建立共识以改善 NICE 生命末期治疗和护理规划指南的实施:一项混合方法研究。

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frances M Wu, Robert Pralat, Clare Leong, Victoria Carter, Zoë Fritz, Graham Martin
{"title":"建立共识以改善 NICE 生命末期治疗和护理规划指南的实施:一项混合方法研究。","authors":"Frances M Wu, Robert Pralat, Clare Leong, Victoria Carter, Zoë Fritz, Graham Martin","doi":"10.1186/s12904-024-01495-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the availability of guidance for the provision of good end-of-life care, there are significant variations across the UK in its delivery. This study sought to identify the influences on end-of-life treatment and care planning across several areas where deficiencies in evidence-based practice have been identified, and to develop consensus among healthcare providers and users for recommendations on how to address these deficits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey (106 responses), qualitative interviews (55 participants) and a consensus-building exercise (475 participants in the initial round) were undertaken. Participants included people approaching the end of life, people important to them, and health and care practitioners who help people plan for the end of life or provide end-of-life care. Recruitment was via online methods, including social media and online newsletters of relevant charities and professional organisations. Thematic analysis using the framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data led to the development of statements regarding recommendations for advancing implementation of good practice. A two-stage consensus-building exercise asked respondents first to rate these statements and then to rate and rank further sub-recommendations in three areas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results from the consensus building exercise confirmed that end-of-life care planning conversations are to be welcomed and encouraged, and that the priority should be to have the conversation (which could be initiated by a range of professionals, or people planning end-of-life care themselves), rather than to wait for an ideal time to have it. Further rounds identified specific components of a standardised record of end-of-life treatment and care preferences that should be prioritised, specific health and care staff that should be empowered through training in advanced communication, and aspects of communication most important to include in training for healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study has identified opportunities for action to improve end-of-life treatment and care by combining multiple stakeholder perspectives and building consensus among them: the resulting recommendations have sufficient granularity to be implemented and evaluated. They are of relevance to policy makers, those who train healthcare professionals, and those looking after patients approaching the end of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":48945,"journal":{"name":"BMC Palliative Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245782/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Consensus-building to improve implementation of NICE guidance on planning for end-of-life treatment and care: a mixed-methods study.\",\"authors\":\"Frances M Wu, Robert Pralat, Clare Leong, Victoria Carter, Zoë Fritz, Graham Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12904-024-01495-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite the availability of guidance for the provision of good end-of-life care, there are significant variations across the UK in its delivery. This study sought to identify the influences on end-of-life treatment and care planning across several areas where deficiencies in evidence-based practice have been identified, and to develop consensus among healthcare providers and users for recommendations on how to address these deficits.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An online survey (106 responses), qualitative interviews (55 participants) and a consensus-building exercise (475 participants in the initial round) were undertaken. Participants included people approaching the end of life, people important to them, and health and care practitioners who help people plan for the end of life or provide end-of-life care. Recruitment was via online methods, including social media and online newsletters of relevant charities and professional organisations. Thematic analysis using the framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data led to the development of statements regarding recommendations for advancing implementation of good practice. A two-stage consensus-building exercise asked respondents first to rate these statements and then to rate and rank further sub-recommendations in three areas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results from the consensus building exercise confirmed that end-of-life care planning conversations are to be welcomed and encouraged, and that the priority should be to have the conversation (which could be initiated by a range of professionals, or people planning end-of-life care themselves), rather than to wait for an ideal time to have it. Further rounds identified specific components of a standardised record of end-of-life treatment and care preferences that should be prioritised, specific health and care staff that should be empowered through training in advanced communication, and aspects of communication most important to include in training for healthcare professionals.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study has identified opportunities for action to improve end-of-life treatment and care by combining multiple stakeholder perspectives and building consensus among them: the resulting recommendations have sufficient granularity to be implemented and evaluated. They are of relevance to policy makers, those who train healthcare professionals, and those looking after patients approaching the end of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48945,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Palliative Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11245782/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01495-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-024-01495-3","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

背景:尽管有提供良好临终关怀的指南,但英国各地在提供临终关怀方面仍存在很大差异。本研究旨在确定生命末期治疗和护理规划在几个领域的影响因素,这些领域的循证实践存在不足,并在医疗服务提供者和使用者之间达成共识,就如何解决这些不足提出建议:方法:开展了在线调查(106 人回复)、定性访谈(55 人参加)和建立共识活动(首轮活动有 475 人参加)。参与者包括临近生命终结的人、对他们很重要的人、帮助人们规划生命终结或提供生命终结护理的医疗和护理从业人员。通过在线方式进行招募,包括社交媒体以及相关慈善机构和专业组织的在线通讯。采用框架法对定性数据进行了主题分析。对定性和定量数据进行综合后,形成了关于推进良好实践实施的建议声明。通过两个阶段的建立共识活动,要求受访者首先对这些声明进行评分,然后对三个领域的进一步次级建议进行评分和排序:建立共识活动的结果证实,临终关怀规划对话是值得欢迎和鼓励的,首要任务是进行对话(可以由一系列专业人士或规划临终关怀的人自己发起),而不是等待一个理想的时机进行对话。在进一步的讨论中,我们确定了应优先考虑的临终治疗和护理偏好标准化记录的具体内容、应通过高级沟通培训增强能力的特定医护人员,以及医护人员培训中最重要的沟通内容:我们的研究通过综合多个利益相关者的观点并在他们之间达成共识,确定了改善临终治疗和护理的行动机会:由此产生的建议具有足够的精细度,可以实施和评估。这些建议对政策制定者、医护人员培训者以及临终病人护理者都具有现实意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Consensus-building to improve implementation of NICE guidance on planning for end-of-life treatment and care: a mixed-methods study.

Background: Despite the availability of guidance for the provision of good end-of-life care, there are significant variations across the UK in its delivery. This study sought to identify the influences on end-of-life treatment and care planning across several areas where deficiencies in evidence-based practice have been identified, and to develop consensus among healthcare providers and users for recommendations on how to address these deficits.

Methods: An online survey (106 responses), qualitative interviews (55 participants) and a consensus-building exercise (475 participants in the initial round) were undertaken. Participants included people approaching the end of life, people important to them, and health and care practitioners who help people plan for the end of life or provide end-of-life care. Recruitment was via online methods, including social media and online newsletters of relevant charities and professional organisations. Thematic analysis using the framework method was used to analyse qualitative data. Synthesis of qualitative and quantitative data led to the development of statements regarding recommendations for advancing implementation of good practice. A two-stage consensus-building exercise asked respondents first to rate these statements and then to rate and rank further sub-recommendations in three areas.

Results: Results from the consensus building exercise confirmed that end-of-life care planning conversations are to be welcomed and encouraged, and that the priority should be to have the conversation (which could be initiated by a range of professionals, or people planning end-of-life care themselves), rather than to wait for an ideal time to have it. Further rounds identified specific components of a standardised record of end-of-life treatment and care preferences that should be prioritised, specific health and care staff that should be empowered through training in advanced communication, and aspects of communication most important to include in training for healthcare professionals.

Conclusions: Our study has identified opportunities for action to improve end-of-life treatment and care by combining multiple stakeholder perspectives and building consensus among them: the resulting recommendations have sufficient granularity to be implemented and evaluated. They are of relevance to policy makers, those who train healthcare professionals, and those looking after patients approaching the end of life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Palliative Care
BMC Palliative Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
9.70%
发文量
201
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Palliative Care is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in the clinical, scientific, ethical and policy issues, local and international, regarding all aspects of hospice and palliative care for the dying and for those with profound suffering related to chronic illness.
×
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