Planning for Future Care With Patients With Advanced Cancer: Examining the Feasibility of Using the Trajectory Touchpoint Technique for Advance Care Planning.
试验速览
- 阶段
- 不适用
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 20
- 试验地点
- 1
- 主要终点
- Interview question: please share in your own words your opinion of the ACP discussion
研究概览
简要总结
Advance Care Planning (ACP) is a process where patients (and their families if appropriate) discuss with their doctors and nurses what may happen as their illness progresses, including how they (and their family) would like to be supported and cared for. The discussion of expectations and choices for care can then be formally recorded and used to guide and inform future care. Well documented benefits of ACP include empowering patients and their families to better understand available choices and make informed decisions regarding future care; This ensures care is based on what is important to that patient (and their family) and prepares all for the end of life. However, few people with a life limiting illness (such as cancer) have an ACP. Patients and families often find future and end of life care a difficult subject to discuss, as do doctors/nurses, who fear upsetting patients and families and who may have limited training/experience in how to prompt and record ACP discussions.
This project aims to overcome the barriers in discussing ACP by using the Trajectory Touchpoint Technique. The technique utilises a range of existing service evaluation and service design methods found in "service management" and "design systems". Rich pictures are used in the form of cartoons on an electronic tablet or printed card, to enable patients/families to lead discussions. The images are simple and enable people to raise sensitive and potentially distressing topics at a pace they are comfortable with, rather than responding to numerous pre-determined questions. The technique was originally designed to explore the experiences of patients (and their families) of Hospice Care and has been successfully used in over 200 interviews, demonstrating an ability to sensitively facilitate difficult conversations whilst enabling rich and detailed discussion.
详细描述
1.1 BACKGROUND In 2014, academics at the University of Liverpool Management School who are service quality researchers were approached by East Cheshire Hospice (ECH). ECH provides specialist palliative care for people with progressive life-limiting illnesses, providing services to patients, carers and families via inpatient and outpatient units and day facilities. ECH strives for excellence in service and the patient experience. Anecdotal stories and other forms of feedback provided plenty of evidence that the work of the hospice was meaningful. However, ECH did not have any systematic, robust way of capturing these experiences. Hence, while ECH was often told it had transformed the experience of patient's at the most critical time in their lives and that it was needed and appreciated by many service users, there was nothing but anecdotal evidence to back up this feedback. Worried that such superb feedback could actually lead to complacency, the team at ECH commissioned the University to undertake a 'deep-dive' of the impact of hospice services upon the different inpatient and outpatient service users associated with ECH.
The team, comprising Prof Philippa Hunter-Jones and Dr. Lynn Sudbury-Riley, designed a new qualitative research technique to follow the user's experience at every touchpoint in their journey. In 2015, interviews with 38 in-patients, outpatients, visitors and bereaved families enabled a 'deep-dive' to uncover perceptions of the whole service experience among these diverse users. Results of this new approach suggested the technique fully captures the hospice experience and suggests areas for improvements to hospice services. Indeed, the results of the study have informed the strategy and operations of ECH, and, mindful of continuous improvement, ECH have requested that the exercise is repeated.
Other hospices heard of the success of this work and the team were commissioned by Oakhaven Hospice in Hampshire to work with them, too. Additionally, based on the success of the project, the project was shortlisted by the school for a REF impact case, and the team were awarded funding to repeat the project in further hospice and palliative care settings.
The Academic Palliative Care Unit on 4Y at RLBUHT was one of the palliative care units to be evaluated next. From the service evaluation project on 4Y grew the novel idea to use the TTT as part of the Advanced Care Planning (ACP) conversation lead by clinicians. ACP is not consistently carried out for all patients that might have a need. There is also not a consistent way in which ACP is conducted to ensure quality is maintained within the patient centric approach.
1.2 RATIONALE FOR CURRENT STUDY Advance Care Planning (ACP) is the process of making choices and plans in regards of future care for patients with life limiting disease, particularly those who may lose the capacity to communicate. ACP has been shown to positively impact on the quality of end-of-life care, yet few (only 6-8%) have a completed formal ACP: a result of patients' anxieties about discussing future care issues and clinicians' concerns over responsibility and starting a "difficult" conversation.
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Observational
- 观察模型
- Case Only
- 时间视角
- Cross Sectional
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 否
入选标准
- •Cared for on the Academic Palliative Care Unit
- •Diagnosis of Cancer
- •No Advance Care Plan (or ACP needs updating)
- •Able to provide informed consent (has capacity)
排除标准
- •Absence of cancer
- •Has current ACP
- •Deemed to unwell by the APCU MDT
- •Unable to provide informed consent
结局指标
主要结局
Interview question: please share in your own words your opinion of the ACP discussion
时间窗: within 72 hours of consent.
Participant is asked to join a 1:1 interview discussion. VERBAL DIALOGUE NO SCALE they talk about their ACP. Thematic Analysis will be conducted on the interview transcript to understand the common themes raised throughout the different interviews.
次要结局
未报告次要终点
