BackgroundTo improve transmural palliative care for older adults acutely admitted to hospital, the PalliSupport intervention, comprising an educational programme and transmural palliative care pathway, was developed. This care pathway involves timely identification of palliative care needs, advance care planning, multidisciplinary team meetings, warm handover, and follow-up home visits. With this study, we evaluate changes in patient-related outcomes and transmural collaboration after implementation of the care pathway.MethodsWe conducted a before-after study, in which we compared 1) unplanned hospital admission and death at place of preference and 2) transmural collaboration before implementation, up to six months, and six to 18 months after implementation. Data from palliative care team consultations were collected between February 2017 and February 2020 in a teaching hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsThe palliative care team held 711 first-time consultations. The number of consultation, as well as the number of consultations for patients with non-malignant diseases, and consultations for advance care planning increased after implementation. The implementation of the pathway had no statistically significant effect on unplanned hospitalization but associated positively with death at place of preference more than six months after implementation (during/shortly after adjusted OR: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.84–5.35; p-value: 0.11, long term after adjusted OR: 3.14; 95% CI: 1.49–6.62; p-value: 0.003). Effects on transmural collaboration showed that there were more warm handovers during/shortly after implementation, but not on long term. Primary care professionals attended multidisciplinary team meetings more often during and shortly after implementation, but did not more than six months after implementation.ConclusionsThe pathway did not affect unplanned hospital admissions, but more patients died at their place of preference after implementation. Implementation of the pathway increased attention to- and awareness for in-hospital palliative care, but did not improve transmural collaboration on long-term. For some patients, the hospital admissions might helped in facilitating death at place of preference.
MULTIFILE
OBJECTIVES: To improve transmural palliative care for acutely admitted older patients, the PalliSupport transmural care pathway was developed. Implementation of this care pathway was challenging. The aim of this study was to improve understanding why the implementation partly failed.DESIGN: A qualitative process evaluation study.SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: 17 professionals who were involved in the PalliSupport program were interviewed.METHODS: Online semi-structured interviews. Thematic analysis to create themes according to the implementation framework of Grol & Wensing.RESULTS: From this study, themes within four levels of implementation emerged: 1) The innovation: challenges in current palliative care, the setting of the pathway and boost for improvement; 2) Individual professional: feeling (un)involved and motivation; 3) Organizational level: project management; 4) Political and economic level: project plan and evaluation.CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We learned that the challenges involved in implementing a transmural care pathway in palliative care should not be underestimated. For successful implementation, we emphasize the importance of creating a program that fits the complexity of transmural palliative care. We suggest starting on a small scale and invest in project management. This could help to involve all stakeholders and anticipate current challenges in palliative care. To increase acceptance, create one care pathway that can start and be used in all care settings. Make sure that there is sufficient flexibility in time and room to adjust the project plan, so that a second pilot study can possibly be performed, and choose a scientific evaluation with both rigor and practical usefulness to evaluate effectiveness.
Background: Team-based palliative care interventions have shown positive results for patients at the end of life in both hospital and community settings. However, evidence on the effectiveness of transmural, that is, spanning hospital and home, team-based palliative care collaborations is limited. Aim: To systematically review whether transmural team-based palliative care interventions can prevent hospital admissions and increase death at home. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), PsychINFO (Ovid), and Cochrane Library (Wiley) were systematically searched until January 2021. Studies incorporating teams in which hospital and community professionals co-managed patients, hospital-based teams with community follow-up, and case-management interventions led by palliative care teams were included. Data was extracted by two researchers independently. Results: About 19 studies were included involving 6614 patients, of whom 2202 received an intervention. The overall pooled odds ratio of at least one hospital (re)admissions was 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.68) in favor of the intervention group. The highest reduction in admission was in the hospital-based teams with community follow-up: OR 0.21 (95% CI 0.07–0.66). The pooled effect on home deaths was 2.19 (95% CI 1.26–3.79), favoring the intervention, with also the highest in the hospital-based teams: OR 4.77 (95% CI 1.23–18.47). However, studies had high heterogeneity regarding intervention, study population, and follow-up time. Conclusion: Transmural team-based palliative care interventions, especially hospital-based teams that follow-up patients at home, show an overall effect on lowering hospital admissions and increasing the number of patients dying at home. However, broad clinical and statistical heterogeneity of included studies results in uncertainty about the effect size.
