Dataset Information

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

ABSTRACT:

Background

In England, Integrated Care Systems have been established to improve integration of care, as part of the NHS Long Term Plan. For people near the end of life, palliative care can improve integration of care. We aimed to understand whether and how palliative and end of life care was included in Integrated Care System strategies, and to consider priorities for strengthening this.

Methods

Documentary analysis of Integrated Care System (ICS) strategies, using summative content analysis, was performed. Google searches were used to identify NHS Trust, Clinical Commissioning Group or ICS websites. We searched these websites to identify strategies. Key terms were used to identify relevant content. Themes were mapped onto an adapted logic model for integrated care.

Results

23 Integrated Care System strategy documents were identified. Of these, two did not mention any of the key terms, and six highlighted palliative and end of life care as either a priority, area of focus, or an ambition. While most (19/23) strategies included elements that could be mapped onto the adapted logic model for integrated care, the thread from enablers and components, to structures, processes, outcomes, and impact was incomplete.

Conclusions

Greater prioritisation of palliative and end of life care within recently established Integrated Care Systems could improve outcomes for people near the end of life, as well as reduce reliance on acute hospital care. Integrated Care Systems should consider involving patients, the public and palliative care stakeholders in the ongoing development of strategies. For strategies to be effective, our adapted logic model can be used to outline how different components of care fit together to achieve defined outcomes and impact.

SUBMITTER: Chambers RL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7614372 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Chambers Rachel L RL Pask Sophie S Higginson Irene J IJ Barclay Stephen S Murtagh Fliss E M FEM Sleeman Katherine E KE

AMRC open research 20230101

<h4>Background</h4>In England, Integrated Care Systems have been established to improve integration of care, as part of the NHS Long Term Plan. For people near the end of life, palliative care can improve integration of care. We aimed to understand whether and how palliative and end of life care was included in Integrated Care System strategies, and to consider priorities for strengthening this.<h4>Methods</h4>Documentary analysis of Integrated Care System (ICS) strategies, using summative conte ...[more]

PMID: 36987529

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccess to high-quality palliative care is inadequate for most people living and dying with serious illness. Policies aimed at optimising delivery of palliative and end of life care are an important mechanism to improve quality of care for the dying. The extent to which palliative care is included in national health policies is unknown. We aimed to identify priorities and opportunities for palliative and end of life care in national health policies in the UK.MethodsDocumentary analysis consisting of 1) summative content analysis to describe the extent to which palliative and end of life care is referred to and/or prioritised in national health and social care policies, and 2) thematic analysis to explore health policy priorities that are opportunities to widen access to palliative and end of life care for people with serious illness. Relevant national policy documents were identified through web searches of key government and other organisations, and through expert consultation. Documents included were UK-wide or devolved (i.e. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales), health and social care government strategies published from 2010 onwards.ResultsFifteen policy documents were included in the final analysis. Twelve referred to palliative or end of life care, but details about what should improve, or mechanisms to achieve this, were sparse. Policy priorities that are opportunities to widen palliative and end of life care access comprised three inter-related themes: (1) integrated care - conceptualised as reorganisation of services as a way to enable improvement; (2) personalised care - conceptualised as allowing people to shape and manage their own care; and (3) support for unpaid carers - conceptualised as enabling unpaid carers to live a more independent lifestyle and balance caring with their own needs.ConclusionsAlthough information on palliative and end of life care in UK health and social care policies was sparse, improving palliative care may provide an evidence-based approach to achieve the stated policy priorities of integrated care, personalised care, and support for unpaid carers. Aligning existing evidence of the benefits of palliative care with the three priorities identified may be an effective mechanism to both strengthen policy and improve care for people who are dying.

Project description:Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation.

Project description:BackgroundAccessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs.MethodsMixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data.ResultsReflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features-notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK's technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the 'digital front door' (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts.ConclusionsGeneral practices' responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated. We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs.

Project description:Areas of open science (OS) policy and practice are already relatively well-advanced in several countries and sectors through the initiatives of some governments, funders, philanthropy, researchers and the community. Nevertheless, the current research and innovation system, including in the focus of this report, the life sciences, remains weighted against OS. In October 2017, thought-leaders from across the world gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful OS looks like. We focused on OS partnerships as this is an emerging model that aims to accelerate science and innovation. These outcomes are captured in a first meeting report: Defining Success in Open Science. On several occasions, these conversations turned to the challenges that must be addressed and new policies required to effectively and sustainably advance OS practice. Thereupon, in this report, we describe the concerns raised and what is needed to address them supplemented by our review of the literature, and suggest the stakeholder groups that may be best placed to begin to take action. It emerges that to be successful, OS will require the active engagement of all stakeholders: while the research community must develop research questions, identify partners and networks, policy communities need to create an environment that is supportive of experimentation by removing barriers. This report aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about OS and its implementation. It is also part of a step-wise process to develop and mobilize a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assist global stakeholders in implementing high value OS collaborations. Currently in co-development through an open and international process, this set of measures will allow the generation of needed evidence on the influence of OS partnerships on research, innovation, and critical social and economic goals.

Project description:IntroductionOver the last decades, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been developed to better understand the patient's perspective and enable patient-centred care. In palliative care, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is recommended as a PRO tool. Its implementation in specialised palliative home care (SPHC) would benefit from an electronic version validated for the setting.Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance, the study Palli-MONITOR is developing (phase 1) and testing the feasibility (phase 2) of implementing the electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) in the SPHC setting to inform a cluster-randomised phase 3 trial.Methods and analysisPalli-MONITOR is a multicentre, sequential mixed-methods, two-phase development and feasibility study. The study consists of four substudies. In phase 1 (MRC development phase), qualitative patient interviews and focus groups with SPHC professionals are used to identify barriers and facilitators of eIPOS (substudy I). Substudy II tests the equivalence of eIPOS and IPOS in a crossover randomised controlled trial. Phase 2 (MRC feasibility/piloting phase) includes a quasi-experimental study with two control groups (substudy III), and qualitative interviews as well as focus groups to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the developed intervention (substudy IV).Qualitative data will be analysed with thematic analysis following the framework approach. Quantitative analysis uses a two-way intraclass correlation coefficients model for the equivalence testing. Quantitative analysis of the quasi-experimental study will focus on the primary outcomes, recruitment rates and completeness of eIPOS. Secondary outcomes will include intraindividual change in palliative symptoms and concerns, quality of life and symptom burden.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the ethics committee of the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich was received for all study parts. Results and experiences will be presented at congresses and in written form. Additionally, participating SPHC teams will receive summarised results.Trial registration numberNCT03879668.

Dataset Information

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Inclusion of palliative and end of life care in health strategies aimed at integrated care: a documentary analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets