Timely short-term specialised palliative home care for older people with frailty and their family: a mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL BMJ Open Pub Date : 2025-02-03 DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077495
Kim de Nooijer, Nele Van Den Noortgate, Peter Pype, Lara Pivodic, Lieve Van den Block
{"title":"Timely short-term specialised palliative home care for older people with frailty and their family: a mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial and process evaluation.","authors":"Kim de Nooijer, Nele Van Den Noortgate, Peter Pype, Lara Pivodic, Lieve Van den Block","doi":"10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The primary study aims were to evaluate the implementation, mechanisms and context of a timely short-term specialised palliative care intervention for older people with frailty (Frailty+ intervention) as well as to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate Frailty+. Our secondary aim was to describe any preliminary effects of Frailty+.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Pilot randomised controlled trial with process evaluation.</p><p><strong>Setting/participants: </strong>We aimed to recruit 50 adults (≥70 years) with Clinical Frailty Scale score 5-7, and complex care needs and their main family carer, if available, from two Belgian hospitals on discharge.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients were randomised to the Frailty+ intervention alongside standard care or standard care alone.</p><p><strong>Outcome measures: </strong>Implementation and trial feasibility were assessed through interviews, focus groups and quantitative data. The primary outcome to be used in a potential full-scale trial if the study is feasible and implementable was mean change in five palliative care symptoms over 8 weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 37 patients (19 intervention, 18 control) and 26 family carers (15 intervention, 11 control). Patients and family carers valued the home visits from palliative care nurses, and nurses saw value in Frailty+. But most patients received only one visit over 8 weeks, and nurses did not organise foreseen multidisciplinary meetings, referring to absence of urgent needs. Many aspects of the trial methods were feasible, but recruitment was challenging. The baseline mean score on the five palliative care symptoms was 6.0 and 5.6 in intervention and control group, respectively; and 4.5 and 4.1 at 8 weeks (adjusted ratio 1.0, ie, no effects on symptoms).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While Frailty+ was generally welcomed by older people with frailty, families and palliative care nurses, our process evaluation uncovered multiple barriers, mostly rooted in the current organisation of specialised palliative care that is tailored to advanced stages of illness. Ensuring timely access requires efforts beyond timely referral alone, and implies profound organisational and cultural change.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>ISRCTN39282347.</p>","PeriodicalId":9158,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open","volume":"15 2","pages":"e077495"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077495","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The primary study aims were to evaluate the implementation, mechanisms and context of a timely short-term specialised palliative care intervention for older people with frailty (Frailty+ intervention) as well as to assess the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate Frailty+. Our secondary aim was to describe any preliminary effects of Frailty+.

Design: Pilot randomised controlled trial with process evaluation.

Setting/participants: We aimed to recruit 50 adults (≥70 years) with Clinical Frailty Scale score 5-7, and complex care needs and their main family carer, if available, from two Belgian hospitals on discharge.

Interventions: Patients were randomised to the Frailty+ intervention alongside standard care or standard care alone.

Outcome measures: Implementation and trial feasibility were assessed through interviews, focus groups and quantitative data. The primary outcome to be used in a potential full-scale trial if the study is feasible and implementable was mean change in five palliative care symptoms over 8 weeks.

Results: We enrolled 37 patients (19 intervention, 18 control) and 26 family carers (15 intervention, 11 control). Patients and family carers valued the home visits from palliative care nurses, and nurses saw value in Frailty+. But most patients received only one visit over 8 weeks, and nurses did not organise foreseen multidisciplinary meetings, referring to absence of urgent needs. Many aspects of the trial methods were feasible, but recruitment was challenging. The baseline mean score on the five palliative care symptoms was 6.0 and 5.6 in intervention and control group, respectively; and 4.5 and 4.1 at 8 weeks (adjusted ratio 1.0, ie, no effects on symptoms).

Conclusions: While Frailty+ was generally welcomed by older people with frailty, families and palliative care nurses, our process evaluation uncovered multiple barriers, mostly rooted in the current organisation of specialised palliative care that is tailored to advanced stages of illness. Ensuring timely access requires efforts beyond timely referral alone, and implies profound organisational and cultural change.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN39282347.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open
BMJ Open MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
4510
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Open is an online, open access journal, dedicated to publishing medical research from all disciplines and therapeutic areas. The journal publishes all research study types, from study protocols to phase I trials to meta-analyses, including small or specialist studies. Publishing procedures are built around fully open peer review and continuous publication, publishing research online as soon as the article is ready.
期刊最新文献
Ambient air pollution and birth outcomes: a scoping review to investigate the mediating and moderating variables-protocol. Assessment of patient preferences for assisted reproductive technology in China: a discrete choice experiment. Association between poor oral health and deterioration of appetite in older age: results from longitudinal analyses of two prospective cohorts from the UK and USA. Developing a core outcome set for assessing interventions and care for parents after neonatal death in high-income countries (iCHOOSE Neonatal study): protocol for a mixed-methods study. Associations between caregivers' health behaviours and overweight/obesity among children aged 2-6 years in Beijing, China: a cross-sectional study.
×
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