Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2012

01-01-2012 | Original Article

A technical solution to improving palliative and hospice care

Authors: Michael A. Kallen, DerShung Yang, Niina Haas

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This project sought to help palliative and hospice care practices improve patient care quality and operational efficiency by improving patient symptom status reporting and symptom management, reducing associated provider documentation workload, and enhancing patient–provider and provider–provider communication. We developed a user-friendly, electronic medical record-compatible, software prototype that allows typical clinical data and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to be entered and stored. This data is immediately available during the clinical encounter with graphically depicted summaries for patient history and PRO assessments, a trending feature that links symptom behavior to interventions and the Edmonton Labeled Visual Information System.

Methods

A user-centered design approach allowed for iterative cycles of needs/usability feedback from providers and patients/caregivers to be incorporated into the development of our prototype’s technical structure and features. To determine the needs and initial usability of the project’s prototype, we interviewed eight providers and 18 patients/caregivers. Another usability test, consisting of patient/caregiver (n = 18) and provider (n = 9) interviews, assessed the functioning prototype’s design, usability, and usefulness.

Results

Patients/caregivers (n = 18) reported that the prototype was usable (100%), it would facilitate patient–provider communication, shared decision making, and self-management (100%), and they would be willing to try the system and recommend it to their providers (100%). The providers (n = 9) felt that the prototype encouraged better use of patient assessments in decision making and patient care (100%) and improved identification of cause/temporal relationship between care events and outcomes (100%), monitoring of patient status (100%), communication in a multi-disciplinary team (100%), and operational efficiency and patient care quality (88.9%).

Conclusions

Quality of patient care and operational efficiency can be improved with an effective assessment, evaluation, and communication tool. This project developed an electronic version of such a tool. Future efforts will hone its usability and integration across multiple hospice/palliative care settings.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Naccache N, Abou Zeid H, Nasser Ayoub E, Antakly MC (2008) Pain management and health care policy. J Méd Liban 56(2):105–111PubMed Naccache N, Abou Zeid H, Nasser Ayoub E, Antakly MC (2008) Pain management and health care policy. J Méd Liban 56(2):105–111PubMed
2.
go back to reference Downing J (2008) The conception of the Nankya model of palliative care development in Africa. Int J Palliat Nurs 14(9):459–464PubMed Downing J (2008) The conception of the Nankya model of palliative care development in Africa. Int J Palliat Nurs 14(9):459–464PubMed
4.
go back to reference Tueni E (2008) Perspectives in palliative care? J Méd Liban 56(2):129–131PubMed Tueni E (2008) Perspectives in palliative care? J Méd Liban 56(2):129–131PubMed
5.
go back to reference SUPPORT Principal Investigators, Connors AF Jr, Dawson NV et al (1995) A controlled trial to improve care for seriously III hospitalized patients: the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA 274(20):1591–1598CrossRef SUPPORT Principal Investigators, Connors AF Jr, Dawson NV et al (1995) A controlled trial to improve care for seriously III hospitalized patients: the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). JAMA 274(20):1591–1598CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Pritchard RS, Fisher ES, Teno JM et al (1998) Influence of patient preferences and local health system characteristics on the place of death. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 46(10):1242–1250PubMed Pritchard RS, Fisher ES, Teno JM et al (1998) Influence of patient preferences and local health system characteristics on the place of death. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Risks and Outcomes of Treatment. J Am Geriatr Soc 46(10):1242–1250PubMed
7.
go back to reference Covinsky KE, Fuller JD, Yaffe K et al (2000) Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc 48(5 Suppl):S187–S193PubMed Covinsky KE, Fuller JD, Yaffe K et al (2000) Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc 48(5 Suppl):S187–S193PubMed
8.
go back to reference Cherlin E, Fried T, Prigerson HG, Schulman-Green D, Johnson-Hurzeler R, Bradley EH (2005) Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said? J Pall Med 8(6):1176–1185CrossRef Cherlin E, Fried T, Prigerson HG, Schulman-Green D, Johnson-Hurzeler R, Bradley EH (2005) Communication between physicians and family caregivers about care at the end of life: when do discussions occur and what is said? J Pall Med 8(6):1176–1185CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Middlewood S, Gardner G, Gardner A (2001) Dying in hospital: medical failure or natural outcome? J Pain Symptom Manage 22(6):1035–1041PubMedCrossRef Middlewood S, Gardner G, Gardner A (2001) Dying in hospital: medical failure or natural outcome? J Pain Symptom Manage 22(6):1035–1041PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Field MJ, Cassel CK (2001) Institute of Medicine. Committee on Care at the End of L, NetLibrary I. Approaching death improving care at the end of life. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Field MJ, Cassel CK (2001) Institute of Medicine. Committee on Care at the End of L, NetLibrary I. Approaching death improving care at the end of life. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
11.
go back to reference Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, Smith MJ, Cohen K, Passik S (1997) The memorial delirium assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 13(3):128–137PubMedCrossRef Breitbart W, Rosenfeld B, Roth A, Smith MJ, Cohen K, Passik S (1997) The memorial delirium assessment scale. J Pain Symptom Manage 13(3):128–137PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lawlor PG, Nekolaichuk C, Gagnon B, Mancini IL, Pereira JL, Bruera ED (2000) Clinical utility, factor analysis, and further validation of the memorial delirium assessment scale in patients with advanced cancer: assessing delirium in advanced cancer. Cancer 88(12):2859–2867PubMedCrossRef Lawlor PG, Nekolaichuk C, Gagnon B, Mancini IL, Pereira JL, Bruera ED (2000) Clinical utility, factor analysis, and further validation of the memorial delirium assessment scale in patients with advanced cancer: assessing delirium in advanced cancer. Cancer 88(12):2859–2867PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Fainsinger RL, Nekolaichuk CL (2008) A “TNM” classification system for cancer pain: the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP). Support Care Cancer 16(6):547–555PubMedCrossRef Fainsinger RL, Nekolaichuk CL (2008) A “TNM” classification system for cancer pain: the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS-CP). Support Care Cancer 16(6):547–555PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Nekolaichuk CL, Fainsinger RL, Lawlor PG (2005) A validation study of a pain classification system for advanced cancer patients using content experts: the edmonton classification system for cancer pain. Palliat Med 19(6):466–476PubMedCrossRef Nekolaichuk CL, Fainsinger RL, Lawlor PG (2005) A validation study of a pain classification system for advanced cancer patients using content experts: the edmonton classification system for cancer pain. Palliat Med 19(6):466–476PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P (1974) The CAGE questionnaire: validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J Psychiatry 131(10):1121–1123PubMed Mayfield D, McLeod G, Hall P (1974) The CAGE questionnaire: validation of a new alcoholism screening instrument. Am J Psychiatry 131(10):1121–1123PubMed
17.
go back to reference Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K (1991) The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 7(2):6–9PubMed Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K (1991) The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 7(2):6–9PubMed
18.
go back to reference Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M (2000) Validation Edmonton Symptom Assess Scale Cancer 88(9):2164–2171 Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M (2000) Validation Edmonton Symptom Assess Scale Cancer 88(9):2164–2171
19.
go back to reference Walker P, Nordell C, Cace S, Neumann CM, Bruera E (2001) Impact of the Edmonton Labeled Visual Information System on physician recall of metastatic cancer patient histories. a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 21(1):4–11PubMedCrossRef Walker P, Nordell C, Cace S, Neumann CM, Bruera E (2001) Impact of the Edmonton Labeled Visual Information System on physician recall of metastatic cancer patient histories. a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manage 21(1):4–11PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Schensul SL, Schensul JJ, LeCompte MD (1999) Essential ethnographic methods: observations, interviews, and questionnaires. AltaMira, Walnut Creek Schensul SL, Schensul JJ, LeCompte MD (1999) Essential ethnographic methods: observations, interviews, and questionnaires. AltaMira, Walnut Creek
21.
go back to reference LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ (1999) Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. AltaMira, Walnut Creek LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ (1999) Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. AltaMira, Walnut Creek
22.
go back to reference LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ (1999) Designing and conducting ethnographic research. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek LeCompte MD, Schensul JJ (1999) Designing and conducting ethnographic research. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek
24.
go back to reference Bangor A (2009) Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies 4(3):114–123 Bangor A (2009) Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of Usability Studies 4(3):114–123
Metadata
Title
A technical solution to improving palliative and hospice care
Authors
Michael A. Kallen
DerShung Yang
Niina Haas
Publication date
01-01-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-011-1086-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Supportive Care in Cancer 1/2012 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine