Search

Background Improving quality of palliative and end of life care in older people’s care homes is essential. Increasing numbers of people die in these settings, yet access to high quality palliative care is not routinely provided. While evidence for models of care are growing, there remains little insight regarding how to translate evidence-based models into practice. Palliative Care Needs Rounds (hereafter Needs Rounds) have a robust evidence base, for providing palliative care in care homes, reducing resident hospitalisations, improving residents’ quality of death, and increasing staff confidence in caring for dying residents. This study aimed to identify and describe the context and mechanisms of change that facilitate implementation of Needs Rounds in care homes, and enable other services to reap the benefits of the Needs Rounds approach to care provision. Methods Qualitative interviews, embedded within a large randomised control trial, were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 staff from 11 care homes using Needs Rounds. The sample included managers, nurses, and care assistants. Staff participated in individual or dyadic semi-structured interviews. Implementation science frameworks and thematic analysis were used to interpret and analyse the data. Results Contextual factors affecting implementation included facility preparedness for change, leadership, staff knowledge and skills, and organisational policies. Mechanisms of change that facilitated implementation included staff as facilitators, identifying and triaging residents, strategizing knowledge exchange, and changing clinical approaches to care. Care home staff also identified planning and documentation, and shifts in communication. The outcomes reported by staff suggest reductions in hospitalisations and problematic symptoms for residents, improved staff skills and confidence in caring for residents in their last months, weeks and days of life. Conclusions The significance of this paper is in offering ca

BACKGROUND:Care home residents are frequently transferred to hospital, rather than provided with appropriate and timely specialist care in the care home. AIM:To determine whether a model of care providing specialist palliative care in care homes, called Specialist Palliative Care Needs Rounds, could reduce length of stay in hospital. DESIGN:Stepped-wedge randomised control trial. The primary outcome was length of stay in acute care (over 24-h duration), with secondary outcomes being the number and cost of hospitalisations. Care homes were randomly assigned to cross over from control to intervention using a random number generator; masking was not possible due to the nature of the intervention. Analyses were by intention to treat. The trial was registered with ANZCTR: ACTRN12617000080325. Data were collected between 1 February 2017 and 30 June 2018. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS:1700 residents in 12 Australian care homes for older people. RESULTS:Specialist Palliative Care Needs Rounds led to reduced length of stay in hospital (unadjusted difference: 0.5 days; adjusted difference: 0.22 days with 95% confidence interval: -0.44, -0.01 and p = 0.038). The intervention also provided a clinically significant reduction in the number of hospitalisations by 23%, from 5.6 to 4.3 per facility-month. A conservative estimate of annual net cost-saving from reduced admissions was A$1,759,011 (US$1.3 m; UK£0.98 m). CONCLUSION:The model of care significantly reduces hospitalisations through provision of outreach by specialist palliative care clinicians. The data offer substantial evidence for Specialist Palliative Care Needs Rounds to reduce hospitalisations in older people approaching end of life, living in care homes.

OBJECTIVES:Mortality in care homes is high, but care of dying residents is often suboptimal, and many services do not have easy access to specialist palliative care. This study examined the impact of providing specialist palliative care on residents' quality of death and dying. DESIGN:Using a stepped wedge randomized control trial, care homes were randomly assigned to crossover from control to intervention using a random number generator. Analysis used a generalized linear and latent mixed model. The trial was registered with ANZCTR: ACTRN12617000080325. SETTING:Twelve Australian care homes in Canberra, Australia. PARTICIPANTS:A total of 1700 non-respite residents were reviewed from the 12 participating care homes. Of these residents, 537 died and 471 had complete data for analysis. The trial ran between February 2017 and June 2018. INTERVENTION:Palliative Care Needs Rounds (hereafter Needs Rounds) are monthly hour-long staff-only triage meetings to discuss residents at risk of dying without a plan in place. They are chaired by a specialist palliative care clinician and attended by care home staff. A checklist is followed to guide discussions and outcomes, focused on anticipatory planning. MEASUREMENTS:This article reports secondary outcomes of staff perceptions of residents' quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence, and completion of advance care planning documentation. We assessed (1) quality of death and dying, and (2) staff capability of adopting a palliative approach, completion of advance care plans, and medical power of attorney. RESULTS:Needs Rounds are associated with staff perceptions that residents had a better quality of death and dying (P < .01; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.83-12.21), particularly in the 10 facilities that complied with the intervention protocol (P < .01; 95% CI = 6.37-13.32). Staff self-reported perceptions of capability increased (P < .01; 95% CI = 2.73-6.72). CONCLUSION:The data offer evidence for monthly triage mee

BACKGROUND: Improving access to palliative care for older adults living in residential care is recognised internationally as a pressing clinical need. The integration of specialist palliative care in residential care for older adults is not yet standard practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the experience and impact of integrating a specialist palliative care model on residents, relatives and staff. METHODS: Focus groups were held with staff (n=40) and relatives (n=17). Thematic analysis was applied to the data. RESULTS: Three major themes were identified. The intervention led to (1) normalising death and dying in these settings, (2) timely access to a palliative care specialist who was able to prescribe anticipatory medications aiding symptom management and unnecessary hospitalisations and (3) better decision-making and planned care for residents, which meant that staff and relatives were better informed about, and prepared for, the resident's likely trajectory. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention normalised death and dying and also underlined the important role that specialists play in providing staff education, timely access to medicines and advance care planning. The findings from our study, and the growing wealth of evidence integrating specialist palliative care in residential care for older adults, indicate a number of priorities for care providers, academics and policymakers. Further work on determining the role of primary and specialist palliative care services in residential care settings is needed to inform service delivery models.

OBJECTIVES: Specialist palliative care is not a standardised component of service delivery in nursing home care in Australia. Specialist palliative care services can increase rates of advance care planning, decrease hospital admissions and improve symptom management in such facilities. New approaches are required to support nursing home residents in avoiding unnecessary hospitalisation and improving rates of dying in documented preferred place of death. This study examined whether the addition of a proactive model of specialist palliative care reduced resident transfer to the acute care setting, and achieved a reduction in hospital deaths. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was adopted, with participants at 4 residential care facilities. The intervention involved a palliative care nurse practitioner leading 'Palliative Care Needs Rounds' to support clinical decision-making, education and training. Participants were matched with historical decedents using propensity scores based on age, sex, primary diagnosis, comorbidities and the Aged Care Funding Instrument rating. Outcome measures included participants' hospitalisation in the past 3 months of life and the location of death. RESULTS: The data demonstrate that the intervention is associated with a substantial reduction in the length of hospital stays and a lower incidence of death in the acute care setting. While rates of hospitalisation were unchanged on average, length of admission was reduced by an average of 3.22 days (p<0.01 and 95% CI -5.05 to -1.41), a 67% decrease in admitted days. CONCLUSIONS: The findings have significant implications for promoting quality outcomes through models of palliative care service delivery in residential facilities.

OBJECTIVES: Palliative care needs rounds are triage meetings that have been introduced in residential care for older adults to help identify and prioritise care for people most at risk for unplanned dying with inadequately controlled symptoms. This study sought to generate an evidence-based checklist in order to support specialist palliative care clinicians integrate care in residential nursing homes for older people. METHODS: A grounded theory ethnographic study, involving non-participant observation and qualitative interviews. The study was conducted at four residential facilities for older people in one city. Observations and recordings of 15 meetings were made, and complimented by 13 interviews with staff attending the needs rounds. RESULTS: The palliative care needs round checklist is presented, alongside rich description of how needs rounds are conducted. Extracts from interviews with needs rounds participants illustrate the choice of items within the checklist and their importance in supporting the evolution towards efficient and effective high-quality specialist palliative care input to the care of older people living in residential care. CONCLUSIONS: The checklist can be used to support the integration of specialist palliative care into residential care to drive up quality care, provide staff with focused case-based education, maximise planning and reduce symptom burden for people at end of life.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the mechanisms of subcutaneous fluid administration in advanced illness. BACKGROUND: Hydration at end of life is a fundamental issue in quality care internationally. Decision-making regarding the provision of artificial hydration in advanced illness is complicated by a paucity of evidence-based guidance. Despite considerable attention given to the topic including two recent Cochrane reviews, there has been no focus in systematically identifying papers that report the mechanisms for delivering hydration subcutaneously. Consequently, there is a need to produce guidance on the site, mode, volume and rate of infusion, based on empirical evidence. DESIGN: Systematic review of papers reporting empirical research data. METHODS: Key databases (CENTRAL, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL) were searched in September 2015, with no date limitations. Inclusion criteria focused on hypodermoclysis in adults within an advanced illness population. Selected studies were reviewed for quality and a risk-of-bias assessment was conducted for the included studies. RESULTS: Fourteen papers were included in the analysis; most (n = 8) were conducted in hospices with others (n = 6) in long-stay units with a population affected by chronic conditions associated with ageing. Studies were of moderate or high quality. The site and mode of infusion were not well described in these papers, and rates of infusion varied widely allowing for little clear consensus to guide clinical practice in the administration of subcutaneous fluids. CONCLUSIONS: Studies under-report the mechanisms by which artificial hydration is provided, creating a paucity of evidence-based guidance by which to practice. There is a need for evidence generated from nonmalignant populations to ensure applicability to the large number of people with other advanced illness. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: In the absence of sufficiently powered robust evidence, the mode of delivery of artificial hyd