Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068671›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2022

Australian residential aged care home staff experiences of implementing an intervention to improve palliative and end-of-life care for residents: A qualitative study.

Srivalli Vilapakkam Nagarajan, Christopher J Poulos, Josephine M Clayton, Mustafa Atee, Thomas Morris, Melanie R Lovell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Srivalli Vilapakkam NagarajanThe Palliative Centre, HammondCare, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6004-5994
Christopher J PoulosCentre for Positive Ageing, HammondCare, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3090-3839
Josephine M ClaytonThe Palliative Centre, HammondCare, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9856-5434
Mustafa AteeThe Dementia Centre, HammondCare, Osborne Park, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0837-3245
Thomas MorrisThe Dementia Centre, HammondCare, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3627-6095
Melanie R LovellThe Palliative Centre, HammondCare, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1407-2748

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Access to high-quality and safe evidence-based palliative care (PC) is important to ensure good end-of-life care for older people in residential aged care homes (RACHs). However, many barriers to providing PC in RACHs are frequently cited. The Quality End-of-Life Care (QEoLC) Project was a multicomponent intervention that included training, evidence-based tools and tele-mentoring, aiming to equip healthcare professionals and careworkers in RACHs with knowledge, skills and confidence in providing PC to residents. This study aims to understand: (1) the experiences of healthcare professionals, careworkers, care managers, planners/implementers who participated in the implementation of the QEoLC Project; and (2) the barriers and facilitators to the implementation. Staff from two RACHs in New South Wales, Australia were recruited between September to November 2021. Semi-structured interviews and thematic data analysis were used. Fifteen participants (seven health professionals [includes one nurse, two clinical educators, three workplace trainers, one clinical manager/nurse], three careworkers and five managers) were interviewed. Most RACH participants agreed that the QEoLC Project increased their awareness of PC and provided them with the skills/confidence to openly discuss death and dying. Participants perceived that the components of the QEoLC Project had the following benefits for residents: more appropriate use of medications, initiation of timely pain management and discussions with families regarding end-of-life care preferences. Key facilitators for implementation were the role of champions, the role of the steering committee, regular clinical meetings to discuss at-risk residents and mentoring. Implementation barriers included: high staff turnover, COVID-19 pandemic, time constraints, perceived absence of executive sponsorship, lack of practical support and systems-related barriers. The findings underline the need for strong leadership, supportive organisational culture and commitment to the implementation of processes for improving the quality of end-of-life care. Furthermore, the results highlight the need for codesigning the intervention with RACHs, provision of dedicated staff/resources to support implementation, and integration of project tools with existing systems for achieving effective implementation outcomes.

Indexed as

COVID-19Terminal CareAgedAustraliaHumansNursing HomesPalliative CarePandemicsadvance care planningaged care providerscareworkerspalliative carePalliative Care Needs RoundQuality End-of-Life Careresidential aged care homes

Identifiers

PMID36068671
PMCPMC10087131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.