Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Eurasian Dry Grassland Group (EDGG) (1)
- European Vegetation Archive (EVA) (1)
- Evaluation (1)
- Germany (1)
- GrassVeg.DE (1)
- Home Care Services [MeSH] (1)
- Implementation (1)
- Mixed methods (1)
- Needs Assessment [MeSH] (1)
- Outcome assessment [MeSH] (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
GrassVeg.DE – die neue kollaborative Vegetationsdatenbank für alle Offenlandhabitate Deutschlands
(2017)
Der Bericht stellt die neue kollaborative Vegetationsdatenbank GrassVeg.DE (EU-DE-020; http://bit.ly/2qgX208) vor, die Vegetationsaufnahmen von Grasländern und anderen nicht-aquatischen Offenlandhabitaten Deutschlands sammelt, um sie national und international für die vegetationsökologische Forschung zur Verfügung zu stellen. GrassVeg.DE trägt die Daten zum European Vegetation Archive (EVA) und künftig auch zur globalen Vegetationsdatenbank „sPlot“ bei. Datenlieferanten von GrassVeg.DE behalten volle Verfügungsgewalt über ihre Daten und werden Mitglied des GrassVeg.DE-Konsortiums. Dadurch profitieren sie durch Co-Autorenschaften und Zitate von ihren Beiträgen und erlangen zugleich die Möglichkeit, selbst Projekte zu beantragen, die GrassVeg.DE- oder EVA-Daten nutzen. Die schnell wachsende GrassVeg.DE-Datenbank umfasste im Juli 2017 3.181 Vegetationsaufnahmen aus acht deutschen Bundesländern. Perspektivisch kann GrassVeg.DE dazu beitragen, eine konsistente Neuklassifikation der Graslandvegetationstypen Deutschlands im Rahmen der Synopsis der Pflanzengesellschaften Deutschlands zu ermöglichen. Wir schließen den Beitrag mit einem Aufruf, eigene und aus der Literatur digitalisierte Vegetationsaufnahmen zu GrassVeg.DE beizutragen.
Background: In Germany, patients suffering from life-limiting conditions are eligible for specialized outpatient palliative care (SOPC). Evaluation of the quality of this service lacks currently integration of patient-relevant outcomes. There is also no scientific consensus how to prove quality of care in the special context of SOPC adequately. Existing quality reports are primarily based on descriptive structural data which do not allow for estimation of process quality or result quality. The ELSAH study ("Evaluation of Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care in the German state of Hesse") aims to choose - or, if necessary, to adopt - to evaluate and to implement a suit of measures to assess, evaluate and monitor the quality of specialized, home-based palliative care.
Methods: All 22 SOPC teams providing their services in the state of Hesse, Germany, participate in the ELSAH study. The study is divided in two phases: a preparation phase and a main study phase. Based on the findings of the preparation phase we have chosen a preliminary set of instruments including the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale, Views on Care, Zarit Burden Interview, Phase of Illness, Goal Attainment Scaling, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, Consumer Quality Indices Palliative Care and Sense of Security in Care. During the main study phase, we will use a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the instruments’ psychometric properties (reliability, validity, feasibility and practicability), to identify barriers, facilitators and limitations of their routine use and to explore how their use affects the care within the SOPC setting.
Discussion: At the end of this study, an outcome- and patient-centered, validated measurement approach should be provided, adapted for standardized evaluations in SOPC across patient groups, palliative care services and regions nationwide. The standardized application of instruments should allow for making valid statements and comparisons of health care quality in SOPC based on process- and outcome-evaluation rather than relying on structural data only. Moreover, the instruments might directly influence the care of patients in palliative situations.
Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421).
Background:
Specialised palliative home-care supports patients with life-limiting diseases in their familiar surroundings. The number of palliative care teams and patients being cared for is increasing worldwide. To assess and improve quality, it is needed to understand, how specialised palliative home-care can be provided successfully. For this purpose we examined the views of all involved stakeholders.
Aim:
To identify the issues that patients, their relatives and involved health professionals view as important in ensuring the success of specialised palliative home-care.
Design:
We used a qualitative design based on participant observations, interviews and focus groups following the principles of a Grounded Theory approach.
Setting/participants:
All specialised palliative home-care teams (n = 22) caring for adults in Hesse, Germany, participated. We conducted participant observations (n = 5), and interviewed patients (n = 14), relatives (n = 14) and health professionals working in or collaborating with specialised palliative home-care (n = 30). We also conducted focus groups (n = 4) with health professionals including a member check.
Results:
Successful specialised palliative home-care needs to treat complex symptoms, and provide comprehensive care including organisation of care, involving relatives and addressing issues of death and dying. Sense of security for patients and relatives is key to enable care at home. Care delivery preferences include a focus on the quality of relationships, respect for individuality and the facilitation of self-determination.
Conclusions:
Consideration of the identified key issues can help to ensure successful specialised palliative home-care. Knowledge of these should also be considered when researching and assessing quality of care.
Trial registration:
German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421; http://www.germanctr.de.
Background: The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC.
Methods: Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures.
Results: We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording.
Conclusions: SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be.