Provider Perspectives on Implementation of Adult Community-Based Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Medical Care Research and Review Pub Date : 2025-01-02 DOI:10.1177/10775587241303963
Nicole Dussault, Dorian Ho, Haripriya Dukkipati, Judith B Vick, Lesley A Skalla, Jessica Ma, Christopher A Jones, Brystana G Kaufman
{"title":"Provider Perspectives on Implementation of Adult Community-Based Palliative Care: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Nicole Dussault, Dorian Ho, Haripriya Dukkipati, Judith B Vick, Lesley A Skalla, Jessica Ma, Christopher A Jones, Brystana G Kaufman","doi":"10.1177/10775587241303963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While community-based palliative care (CBPC) programs have been expanding, there remain important obstacles to widespread use. Since provider perspectives on CBPC remain underexplored, we conducted a scoping review to summarize provider perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to implementation of adult CBPC in the United States. We systematically searched OVID, MEDLINE, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed qualitative research published from January 1, 2010 to January 9, 2024, then used PRISM framework synthesis to organize themes into provider, organization, and external environment levels. Thirty-four articles were included. At the provider level, barriers included misperceptions of palliative care (PC) by referring providers and poor communication, while facilitators included multidisciplinary teams and referring provider education. At the organizational level, time constraints were barriers, while leadership buy-in and co-located clinics were facilitators. At the external environment level, limited PC workforce and inadequate reimbursement were barriers. Our findings suggest that efforts aimed at scaling CBPC must address factors at the provider, organizational, and policy levels.</p>","PeriodicalId":51127,"journal":{"name":"Medical Care Research and Review","volume":" ","pages":"10775587241303963"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Care Research and Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587241303963","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While community-based palliative care (CBPC) programs have been expanding, there remain important obstacles to widespread use. Since provider perspectives on CBPC remain underexplored, we conducted a scoping review to summarize provider perspectives regarding barriers and facilitators to implementation of adult CBPC in the United States. We systematically searched OVID, MEDLINE, and CINAHL for peer-reviewed qualitative research published from January 1, 2010 to January 9, 2024, then used PRISM framework synthesis to organize themes into provider, organization, and external environment levels. Thirty-four articles were included. At the provider level, barriers included misperceptions of palliative care (PC) by referring providers and poor communication, while facilitators included multidisciplinary teams and referring provider education. At the organizational level, time constraints were barriers, while leadership buy-in and co-located clinics were facilitators. At the external environment level, limited PC workforce and inadequate reimbursement were barriers. Our findings suggest that efforts aimed at scaling CBPC must address factors at the provider, organizational, and policy levels.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
成人社区姑息治疗实施的提供者观点:范围审查。
虽然以社区为基础的姑息治疗(CBPC)项目一直在扩大,但仍存在广泛使用的重要障碍。由于提供者对CBPC的看法尚未得到充分探讨,我们进行了一项范围审查,以总结提供者对美国成人CBPC实施的障碍和促进因素的看法。我们系统地检索了OVID、MEDLINE和CINAHL在2010年1月1日至2024年1月9日发表的同行评议的定性研究,然后使用PRISM框架合成将主题组织到提供者、组织和外部环境三个层面。共纳入34篇文章。在提供者层面,障碍包括转诊提供者对姑息治疗(PC)的误解和沟通不畅,而促进因素包括多学科团队和转诊提供者教育。在组织层面,时间限制是障碍,而领导层的支持和设在同一地点的诊所是促进因素。在外部环境层面,有限的PC劳动力和不充分的报销是障碍。我们的研究结果表明,旨在扩大CBPC的努力必须解决提供者、组织和政策层面的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Care Research and Review
Medical Care Research and Review 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Care Research and Review (MCRR) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal containing critical reviews of literature on organizational structure, economics, and the financing of health and medical care systems. MCRR also includes original empirical and theoretical research and trends to enable policy makers to make informed decisions, as well as to identify health care trends. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Average time from submission to first decision: 25 days
期刊最新文献
Impact of Fentanyl Test Strips as Harm Reduction for Drug-Related Mortality. Patient Decisional Preferences: A Systematic Review of Instruments Used to Determine Patients' Preferred Role in Decision-Making. Cost, Quality, and Utilization After Hospital-Physician and Hospital-Post Acute Care Vertical Integration: A Systematic Review. A Framework for the Design of Risk-Adjustment Models in Health care Provider Payment Systems. Trends in Medicaid Take-Up Among Eligible Adults After the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansions: 2014-2019.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1