3 resultados para Family healthcare unit
Resumo:
BACKGROUND:
Palliative care focuses on supporting patients diagnosed with advanced, incurable disease; it is 'family centered', with the patient and their family (the unit of care) being core to all its endeavours. However, approximately 30-50% of carers experience psychological distress which is typically under recognised and consequently not addressed. Family meetings (FM) are recommended as a means whereby health professionals, together with family carers and patients discuss psychosocial issues and plan care; however there is minimal empirical research to determine the net effect of these meetings and the resources required to implement them systematically. The aims of this study were to evaluate: (1) if family carers of hospitalised patients with advanced disease (referred to a specialist palliative care in-patient setting or palliative care consultancy service) who receive a FM report significantly lower psychological distress (primary outcome), fewer unmet needs, increased quality of life and feel more prepared for the caregiving role; (2) if patients who receive the FM experience appropriate quality of end-of-life care, as demonstrated by fewer hospital admissions, fewer emergency department presentations, fewer intensive care unit hours, less chemotherapy treatment (in last 30 days of life), and higher likelihood of death in the place of their choice and access to supportive care services; (3) the optimal time point to deliver FM and; (4) to determine the cost-benefit and resource implications of implementing FM meetings into routine practice.
METHODS:
Cluster type trial design with two way randomization for aims 1-3 and health economic modeling and qualitative interviews with health for professionals for aim 4.
DISCUSSION:
The research will determine whether FMs have positive practical and psychological impacts on the family, impacts on health service usage, and financial benefits to the health care sector. This study will also provide clear guidance on appropriate timing in the disease/care trajectory to provide a family meeting.
Resumo:
Background
There is a growing body of evidence suggesting patients with life-limiting illness use medicines inappropriately and unnecessarily. In this context, the perspective of patients, their carers and the healthcare professionals responsible for prescribing and monitoring their medication is important for developing deprescribing strategies. The aim of this study was to explore the lived experience of patients, carers and healthcare professionals in the context of medication use in life-limiting illness.
MethodsIn-depth interviews, using a phenomenological approach: methods of transcendental phenomenology were used for the patient and carer interviews, while hermeneutic phenomenology was used for the healthcare professional interviews.
ResultsThe study highlighted that medication formed a significant part of a patient’s day-to-day routine; this was also apparent for their carers who took on an active role-as a gatekeeper of care-in managing medication. Patients described the experience of a point in which, in their disease journey, they placed less importance on taking certain medications; healthcare professionals also recognize this and refer it as a ‘transition’. This point appeared to occur when the patient became accepting of their illness and associated life expectancy. There was also willingness by patients, carers and healthcare professionals to review and alter the medication used by patients in the context of life-limiting illness.
ConclusionsThere is a need to develop deprescribing strategies for patients with life-limiting illness. Such strategies should seek to establish patient expectations, consider the timing of the discussion about ceasing treatment and encourage the involvement of other stakeholders in the decision-making progress.
Resumo:
Background: There are a lack of reliable data on the epidemiology and associated burden and costs of asthma. We sought to provide the first UK-wide estimates of the epidemiology, healthcare utilisation and costs of asthma.
Methods: We obtained and analysed asthma-relevant data from 27 datasets: these comprised national health surveys for 2010-11, and routine administrative, health and social care datasets for 2011-12; 2011-12 costs were estimated in pounds sterling using economic modelling.
Results: The prevalence of asthma depended on the definition and data source used. The UK lifetime prevalence of patient-reported symptoms suggestive of asthma was 29.5 % (95 % CI, 27.7-31.3; n = 18.5 million (m) people) and 15.6 % (14.3-16.9, n = 9.8 m) for patient-reported clinician-diagnosed asthma. The annual prevalence of patient-reported clinician-diagnosed-and-treated asthma was 9.6 % (8.9-10.3, n = 6.0 m) and of clinician-reported, diagnosed-and-treated asthma 5.7 % (5.7-5.7; n = 3.6 m). Asthma resulted in at least 6.3 m primary care consultations, 93,000 hospital in-patient episodes, 1800 intensive-care unit episodes and 36,800 disability living allowance claims. The costs of asthma were estimated at least £1.1 billion: 74 % of these costs were for provision of primary care services (60 % prescribing, 14 % consultations), 13 % for disability claims, and 12 % for hospital care. There were 1160 asthma deaths.
Conclusions: Asthma is very common and is responsible for considerable morbidity, healthcare utilisation and financial costs to the UK public sector. Greater policy focus on primary care provision is needed to reduce the risk of asthma exacerbations, hospitalisations and deaths, and reduce costs.
