Results of a Feasibility Pilot Pragmatic Trial Implementing Palliative Care in Skilled Nursing Facilities.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Joan G Carpenter, Amy Jackson, Nancy Hodgson, Shijun Zhu, Merve Grulu, Laura C Hanson, Mary Ersek
{"title":"Results of a Feasibility Pilot Pragmatic Trial Implementing Palliative Care in Skilled Nursing Facilities.","authors":"Joan G Carpenter, Amy Jackson, Nancy Hodgson, Shijun Zhu, Merve Grulu, Laura C Hanson, Mary Ersek","doi":"10.1089/jpm.2024.0264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Background:</i></b> Seriously ill older adults are admitted for post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for curative, rehabilitative treatments, yet experience high rates of re-hospitalization, and death. The primary palliative care in post-acute care (PPC-PAC) intervention is an evidence-based approach designed to help people with serious illness align treatment plans with goals of care, optimize quality of life, and improve satisfaction with their care. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> To conduct a preliminary study and evaluate the feasibility of implementing the PPC-PAC intervention in the post-acute care SNF setting. <b><i>Design</i></b>: Two-group, multisite feasibility pilot pragmatic clinical trial with a non-equivalent design. <b><i>Measurements:</i></b> Primary outcome measures-eligibility, enrollment, and data collection rates; consultation satisfaction; and fidelity. Effectiveness outcome measure-quality of life using the Palliative Outcomes Scale version 2. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Close to 70% of those who were eligible and approached by the study team (45/65) enrolled in the trial throughout 12 SNFs in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States. Thirty-five were enrolled from intervention sites; 10 were enrolled from control sites (usual care). Most participants (80%) expressed general satisfaction with PPC-PAC, and 90% of clinicians implemented the PPC-PAC intervention as intended. At 21 days follow-up, there were no significant differences in effectiveness outcomes. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Implementation of the PPC-PAC intervention proved to be feasible and acceptable among older adults and clinicians. Future research should focus on testing the effectiveness of PPC-PAC and explore strategies for optimal intervention implementation and SNF staff engagement in the post-acute care setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":16656,"journal":{"name":"Journal of palliative medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of palliative medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2024.0264","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Seriously ill older adults are admitted for post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for curative, rehabilitative treatments, yet experience high rates of re-hospitalization, and death. The primary palliative care in post-acute care (PPC-PAC) intervention is an evidence-based approach designed to help people with serious illness align treatment plans with goals of care, optimize quality of life, and improve satisfaction with their care. Objectives: To conduct a preliminary study and evaluate the feasibility of implementing the PPC-PAC intervention in the post-acute care SNF setting. Design: Two-group, multisite feasibility pilot pragmatic clinical trial with a non-equivalent design. Measurements: Primary outcome measures-eligibility, enrollment, and data collection rates; consultation satisfaction; and fidelity. Effectiveness outcome measure-quality of life using the Palliative Outcomes Scale version 2. Results: Close to 70% of those who were eligible and approached by the study team (45/65) enrolled in the trial throughout 12 SNFs in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic United States. Thirty-five were enrolled from intervention sites; 10 were enrolled from control sites (usual care). Most participants (80%) expressed general satisfaction with PPC-PAC, and 90% of clinicians implemented the PPC-PAC intervention as intended. At 21 days follow-up, there were no significant differences in effectiveness outcomes. Conclusion: Implementation of the PPC-PAC intervention proved to be feasible and acceptable among older adults and clinicians. Future research should focus on testing the effectiveness of PPC-PAC and explore strategies for optimal intervention implementation and SNF staff engagement in the post-acute care setting.

在重症护理机构实施姑息关怀的可行性试验结果
背景:身患重病的老年人需要入住专业护理机构(SNF)接受治疗性和康复性的后期护理,但他们的再次住院率和死亡率却很高。急性期后护理中的初级姑息治疗(PPC-PAC)干预是一种基于证据的方法,旨在帮助重病患者根据护理目标调整治疗计划、优化生活质量并提高对护理的满意度。目标:开展一项初步研究,评估 PPC-PAC 干预的效果:开展一项初步研究,并评估在急性期后护理 SNF 环境中实施 PPC-PAC 干预的可行性。设计:两组、多地点可行性试点实用临床试验,采用非等效设计。测量:主要结果测量--合格率、注册率和数据收集率;咨询满意度和忠实度。有效性结果测量--使用姑息治疗结果量表第 2 版测量生活质量。结果:在美国东北部和大西洋中部的 12 家 SNF 中,有近 70% 的符合条件且与研究小组接触过的人(45/65)参加了试验。其中 35 人来自干预地点;10 人来自对照地点(常规护理)。大多数参与者(80%)对 PPC-PAC 表示基本满意,90% 的临床医生按照预期实施了 PPC-PAC 干预措施。在 21 天的随访中,疗效结果没有显著差异。结论:事实证明,PPC-PAC 干预措施的实施是可行的,并为老年人和临床医生所接受。未来的研究应侧重于测试 PPC-PAC 的有效性,并探索在急性期后护理环境中优化干预实施和 SNF 员工参与的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of palliative medicine
Journal of palliative medicine 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.70%
发文量
345
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Palliative Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed journal covering medical, psychosocial, policy, and legal issues in end-of-life care and relief of suffering for patients with intractable pain. The Journal presents essential information for professionals in hospice/palliative medicine, focusing on improving quality of life for patients and their families, and the latest developments in drug and non-drug treatments. The companion biweekly eNewsletter, Briefings in Palliative Medicine, delivers the latest breaking news and information to keep clinicians and health care providers continuously updated.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信