14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      How can the priorities of older, frail patients and their carers be used to inform policy and practice at the end of life? Insights from qualitative research across multiple settings

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The paper reports on experiences from older patients and their carers of current provision of end-of-life care in England. It draws on data from a study that sought to explore the extent to which national policy for end-of-life care in England was aligned with the aspirations of stakeholders. Specifically, the study explored the balance between clinical healthcare vs social and relational care asking how this was aligned to patient priorities at this time of life. Here, we examine the extent to which the patient voice is attended to when health and social care services are delivered to older people and consider how the experiences of patients and carers could be used to improve outcomes.

          Design

          The work draws on data collected as part of a realist informed study using a case study approach to gather data.

          Setting

          Clinical Commissioning Groups were used as the boundaries of the three case studies and within these geographical areas data was collected in hospitals, care homes, hospices and patient homes.

          Participants

          This paper reports on in-depth interviews conducted with 21 patients at the end of life and 22 relatives/carers (n=43).

          Results

          While the medical care patients received was generally praised, it was reported that relational care, particularly in respect to adult social care received at home, was fragmented and of varying quality. Relational and social support were key to the patient and carer experience yet appeared to be hard to access.

          Conclusion

          The work highlights the misalignment between the availability of different types of care at the end of life and patient priorities. More attention should be paid to the voice of older patients and their carers, drawing on their experiences to influence the way policy is translated into practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations

          Background Realist evaluation is increasingly used in health services and other fields of research and evaluation. No previous standards exist for reporting realist evaluations. This standard was developed as part of the RAMESES II project. The project’s aim is to produce initial reporting standards for realist evaluations. Methods We purposively recruited a maximum variety sample of an international group of experts in realist evaluation to our online Delphi panel. Panel members came from a variety of disciplines, sectors and policy fields. We prepared the briefing materials for our Delphi panel by summarising the most recent literature on realist evaluations to identify how and why rigour had been demonstrated and where gaps in expertise and rigour were evident. We also drew on our collective experience as realist evaluators, in training and supporting realist evaluations, and on the RAMESES email list to help us develop the briefing materials. Through discussion within the project team, we developed a list of issues related to quality that needed to be addressed when carrying out realist evaluations. These were then shared with the panel members and their feedback was sought. Once the panel members had provided their feedback on our briefing materials, we constructed a set of items for potential inclusion in the reporting standards and circulated these online to panel members. Panel members were asked to rank each potential item twice on a 7-point Likert scale, once for relevance and once for validity. They were also encouraged to provide free text comments. Results We recruited 35 panel members from 27 organisations across six countries from nine different disciplines. Within three rounds our Delphi panel was able to reach consensus on 20 items that should be included in the reporting standards for realist evaluations. The overall response rates for all items for rounds 1, 2 and 3 were 94 %, 76 % and 80 %, respectively. Conclusion These reporting standards for realist evaluations have been developed by drawing on a range of sources. We hope that these standards will lead to greater consistency and rigour of reporting and make realist evaluation reports more accessible, usable and helpful to different stakeholders.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Dignity and the essence of medicine: the A, B, C, and D of dignity conserving care.

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2023
                21 March 2023
                : 13
                : 3
                : e068751
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentPHES , LSHTM , London, UK
                [2 ] departmentCentre for Health Services Studies , University of Kent , Canterbury, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Rhiannon Jane Barker; rhiannon.barker@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7854-6810
                Article
                bmjopen-2022-068751
                10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068751
                10032383
                36944473
                3f66d8b0-96e8-4b13-aae0-b541f744534b
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 03 October 2022
                : 23 February 2023
                Categories
                Health Policy
                1506
                1703
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                palliative care,qualitative research,health policy,quality in health care
                Medicine
                palliative care, qualitative research, health policy, quality in health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log