BackgroundAn aging population, rise in chronic illnesses, increase in life expectancy and shift towards care being provided at the community level are trends that are collectively creating an urgency to advance hospice palliative care (HPC) planning and provision in Canada. The purpose of this study was to analyze the evolution of HPC in seven provinces in Canada so as to inform such planning and provision elsewhere. We have endeavoured to undertake this research out of awareness that good future planning for health and social care, such as HPC, typically requires us to first look backwards before moving forward.MethodsTo identify key policy and practice events in HPC in Canada, as well as describe facilitators of and barriers to progress, a qualitative comparative case study design was used. Specifically, the evolution and development of HCP in 7 strategically selected provinces is compared. After choosing the case study provinces, the grey literature was searched to create a preliminary timeline for each that described the evolution of HPC beginning in 1970. Key informants (n = 42) were then interviewed to verify the content of each provincial timeline and to discuss barriers and facilitators to the development of HPC. Upon completion of the primary data collection, a face-to-face meeting of the research team was then held so as to conduct a comparative study analysis that focused on provincial commonalities and differences.ResultsFindings point to the fact that HPC continues to remain at the margins of the health care system. The development of HPC has encountered structural inheritances that have both sped up progress as well as slowed it down. These structural inheritances are: (1) foundational health policies (e.g., the Canada Health Act); (2) service structures and planning (e.g., the dominance of urban-focused initiatives); and (3) health system decisions (e.g., regionalization). As a response to these inheritances, circumventions of the established system of care were taken, often out of necessity. Three kinds of circumventions were identified from the data: (1) interventions to shift the system (e.g., the role of advocacy); (2) service innovations (e.g., educational initiatives); and (3) new alternative structures (e.g., the establishment of independent hospice organizations). Overall, the evolution of HPC across the case study provinces has been markedly slow, but steady and continuous.ConclusionsHPC in Canada remains at the margins of the health care system. Its integration into the primary health care system may ensure dedicated and ongoing funding, enhanced access, quality and service responsiveness. Though demographics are expected to influence HPC demand in Canada, our study confirms that concerned citizens, advocacy organizations and local champions will continue to be the agents of change that make the necessary and lasting impacts on HPC in Canada.

No abstract

To meet the complex needs of patients requiring palliative care and to deliver holistic end‐of‐life care to patients and their families, an interprofessional team approach is recommended. Expert palliative care teams work to improve the quality of life of patients and families through pain and symptom management, and psychosocial spiritual and bereavement support. By establishing shared care models in the community setting, teams support primary healthcare providers such as family physicians and community nurses who often have little exposure to palliative care in their training. As a result, palliative care teams strive to improve not only the end‐of‐life experience of patients and families, but also the palliative care capacity of primary healthcare providers. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore the views and experiences of community‐based palliative care team members and key‐informants about the barriers involved using a shared care model to provide care in the community. A thematic analysis approach was used to analyse interviews with five community‐based palliative care teams and six key‐informants, which took place between December 2010 and March 2011. Using the 3‐I framework, this study explores the impacts of Institution‐related barriers (i.e. the healthcare system), Interest‐related barriers (i.e. motivations of stakeholders) and Idea‐related barriers (i.e. values of stakeholders and information/research), on community‐based palliative care teams in Ontario, Canada. On the basis of the perspective of team members and key‐informants, it is suggested that palliative care teams experience sociopolitical barriers in an effort to establish shared care in the community setting. It is important to examine the barriers encountered by palliative care teams to address how to better develop and sustain them in the community.

No abstract

BackgroundThis paper focuses on the sustainability of existing palliative care teams that provide home-based care in a shared care model. For the purposes of this study, following Evashwick and Ory (2003), sustainability is understood and approached as the ability to continue the program over time. Understanding factors that influence the sustainability of teams and ways to mitigate these factors is paramount to improving the longevity and quality of service delivery models of this kind.MethodsUsing qualitative data collected in interviews, the aim of this study is twofold: (1) to explore the factors that affect the sustainability of the teams at three different scales, and; (2) based on the results of this study, to propose a set of recommendations that will contribute to the sustainability of PC teams.ResultsSustainability was conceptualized from two angles: internal and external. An overview of external sustainability was provided and the merging of data from all participant groups showed that the sustainability of teams was largely dependent on actors and organizations at the local (community), regional (Local Health Integration Network or LHIN) and provincial scales. The three scales are not self-contained or singular entities but rather are connected. Integration and collaboration within and between scales is necessary, as community capacity will inevitably reach its threshold without support of the province, which provides funding to the LHIN. While the community continues to advocate for the teams, in the long-term, they will need additional supports from the LHIN and province. The province has the authority and capacity to engrain its support for teams through a formal strategy. The recommendations are presented based on scale to better illustrate how actors and organizations could move forward.ConclusionsThis study may inform program and policy specific to strategic ways to improve the provision of team-based palliative home care using a shared care model, while simultaneously providing direction for team-based program delivery and sustainability for other jurisdictions.