Adoption of evidence‐based end‐of‐life and bereavement support to families in cancer care: A contextual analysis study with health professionals

Author:

Riguzzi Marco12ORCID,Thaqi Qëndresa1ORCID,Peng‐Keller Simon3,Lorch Anja4,Blum David56,Naef Rahel12ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care, Faculty of Medicine University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

2. Centre of Clinical Nursing Science University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland

3. Spiritual Care, Faculty of Theology University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

4. Medical Oncology and Hematology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland

5. Competence Centre for Palliative Care University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland

6. Centre for Palliative Care City Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland

Abstract

AbstractAimsTo investigate the level of adoption of evidence‐based family engagement and support during end‐of‐life cancer care and subsequent bereavement and its contextual facilitators and barriers from health professionals' perspectives, and to explore differences between professional groups.DesignContextual analysis using an online cross‐sectional survey.MethodsThis study was conducted in four Swiss hospitals and three home care oncology and palliative care services. Non‐parametric testing was used to investigate the level of adoption and differences between nurses, physicians, occupational‐ and physiotherapists and psychosocial professionals (chaplains, onco‐psychologists and social workers). The STROBE checklist for cross‐sectional studies was followed.ResultsThe majority of the 111 participating health professionals were nurses. Adoption was statistically significantly higher during end‐of‐life care than bereavement, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than the other professional groups. Guidance on end‐of‐life family care was available in about half of the cases, in contrast to a quarter for bereavement care. Self‐perceived knowledge, skills and attitudes were moderate to high, with nurses and physicians reporting higher levels than others, except for general skills in working with families. Organisational structures were experienced as rather supportive, with the psychosocial group appraising the organisational context as significantly less conducive to fully implementing end‐of‐life and bereavement care than others, particularly during the end‐of‐life phase.ConclusionEvidence‐based family engagement and support were better adopted during end‐of‐life care than bereavement. Overall, nurses and physicians felt better enabled to care for families compared to other professional groups.Patient or Public ContributionNo patient or public contribution.Protocol registrationhttps://osf.io/j4kfh.Implications for the profession and/or patient careImplementation and quality improvement efforts should focus particularly on the bereavement phase and be tailored to professional groups.ImpactThe findings show that evidence‐based family engagement and support practices during end‐of‐life were rather well adopted in contrast to subsequent bereavement care, with nurses and physicians better enabled than other professionals to provide care. A better understanding of health professionals' contributions and roles in family care is important to build interprofessional capacity for evidence‐based end‐of‐life and bereavement support.Reporting MethodThe STROBE checklist for reports of cross‐sectional studies was followed (von Elm et al., 2007).

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

General Medicine,General Nursing

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3