ObjectiveIn Germany, children with life-limiting conditions and complex symptoms are eligible for specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In the federal state of Hesse, SOPC for children (SOPPC) is delivered by teams with paediatric expertise. While burdened by the life-limiting condition of their child, parents must also fulfill their roles as main care providers and decision makers. Collaboration between parents and SOPPC teams is important, as the intermittent care and uncertainty it entails often lasts for several months or years. We explored parents’ experiences and their demands of collaboration with SOPPC teams.MethodsWe conducted nine narrative interviews with 13 parents of children and adolescents with life-limiting conditions and used a grounded theory approach to analyse interview data.ResultsParents stressed the importance of paediatric expertise, honesty, psychosocial support, an individualised approach, experience of self-efficacy and the need to be recognised as experts for their children. The narrative interviews showed that collaboration between parents and SOPPC teams was characterised by parents’ need for specialised professional assistance and their simultaneous empowerment by SOPPC teams.ConclusionsParents’ perceptions of what good collaboration with SOPPC teams entails are manifold. To meet these complex needs, SOPPC requires time and specialised expertise.

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. Trial registration May 19th, 2017, 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 .

The aim of this study was to analyze the strength of safety measures described in incident reports in outpatient care.Methods: An incident reporting project in German outpatient care included 184 medical practices with differing fields of specialization. The practices were invited to submit anonymous incident reports to the project team 3 times for 17 months. Using a 14-item coding scheme based on international recommendations, we deductively coded the incident reports and safety measures. Safety measures were classified as "strong" (likely to be effective and sustainable), "intermediate" (possibly effective and sustainable), or "weak" (less likely to be effective and sustainable). Results:The practices submitted 245 incident reports. In 160 of them, 243 preventive measures were described, or an average of 1.5 per report. The number of documented measures varied from 1 in 67% to 4 in 5% of them. Four preventive measures (2%) were classified as strong, 37 (15%) as intermediate, and 202 (83%) as weak. The most frequently mentioned measures were "new procedure/policy" (n = 121) and "information/notification/warning" (n = 45). Conclusions:The study provides examples of critical incidents in medical practices and for the first time examines the strength of ensuing measures introduced in outpatient care. Overall, the proportion of weak measures is (too) high, indicating that practices need more support in identifying strong measures.

The aim of the study was to support the development of future critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) in primary care by collecting information on existing systems. Our focus was on processes used to report and analyze incidents, as well as strategies used to overcome difficulties.Methods: Based on literature from throughout the world, we identified existing CIRS in primary care. We developed a questionnaire and sent it to operators of a purposeful sample of 17 CIRS in primary care. We used cross-case analysis to compare the answers and pinpoint important similarities and differences in the CIRS in our sample.Results: Ten CIRS operators filled out the questionnaire, and 9 systems met our inclusion criteria. The sample of CIRS came from 8 different countries and was rather heterogeneous. The reporting systems invited a broad range of professions to report, with some also including reports by patients. In most cases, reporting was voluntary and conducted via an online reporting form. Reports were analyzed locally, centrally, or both. The various CIRS used interesting ideas to deal with barriers. Some, for example, used confidential reporting modes as a compromise between anonymity and the need for follow-up investigations, whereas others used smartphone applications and call centers to speed up the reporting process. Conclusions:We found multiple CIRS that have operated in primary care for many years and have received a high number of reports. They were largely developed in accordance with recommendations found in literature. Developers of future systems may find this overview useful.