future were less common in COPD. Information for LC patients was mainly from hospital clinicians and any information for COPD patients mainly from primary care clinicians.Conclusions: The experience of COPD patients could be improved by professionals soon after diagnosis explaining to them the typical pattern of decline in COPD, highlighting the inherent uncertainties about when exacerbations and death may occur. This conversation should lead to planning for the different challenges that the patient and informal carer recognize as most important to them. This contrasts with the 'breaking bad news' conversation that oncologists are highly trained to deliver. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Graphical displays of investigations are increasingly used in clinical care. Summaries of medical records for research or clinical review purposes can generate unmanageably large amounts of data, which may be helpfully summarised and displayed using timelines. During a prospective study of cancer care in primary care, care timelines were generated in Microsoft Visio, using data collected retrospectively from general practice records. Data from primary and secondary care consultations were included. Thirteen timelines were created, which proved valuable in summarising and analysing the data concerning the cases studied. Timelines provide a clear, concise way of displaying large amounts of diverse data, although some selectivity is required to facilitate interpretation. Generation of timelines in the software was time consuming: if they could be automatically generated within clinical IT systems, they would enable clinicians to generate useful summaries of care of complex cases, facilitating care reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The palliative care needs of older people residing in care homes are not always recognised. Approximately two-thirds of people in care homes have dementia. However, people with advanced dementia are not always recognised as having a terminal condition and, consequently, their end-of-life care needs are not well understood. The Gold Standards Framework in Care Homes (GSFCH) and the Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient (LCP) (care home version) are advocated to improve the quality of end-of-life care in care homes. However, evidence on the efficacy of such tools to improve outcomes or change practice is lacking. Aim: The aim of this research was to evaluate the impact on the quality of end-of-life care of the GSFCH and LCP in care homes with nursing. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 22 bereaved relatives/friends before, and 14 bereaved relatives/friends and six care home managers after, implementation of the GSFCH and LCP into seven care homes with nursing. Content analysis guided by the 7Cs of the GSFCH was conducted. Results: Care home staff changed their attitudes about dying. This enabled more informed end-of-life decision-making involving families/friends, staff and GPs. Findings suggest that improvements in care of the dying occurred following implementation of both tools. Conclusion: The GSFCH and LCP improve end-of-life care by influencing end-of-life culture, decision-making and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need to shed light on the pathways through which complex interventions mediate their effects in order to enable critical reflection on their transferability. We sought to explore and understand key stakeholder accounts of the acceptability, likely impact and strategies for optimizing and rolling-out a successful pharmacist-led information technology-enabled (PINCER) intervention, which substantially reduced the risk of clinically important errors in medicines management in primary care., Methods: Data were collected at two geographical locations in central England through a combination of one-to-one longitudinal semi-structured telephone interviews (one at the beginning of the trial and another when the trial was well underway), relevant documents, and focus group discussions following delivery of the PINCER intervention. Participants included PINCER pharmacists, general practice staff, researchers involved in the running of the trial, and primary care trust staff. PINCER pharmacists were interviewed at three different time-points during the delivery of the PINCER intervention. Analysis was thematic with diffusion of innovation theory providing a theoretical framework., Results: We conducted 52 semi-structured telephone interviews and six focus group discussions with 30 additional participants. In addition, documentary data were collected from six pharmacist diaries, along with notes from four meetings of the PINCER pharmacists and feedback meetings from 34 practices. Key findings that helped to explain the success of the PINCER intervention included the perceived importance of focusing on prescribing errors to all stakeholders, and the credibility and appropriateness of a pharmacist-led intervention to address these shortcomings. Central to this was the face-to-face contact and relationship building between pharmacists and a range of practice staff, and pharmacists' explicitly designated role as a change agent. However, important concerns were identified about the likely sustainability of this new model of delivering care, in the absence of an appropriate support network for pharmacists and career development pathways., Conclusions: This embedded qualitative inquiry has helped to understand the complex organizational and social environment in which the trial was undertaken and the PINCER intervention was delivered. The longitudinal element has given insight into the dynamic changes and developments over time. Medication errors and ways to address these are high on stakeholders' agendas. Our results further indicate that pharmacists were, because of their professional standing and skill-set, able to engage with the complex general practice environment and able to identify and manage many clinically important errors in medicines management. The transferability of the PINCER intervention approach, both in relation to other prescribing errors and to other practices, is likely to be high.

Background: Medication errors are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in primary care. The aims of this study are to determine the effectiveness, cost effectiveness and acceptability of a pharmacist-led information-technology-based complex intervention compared with simple feedback in reducing proportions of patients at risk from potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management in general (family) practice., Methods: RESEARCH SUBJECT GROUP: "At-risk" patients registered with computerised general practices in two geographical regions in England., Design: Parallel group pragmatic cluster randomised trial., Interventions: Practices will be randomised to either: (i) Computer-generated feedback; or (ii) Pharmacist-led intervention comprising of computer-generated feedback, educational outreach and dedicated support., Primary Outcome Measures: The proportion of patients in each practice at six and 12 months post intervention: - with a computer-recorded history of peptic ulcer being prescribed non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; - with a computer-recorded diagnosis of asthma being prescribed beta-blockers; - aged 75 years and older receiving long-term prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or loop diuretics without a recorded assessment of renal function and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES; These relate to a number of other examples of potentially hazardous prescribing and medicines management., Economic Analysis: An economic evaluation will be done of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), comparing the pharmacist-led intervention with simple feedback. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS: A qualitative study will be conducted to explore the views and experiences of health care professionals and NHS managers concerning the interventions, and investigate possible reasons why the interventions prove effective, or conversely prove ineffective., Sample Size: 34 practices in each of the two treatment arms would provide at least 80% power (two-tailed alpha of 0.05) to demonstrate a 50% reduction in error rates for each of the three primary outcome measures in the pharmacist-led intervention arm compared with a 11% reduction in the simple feedback arm., Discussion: At the time of submission of this article, 72 general practices have been recruited (36 in each arm of the trial) and the interventions have been delivered. Analysis has not yet been undertaken.

Objective: To identify major concerns of national and local importance in the provision, commissioning, research, and use of generalist end of life care., Design: A national consultation and prioritising exercise using a modified form of the nominal group technique., Participants: Healthcare practitioners, commissioners, academics, and representatives of user and voluntary groups., Setting: Primary and secondary care, specialist palliative care, and academic and voluntary sectors in England and Scotland., Results: 74% of those invited (210/285) participated. The stage of life to which "end of life care" referred was not understood in a uniform way. Perceptions ranged from a period of more than a year to the last few days of life. Prominent concerns included difficulties in prognosis and the availability of adequate support for patients with advanced non-malignant disease. Generalists in both primary and secondary care were usually caring for only a few patients approaching the end of life at any one time at a point in time. It was therefore challenging to maintain skills and expertise particularly as educational opportunities were often limited. End of life care took place among many other competing and incentivised activities for general practitioners in the community. More needs to be known about models of end of life care and how these can be integrated in a generalist's workload. A greater evidence base is needed about the effectiveness and application of current tools such as the gold standards framework and Liverpool care pathway and about models of palliation in patients with diseases other than cancer., Conclusions: Definitions of end of life care need clarification and standardisation. A greater evidence base is needed to define models of good practice together with a commitment to provide education and training and adequate resources for service provision. More needs to be known about the context of provision and the influence of competing priorities and incentives.