학술논문
Development and evaluation of the feasibility and effects on staff, patients, and families of a new tool, the Psychosocial Assessment and Communication Evaluation (PACE), to improve communication and palliative care in intensive care and during clinical uncertainty.
Document Type
Academic Journal
Author
Higginson IJ; Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Cicely Saunders Institute, King's College London, School of Medicine, Bessemer Road, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9PJ, UK. irene.higginson@kcl.ac.uk.; Koffman J; Hopkins P; Prentice W; Burman R; Leonard S; Rumble C; Noble J; Dampier O; Bernal W; Hall S; Morgan M; Shipman C
Source
Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101190723 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1741-7015 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17417015 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Med Subsets: MEDLINE
Subject
Language
English
Abstract
Background: There are widespread concerns about communication and support for patients and families, especially when they face clinical uncertainty, a situation most marked in intensive care units (ICUs). Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an interventional tool to improve communication and palliative care, using the ICU as an example of where this is difficult.
Methods: Our design was a phase I-II study following the Medical Research Council Guidance for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions and the (Methods of Researching End-of-life Care (MORECare) statement. In two ICUs, with over 1900 admissions annually, phase I modeled a new intervention comprising implementation training and an assessment tool. We conducted a literature review, qualitative interviews, and focus groups with 40 staff and 13 family members. This resulted in the new tool, the Psychosocial Assessment and Communication Evaluation (PACE). Phase II evaluated the feasibility and effects of PACE, using observation, record audit, and surveys of staff and family members. Qualitative data were analyzed using the framework approach. The statistical tests used on quantitative data were t-tests (for normally distributed characteristics), the χ2 or Fisher's exact test (for non-normally distributed characteristics) and the Mann-Whitney U-test (for experience assessments) to compare the characteristics and experience for cases with and without PACE recorded.
Results: PACE provides individualized assessments of all patients entering the ICU. It is completed within 24 to 48 hours of admission, and covers five aspects (key relationships, social details and needs, patient preferences, communication and information status, and other concerns), followed by recording of an ongoing communication evaluation. Implementation is supported by a training program with specialist palliative care. A post-implementation survey of 95 ICU staff found that 89% rated PACE assessment as very or generally useful. Of 213 family members, 165 (78%) responded to their survey, and two-thirds had PACE completed. Those for whom PACE was completed reported significantly higher satisfaction with symptom control, and the honesty and consistency of information from staff (Mann-Whitney U-test ranged from 616 to 1247, P-values ranged from 0.041 to 0.010) compared with those who did not.
Conclusions: PACE is a feasible interventional tool that has the potential to improve communication, information consistency, and family perceptions of symptom control.
Methods: Our design was a phase I-II study following the Medical Research Council Guidance for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions and the (Methods of Researching End-of-life Care (MORECare) statement. In two ICUs, with over 1900 admissions annually, phase I modeled a new intervention comprising implementation training and an assessment tool. We conducted a literature review, qualitative interviews, and focus groups with 40 staff and 13 family members. This resulted in the new tool, the Psychosocial Assessment and Communication Evaluation (PACE). Phase II evaluated the feasibility and effects of PACE, using observation, record audit, and surveys of staff and family members. Qualitative data were analyzed using the framework approach. The statistical tests used on quantitative data were t-tests (for normally distributed characteristics), the χ2 or Fisher's exact test (for non-normally distributed characteristics) and the Mann-Whitney U-test (for experience assessments) to compare the characteristics and experience for cases with and without PACE recorded.
Results: PACE provides individualized assessments of all patients entering the ICU. It is completed within 24 to 48 hours of admission, and covers five aspects (key relationships, social details and needs, patient preferences, communication and information status, and other concerns), followed by recording of an ongoing communication evaluation. Implementation is supported by a training program with specialist palliative care. A post-implementation survey of 95 ICU staff found that 89% rated PACE assessment as very or generally useful. Of 213 family members, 165 (78%) responded to their survey, and two-thirds had PACE completed. Those for whom PACE was completed reported significantly higher satisfaction with symptom control, and the honesty and consistency of information from staff (Mann-Whitney U-test ranged from 616 to 1247, P-values ranged from 0.041 to 0.010) compared with those who did not.
Conclusions: PACE is a feasible interventional tool that has the potential to improve communication, information consistency, and family perceptions of symptom control.