21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Improving regional care in the last year of life by setting up a pragmatic evidence-based Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle: results from a cross-sectional survey

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          To set up a pragmatic Plan–Do–Study–Act cycle by analysing patient experiences and determinants of satisfaction with care in the last year of life.

          Design

          Cross-sectional postbereavement survey.

          Setting

          Regional health services research and development structure representing all health and social care providers involved in the last year of life in Cologne, a city with 1 million inhabitants in Germany.

          Participants

          351 bereaved relatives of adult decedents, representative for age and gender, accidental and suspicious deaths excluded.

          Results

          For the majority (89%) of patients, home was the main place of care during their last year of life. Nevertheless, 91% of patients had at least one hospital admission and 42% died in hospital. Only 60% of informants reported that the decedent had been told that the disease was leading to death. Hospital physicians broke the news most often (58%), with their communication style often (30%) being rated as ‘not sensitive’. Informants indicated highly positive experiences with care provided by hospices (89% ‘good’) and specialist palliative home care teams (87% ‘good’). This proportion dropped to 41% for acute care hospitals, this rating being determined by the feeling of not being treated with respect and dignity (OR=23.80, 95% CI 7.503 to 75.498) and the impression that hospitals did not work well together with other services (OR=8.37, 95% CI 2.141 to 32.71).

          Conclusions

          Following those data, our regional priority for action now is improvement of care in acute hospitals, with two new projects starting, first, how to recognise and communicate a limited life span, and second, how to improve care during the dying phase. Results and further improvement projects will be discussed in a working group with the city of Cologne, and repeating this survey in 2 years will be able to measure regional achievements.

          Trial registration number

          DRKS00011925.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

          Patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer have a substantial symptom burden and may receive aggressive care at the end of life. We examined the effect of introducing palliative care early after diagnosis on patient-reported outcomes and end-of-life care among ambulatory patients with newly diagnosed disease. We randomly assigned patients with newly diagnosed metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer to receive either early palliative care integrated with standard oncologic care or standard oncologic care alone. Quality of life and mood were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks with the use of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) scale and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, respectively. The primary outcome was the change in the quality of life at 12 weeks. Data on end-of-life care were collected from electronic medical records. Of the 151 patients who underwent randomization, 27 died by 12 weeks and 107 (86% of the remaining patients) completed assessments. Patients assigned to early palliative care had a better quality of life than did patients assigned to standard care (mean score on the FACT-L scale [in which scores range from 0 to 136, with higher scores indicating better quality of life], 98.0 vs. 91.5; P=0.03). In addition, fewer patients in the palliative care group than in the standard care group had depressive symptoms (16% vs. 38%, P=0.01). Despite the fact that fewer patients in the early palliative care group than in the standard care group received aggressive end-of-life care (33% vs. 54%, P=0.05), median survival was longer among patients receiving early palliative care (11.6 months vs. 8.9 months, P=0.02). Among patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care led to significant improvements in both quality of life and mood. As compared with patients receiving standard care, patients receiving early palliative care had less aggressive care at the end of life but longer survival. (Funded by an American Society of Clinical Oncology Career Development Award and philanthropic gifts; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01038271.)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare

            Background Plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycles provide a structure for iterative testing of changes to improve quality of systems. The method is widely accepted in healthcare improvement; however there is little overarching evaluation of how the method is applied. This paper proposes a theoretical framework for assessing the quality of application of PDSA cycles and explores the consistency with which the method has been applied in peer-reviewed literature against this framework. Methods NHS Evidence and Cochrane databases were searched by three independent reviewers. Empirical studies were included that reported application of the PDSA method in healthcare. Application of PDSA cycles was assessed against key features of the method, including documentation characteristics, use of iterative cycles, prediction-based testing of change, initial small-scale testing and use of data over time. Results 73 of 409 individual articles identified met the inclusion criteria. Of the 73 articles, 47 documented PDSA cycles in sufficient detail for full analysis against the whole framework. Many of these studies reported application of the PDSA method that failed to accord with primary features of the method. Less than 20% (14/73) fully documented the application of a sequence of iterative cycles. Furthermore, a lack of adherence to the notion of small-scale change is apparent and only 15% (7/47) reported the use of quantitative data at monthly or more frequent data intervals to inform progression of cycles. Discussion To progress the development of the science of improvement, a greater understanding of the use of improvement methods, including PDSA, is essential to draw reliable conclusions about their effectiveness. This would be supported by the development of systematic and rigorous standards for the application and reporting of PDSAs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Mood and memory.

                Bookmark

                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
                2020
                24 November 2020
                : 10
                : 11
                : e035988
                Affiliations
                [1 ] departmentFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Department of Palliative Medicine , University of Cologne , Cologne, Germany
                [2 ] departmentFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Center for Integrated Oncology Aachen Bonn Cologne Dusseldorf (CIO ABCD) , University of Cologne , Cologne, Germany
                [3 ] departmentFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Clinical Trials Center(ZKS) , University of Cologne , Cologne, Germany
                [4 ] departmentFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Center for Health Services Research , University of Cologne , Cologne, Germany
                [5 ] departmentFaculty of Human Sciences and Faculty of Medicine, Institute for Medical Sociology, Health Services Research, and Rehabilitation Science , University of Cologne , Cologne, Germany
                [6 ] departmentFaculty of Medicine and University Hospital, Institute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology , University of Cologne , Cologne, Germany
                [7 ] departmentFaculty of Health and Medicine, Division of Health Research , University of Lancaster , Lancaster, UK
                [8 ] departmentFaculty of Educational and Social Sciences, Department of Educational Science , Heidelberg University of Education , Heidelberg, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Gloria Dust; gloria.dust@ 123456uk-koeln.de
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3119-0997
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7793-7745
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3135-2693
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-035988
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035988
                7689073
                33234614
                6db6e7c4-ead2-457b-b52f-52dbf52a44f7
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. 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
                : 25 November 2019
                : 27 August 2020
                : 01 October 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF);
                Award ID: 01GY1606
                Categories
                Health Services Research
                1506
                1704
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                adult palliative care,quality in health care,change management
                Medicine
                adult palliative care, quality in health care, change management

                Comments

                Comment on this article