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 2.3 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":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11800206/pdf/","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.

Abstract Image

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
对体弱老年人及其家庭的及时短期专业姑息家庭护理:一项混合方法试点、随机对照试验和过程评估。
目的:本研究的主要目的是评估针对老年人虚弱的短期专业姑息治疗干预(虚弱+干预)的实施、机制和背景,以及评估一项随机对照试验评估虚弱+的可行性。我们的第二个目的是描述脆弱+的任何初步影响。设计:有过程评价的先导随机对照试验。环境/参与者:我们的目标是从两家比利时医院招募50名成人(≥70岁),临床虚弱量表评分为5-7分,有复杂护理需求和主要家庭照顾者(如果有的话)。干预措施:患者被随机分为虚弱+干预与标准治疗或单独标准治疗。结果测量:通过访谈、焦点小组和定量数据评估实施和试验可行性。如果研究是可行和可实施的,将用于潜在的全面试验的主要结局是8周内5种姑息治疗症状的平均改变。结果:纳入37例患者(干预19例,对照组18例)和26例家庭护理人员(干预15例,对照组11例)。患者和家庭照顾者重视姑息护理护士的家访,姑息护理护士重视“虚弱+”。但大多数患者在8周内只接受了一次访问,护士没有组织预见的多学科会议,指的是缺乏紧急需求。试验方法的许多方面是可行的,但招募是具有挑战性的。干预组和对照组5项姑息治疗症状的基线平均得分分别为6.0分和5.6分;8周时为4.5和4.1(调整比例为1.0,即对症状无影响)。结论:虽然虚弱的老年人、家庭和姑息治疗护士普遍欢迎“虚弱+”,但我们的过程评估发现了多重障碍,主要源于目前针对晚期疾病的专门姑息治疗组织。确保及时获得所需的努力不仅限于及时转诊,还意味着深刻的组织和文化变革。试验注册号:ISRCTN39282347。
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
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
Effect of antenatal care attendance on maternal and birth outcomes in Somaliland: a cohort study. Distribution disparities among medical specialists in Thailand: an equity analysis of the national health workforce database (2015-2024). Open-label randomised controlled trial of aripiprazole/sertraline combination in comparison with quetiapine for the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatment of bipolar depression (the ASCEnD study): study protocol. Do sociodemographic variables influence sexual dysfunction in young people with type 1 diabetes? A quantitative study in Poland. Excitatory amino acid inhibitors in adults with acute moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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:604180095
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