7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementation of a palliative care intervention for patients with COPD – a mixed methods process evaluation of the COMPASSION study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Little direction exists on how to effectively implement palliative care for patients with COPD. In the COMPASSION study, we developed, executed, and evaluated a multifaceted implementation strategy to improve the uptake of region-tailored palliative care intervention components into routine COPD care. We evaluated the implementation strategy and assessed the implementation process, barriers, and facilitators.

          Methods

          A mixed methods process evaluation was performed. Primary and secondary healthcare providers in four hospital regions in the Netherlands were trained. Patients identified during hospitalisation for an acute exacerbation received palliative care and were followed for a year. Various sources were used: process data, questionnaires including the End-of-life Professional Caregiver Survey (EPCS), medical records, monitoring meetings, and interviews. The Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to categorize implementation determinants.

          Results

          The training sessions with roleplay were positively evaluated and increased professionals’ self-efficacy in providing palliative care statistically significantly. Of 98 patients identified, 44 (44.9%) received one or more palliative care conversations at the outpatient clinic. Having those conversations was highly valued by healthcare providers because it led to clarity and peace of mind for the patient and higher job satisfaction. Coordination and continuity remained suboptimal. Most important barriers to implementation were time constraints, the COVID-19 pandemic, and barriers related to transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration. Facilitators were the systematic screening of patients for palliative care needs, adapting to the patient’s readiness, conducting palliative care conversations with a pulmonologist and a COPD nurse together, and meeting regularly with a small team led by a dedicated implementation leader.

          Conclusions

          Providing integrated palliative care for patients with COPD is highly valued by healthcare providers but remains challenging. Our findings will guide future implementation efforts. Future research should focus on how to optimize transmural and interdisciplinary collaboration.

          Trial registration

          The COMPASSION study is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL7644. Registration date: 07/04/2019.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Using thematic analysis in psychology

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science

            Background Many interventions found to be effective in health services research studies fail to translate into meaningful patient care outcomes across multiple contexts. Health services researchers recognize the need to evaluate not only summative outcomes but also formative outcomes to assess the extent to which implementation is effective in a specific setting, prolongs sustainability, and promotes dissemination into other settings. Many implementation theories have been published to help promote effective implementation. However, they overlap considerably in the constructs included in individual theories, and a comparison of theories reveals that each is missing important constructs included in other theories. In addition, terminology and definitions are not consistent across theories. We describe the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research (CFIR) that offers an overarching typology to promote implementation theory development and verification about what works where and why across multiple contexts. Methods We used a snowball sampling approach to identify published theories that were evaluated to identify constructs based on strength of conceptual or empirical support for influence on implementation, consistency in definitions, alignment with our own findings, and potential for measurement. We combined constructs across published theories that had different labels but were redundant or overlapping in definition, and we parsed apart constructs that conflated underlying concepts. Results The CFIR is composed of five major domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation. Eight constructs were identified related to the intervention (e.g., evidence strength and quality), four constructs were identified related to outer setting (e.g., patient needs and resources), 12 constructs were identified related to inner setting (e.g., culture, leadership engagement), five constructs were identified related to individual characteristics, and eight constructs were identified related to process (e.g., plan, evaluate, and reflect). We present explicit definitions for each construct. Conclusion The CFIR provides a pragmatic structure for approaching complex, interacting, multi-level, and transient states of constructs in the real world by embracing, consolidating, and unifying key constructs from published implementation theories. It can be used to guide formative evaluations and build the implementation knowledge base across multiple studies and settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact.

              This study proposes methods for blending design components of clinical effectiveness and implementation research. Such blending can provide benefits over pursuing these lines of research independently; for example, more rapid translational gains, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for decision makers. This study proposes a "hybrid effectiveness-implementation" typology, describes a rationale for their use, outlines the design decisions that must be faced, and provides several real-world examples. An effectiveness-implementation hybrid design is one that takes a dual focus a priori in assessing clinical effectiveness and implementation. We propose 3 hybrid types: (1) testing effects of a clinical intervention on relevant outcomes while observing and gathering information on implementation; (2) dual testing of clinical and implementation interventions/strategies; and (3) testing of an implementation strategy while observing and gathering information on the clinical intervention's impact on relevant outcomes. The hybrid typology proposed herein must be considered a construct still in evolution. Although traditional clinical effectiveness and implementation trials are likely to remain the most common approach to moving a clinical intervention through from efficacy research to public health impact, judicious use of the proposed hybrid designs could speed the translation of research findings into routine practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                j.m.c.broese@lumc.nl
                m.j.j.van_der_kleij-van_der_sluis@lumc.nl
                verschuur@longalliantie.nl
                h.a.m.kerstjens@umcg.nl
                yvonne.engels@radboudumc.nl
                n.h.chavannes@lumc.nl
                Journal
                BMC Palliat Care
                BMC Palliat Care
                BMC Palliative Care
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-684X
                7 December 2022
                7 December 2022
                2022
                : 21
                : 219
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.10419.3d, ISNI 0000000089452978, Public Health & Primary care, , Leiden University Medical Centre, ; Leiden, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Lung Alliance Netherlands, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
                [3 ]GRID grid.4494.d, ISNI 0000 0000 9558 4598, Respiratory Medicine & Tuberculosis, , University Medical Centre Groningen, ; Groningen, The Netherlands
                [4 ]GRID grid.10417.33, ISNI 0000 0004 0444 9382, Anaesthesiology, Pain & Palliative medicine, , Radboud University Medical Centre, ; Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4815-2305
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8638-4978
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-7229
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7705-7927
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7669-1018
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8607-9199
                Article
                1110
                10.1186/s12904-022-01110-3
                9727973
                36476592
                aed5984d-15e1-4407-931c-ac0ab391640b
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 1 September 2022
                : 22 November 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,palliative care,implementation,evaluation studies

                Comments

                Comment on this article