PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease: the PACKS study—quality of life, decision making, costs and impact on carers in people managed without dialysis

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease opting for conservative management rather than dialysis is unknown but likely to be growing as increasingly frail patients with advanced renal disease present to renal services. Conservative kidney management includes ongoing medical input and support from a multidisciplinary team. There is limited evidence concerning patient and carer experience of this choice. This study will explore quality of life, symptoms, cognition, frailty, performance decision making, costs and impact on carers in people with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis and is funded by the National Institute of Health Research in the UK.

METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, longitudinal study, patients will be recruited in the UK, by renal research nurses, once they have made the decision not to embark on dialysis. Carers will be asked to 'opt-in' with consent from patients. The approach includes longitudinal quantitative surveys of quality of life, symptoms, decision making and costs for patients and quality of life and costs for carers, with questionnaires administered quarterly over 12 months. Additionally, the decision making process will be explored via qualitative interviews with renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists.

DISCUSSION: The study is designed to capture patient and carer profiles when conservative kidney management is implemented, and understand trajectories of care-receiving and care-giving with the aim of optimising palliative care for this population. It will explore the interactions that lead to clinical care decisions and the impact of these decisions on informal carers with the intention of improving clinical outcomes for patients and the experiences of care givers.

Establishing the validity of English GP Patient Survey items evaluating out-of-hours care

Background A 2014 national audit used the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) to compare service users’ experience of out-of-hours general practitioner (GP) services, yet there is no published evidence on the validity of these GPPS items. Objectives Establish the construct and concurrent validity of GPPS items evaluating service users’ experience of GP out-of-hours care. Methods Cross-sectional postal survey of service users (n=1396) of six English out-of-hours providers. Participants reported on four GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care (three items modified following cognitive interviews with service users), and 14 evaluative items from the Out-of-hours Patient Questionnaire (OPQ). Construct validity was assessed through correlations between any reliable (Cochran's α>0.7) scales, as suggested by a principal component analysis of the modified GPPS items, with the ‘entry access’ (four items) and ‘consultation satisfaction’ (10 items) OPQ subscales. Concurrent validity was determined by investigating whether each modified GPPS item was associated with thematically related items from the OPQ using linear regressions. Results The modified GPPS item-set formed a single scale (α=0.77), which summarised the two-component structure of the OPQ moderately well; explaining 39.7% of variation in the ‘entry access’ scores (r=0.63) and 44.0% of variation in the ‘consultation satisfaction’ scores (r=0.66), demonstrating acceptable construct validity. Concurrent validity was verified as each modified GPPS item was highly associated with a distinct set of related items from the OPQ. Conclusions Minor modifications are required for the English GPPS items evaluating out-of-hours care to improve comprehension by service users. A modified question set was demonstrated to comprise a valid measure of service users’ overall satisfaction with out-of-hours care received. This demonstrates the potential for the use of as few as four items in benchmarking providers and assisting services in identifying, implementing and assessing quality improvement initiatives.

The use of patient experience survey data by out-of-hours primary care services: a qualitative interview study

Background English National Quality Requirements mandate out-of-hours primary care services to routinely audit patient experience, but do not state how it should be done.

Objectives We explored how providers collect patient feedback data and use it to inform service provision. We also explored staff views on the utility of out-of-hours questions from the English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS).

Methods A qualitative study was conducted with 31 staff (comprising service managers, general practitioners and administrators) from 11 out-of-hours primary care providers in England, UK. Staff responsible for patient experience audits within their service were sampled and data collected via face-to-face semistructured interviews.

Results Although most providers regularly audited their patients’ experiences by using patient surveys, many participants expressed a strong preference for additional qualitative feedback. Staff provided examples of small changes to service delivery resulting from patient feedback, but service-wide changes were not instigated. Perceptions that patients lacked sufficient understanding of the urgent care system in which out-of-hours primary care services operate were common and a barrier to using feedback to enable change. Participants recognised the value of using patient experience feedback to benchmark services, but perceived weaknesses in the out-of-hours items from the GPPS led them to question the validity of using these data for benchmarking in its current form.

Conclusions The lack of clarity around how out-of-hours providers should audit patient experience hinders the utility of the National Quality Requirements. Although surveys were common, patient feedback data had only a limited role in service change. Data derived from the GPPS may be used to benchmark service providers, but refinement of the out-of-hours items is needed.

Insertion dans les soins après une première hospitalisation dans un secteur pour psychose [Linkage to care after first hospitalisation for psychosis]

BACKGROUND: First hospitalisation for a psychotic episode causes intense distress to patients and families, but offers an opportunity to make a diagnosis and start treatment. However, linkage to outpatient psychiatric care remains a notoriously difficult step for young psychotic patients, who frequently interrupt treatment after hospitalisation. Persistence of symptoms, and untreated psychosis may therefore remain a problem despite hospitalisation and proper diagnosis. With persisting psychotic symptoms, numerous complications may arise: breakdown in relationships, loss of family and social support, loss of employment or study interruption, denial of disease, depression, suicide, substance abuse and violence. Understanding mechanisms that might promote linkage to outpatient psychiatric care is therefore a critical issue, especially in early intervention in psychotic disorders. OBJECTIVE: To study which factors hinder or promote linkage of young psychotic patients to outpatient psychiatric care after a first hospitalisation, in the absence of a vertically integrated program for early psychosis. Method. File audit study of all patients aged 18 to 30 who were admitted for the first time to the psychiatric University Hospital of Lausanne in the year 2000. For statistical analysis, chi2 tests were used for categorical variables and t-test for dimensional variables; p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: 230 patients aged 18 to 30 were admitted to the Lausanne University psychiatric hospital for the first time during the year 2000, 52 of them with a diagnosis of psychosis (23%). Patients with psychosis were mostly male (83%) when compared with non-psychosis patients (49%). Furthermore, they had (1) 10 days longer mean duration of stay (24 vs 14 days), (2) a higher rate of compulsory admissions (53% vs 22%) and (3) were more often hospitalised by a psychiatrist rather than by a general practitioner (83% vs 53%). Other socio-demographic and clinical features at admission were similar in the two groups. Among the 52 psychotic patients, 10 did not stay in the catchment area for subsequent treatment. Among the 42 psychotic patients who remained in the catchment area after discharge, 20 (48%) did not attend the scheduled or rescheduled outpatient appointment. None of the socio demographic characteristics were associated with attendance to outpatient appointments. On the other hand, voluntary admission and suicidal ideation before admission were significantly related to attending the initial appointment. Moreover, some elements of treatment seemed to be associated with higher likelihood to attend outpatient treatment: (1) provision of information to the patient regarding diagnosis, (2) discussion about the treatment plan between in- and outpatient staff, (3) involvement of outpatient team during hospitalisation, and (4) elaboration of concrete strategies to face basic needs, organise daily activities or education and reach for help in case of need. CONCLUSION: As in other studies, half of the patients admitted for a first psychotic episode failed to link to outpatient psychiatric care. Our study suggests that treatment rather than patient's characteristics play a critical role in this phenomenon. Development of a partnership and involvement of patients in the decision process, provision of good information regarding the illness, clear definition of the treatment plan, development of concrete strategies to cope with the illness and its potential complications, and involvement of the outpatient treating team already during hospitalisation, all came out as critical strategies to facilitate adherence to outpatient care. While the current rate of disengagement after admission is highly concerning, our finding are encouraging since they constitute strategies that can easily be implemented. An open approach to psychosis, the development of partnership with patients and a better coordination between inpatient and outpatient teams should therefore be among the targets of early intervention programs. These observations might help setting up priorities when conceptualising new programs and facilitate the implementation of services that facilitate engagement of patients in treatment during the critical initial phase of psychotic disorders.

Effect of combined care nursing on patient satisfaction, staff satisfaction, and quality of care /

This research evaluates the effect of combined care nursing on three outcomes: i) patient satisfaction; ii) staff satisfaction; and iii) quality of care. Oakville-Trafalgar Memorial Hospital was in the early planning stages of changing to combined care nursing from the traditional method of providing separate postpartum and nursery care to mothers and babies. The opportunity existed to evaluate formally the change to combined care. There were three hypotheses to be investigated. Data were collected from four sources: patient surveys, staff surveys, informal interviews, and internal hospital documents. Both quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed. The surveys were administered on three different occasions to patients and staff. Other sources of data included informal interviews with patients and staff who responded to the surveys, and chart audits.The study findings revealed that the majority of respondents had increased levels of satisfaction and perceptions of increased quality of care following implementation of combined care. These findings, related to combined care and the role of change in its implementation and evaluation, indicate that there are no right or easy answers about how to make new ideas become reality in a smooth, pleasant way.

La collaboration médecin-pharmacien en soins de première ligne pour la gestion des dyslipidémies : un essai clinique contrôlé et randomisé en grappe (étude TEAM)

L’hypothèse de cette thèse est qu’une pratique collaborative médecins de famille-pharmaciens communautaires (PCMP) où le pharmacien fournit des soins pharmaceutiques avancés avec ajustement posologique d’une statine permettrait aux patients avec une dyslipidémie une réduction plus importante de leur LDL et augmenterait le nombre de patients atteignant leurs cibles lipidiques. Dans une étude clinique contrôlée et randomisée en grappe visant à évaluer une PCMP pour des patients ayant une dyslipidémie (l’étude TEAM), une journée de formation basée sur un protocole de traitement et des outils cliniques a été offerte aux pharmaciens PCMP pour les préparer à fournir des soins pharmaceutiques avancés. Les connaissances des pharmaciens sur les dyslipidémies étaient faibles avant la formation mais se sont améliorées après (moyenne de 45,8% à 88,2%; p < 0,0001). Après la formation, les pharmaciens avaient un haut niveau d’habiletés cliniques théoriques et pratiques. Bref, une journée de formation basée sur un protocole de traitement et des outils cliniques était nécessaire et adéquate pour préparer les pharmaciens à fournir des soins pharmaceutiques avancés à des patients ayant une dyslipidémie dans le contexte d’une étude clinique. Dans l’étude TEAM, 15 grappes de médecins et de pharmaciens (PCMP : 8; soins habituels (SH) : 7) ont suivi pendant un an, 225 patients (PCMP : 108; SH : 117) à risque modéré ou élevé de maladie coronarienne qui débutaient ou étaient déjà traités par une monothérapie avec une statine mais qui n’avaient pas atteint les cibles lipidiques. Au départ, par rapport aux patients SH, les patients PCMP avaient un niveau de LDL plus élevé (3,5 mmol/L vs 3,2 mmol/L) et recevaient moins de statine à puissance élevée (11,1 % vs 39,7 %). Après 12 mois, la différence moyenne du changement de LDL entre les groupes était égale à -0,2 mmol/L (IC95%: -0,3 à -0,1) et -0,04 (IC95%: -0,3 à 0,2), sans ajustement et avec ajustement, respectivement. Le risque relatif d’atteindre les cibles lipidiques était 1,10 (IC95%: 0,95 à 1,26) et 1,16 (1,01 à 1,32), sans ajustement et avec ajustement, respectivement. Les patients PCMP ont eu plus de visites avec un professionnel de la santé et d’analyses de laboratoire et étaient plus enclins à rapporter des changements de style de vie. La PCMP a amélioré l’adhésion aux lignes directrices en augmentant la proportion de patients aux cibles lipidiques. Les données intérimaires de l’étude TEAM (PCMP : 100 patients; SH : 67 patients) ont permis d’évaluer les coûts directs annuels du suivi du pharmacien du groupe PCMP (formation, visites, laboratoire), du médecin (visites, laboratoire) et du traitement hypolipémiant. Le suivi du pharmacien a coûté 404,07$/patient, incluant 320,67$ pour former les pharmaciens. Le coût global incrémental était 421,01$/patient. Une pratique collaborative pour des patients ayant une dyslipidémie engendre un coût raisonnable.