Using Palliative Care Needs Rounds in the UK for care home staff and residents: an implementation science study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Care home residents often lack access to end-of-life care from specialist palliative care providers. Palliative Care Needs Rounds, developed and tested in Australia, is a novel approach to addressing this. Objective To co-design and implement a scalable UK model of Needs Rounds. Design A pragmatic implementation study using the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Setting Implementation was conducted in six case study sites (England, n = 4, and Scotland, n = 2) encompassing specialist palliative care service working with three to six care homes each. Participants Phase 1: interviews ( n = 28 care home staff, specialist palliative care staff, relatives, primary care, acute care and allied health practitioners) and four workshops ( n = 43 care home staff, clinicians and managers from specialist palliative care teams and patient and public involvement and engagement representatives). Phase 2: interviews ( n = 58 care home and specialist palliative care staff); family questionnaire ( n = 13 relatives); staff questionnaire ( n = 171 care home staff); quality of death/dying questionnaire ( n = 81); patient and public involvement and engagement evaluation interviews ( n = 11); fidelity assessment ( n = 14 Needs Rounds recordings). Interventions (1) Monthly hour-long discussions of residents’ physical, psychosocial and spiritual needs, alongside case-based learning, (2) clinical work and (3) relative/multidisciplinary team meetings. Main outcome measures A programme theory describing what works for whom under what circumstances with UK Needs Rounds. Secondary outcomes focus on health service use and cost effectiveness, quality of death and dying, care home staff confidence and capability, and the use of patient and public involvement and engagement. Data sources Semistructured interviews and workshops with key stakeholders from the six sites; capability of adopting a palliative approach, quality of death and dying index, and Canadian Health Care Evaluation Project Lite questionnaires; recordings of Needs Rounds; care home data on resident demographics/health service use; assessments and interventions triggered by Needs Rounds; semistructured interviews with academic and patient and public involvement and engagement members. Results The programme theory: while care home staff experience workforce challenges such as high turnover, variable skills and confidence, Needs Rounds can provide care home and specialist palliative care staff the opportunity to collaborate during a protected time, to plan for residents’ last months of life. Needs Rounds build care home staff confidence and can strengthen relationships and trust, while harnessing services’ complementary expertise. Needs Rounds strengthen understandings of dying, symptom management, advance/anticipatory care planning and communication. This can improve resident care, enabling residents to be cared for and die in their preferred place, and may benefit relatives by increasing their confidence in care quality. Limitations COVID-19 restricted intervention and data collection. Due to an insufficient sample size, it was not possible to conduct a cost–benefit analysis of Needs Rounds or calculate the treatment effect or family perceptions of care. Conclusions Our work suggests that Needs Rounds can improve the quality of life and death for care home residents, by enhancing staff skills and confidence, including symptom management, communications with general practitioners and relatives, and strengthen relationships between care home and specialist palliative care staff. Future work Conduct analysis of costs–benefits and treatment effects. Engagement with commissioners and policy-makers could examine integration of Needs Rounds into care homes and primary care across the UK to ensure equitable access to specialist care. Study registration This study is registered as ISRCTN15863801. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128799) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research ; Vol. 12, No. 19. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".