Evolution and Conceptual Foundations of Nonhospice Palliative Care

Beasley, Amy; Bakitas, Marie; Ivankova, Nataliya V.; Shirey, Maria R.

doi:10.1177/0193945919853162

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(114 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Palliative care is a broader term that comprises an interdisciplinary collaboration of caring for patients and their caregivers to manage serious illness and provide physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychosocial requirements. [ 7 8 9 ] Hospice and Palliative are often used interchangeably, though they are different. Palliative care is a broader term, and Hospice is part of it.…”

Section: Indications For Hospice and Palliative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are also some diseases, such as heart failure, AIDS, COPD, cancer, which should prompt their caregiving physician for considering Palliative care referral. [ 7 ] On the other hand, patients become eligible for Hospice referral when their life expectancy is less than six months. [ 9 ] Cancer, cardiac and circulatory problems, dementia, respiratory disease, stroke are the most prevalent conditions seen in Hospice referrals.…”

Section: Indications For Hospice and Palliative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hospice vs Palliative care: A comprehensive review for primary care physician

Sheikh

Sekaran²,

Kochhar³

et al. 2022

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

End-of-life medical services in the form of Hospice or Palliative care were initiated in the middle of 1900 in order to comfort the dying patients and support their families. There are a lot of similarities and differences between the two services. Many healthcare providers, including physicians, physician assistants, and nurses, are not fully trained or have comprehensive knowledge of these two types of end-of-life medical care. Through this paper, we aim to provide a thorough review of Hospice and Palliative care for internist and primary care physicians both in terms of indications or eligibility criteria; the similarities and differences between the two types of care; factors that disqualify an enrolled patient; and lastly, the role or use of Hospice and palliative care during COVID-19 pandemic.

show abstract

Section: Indications For Hospice and Palliative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Indications For Hospice and Palliative Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Hospice vs Palliative care: A comprehensive review for primary care physician

Sheikh

Sekaran²,

Kochhar³

et al. 2022

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are basic elements that must be the part of a PC intervention. ( 26 ) These elements include patient‐centered and family‐centered care, an interprofessional team, provider characteristics, screening tools, goals‐of‐care discussions, ACP, concurrent care models, and caregiver support.…”

Section: Structures and Processes Required For Integrating Nonhospicementioning

confidence: 99%

Nonhospice Palliative Care Within the Treatment of End‐Stage Liver Disease

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Palliative care (PC) that has evolved from a focus on end-of-life care to an expanded form of holistic care at an early stage for patients with serious illnesses and their families is commonly referred to as nonhospice PC (or early PC). Patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) suffer from a high symptom burden and a deteriorated quality of life (QOL), with uncertain prognosis and limited treatment options. Caregivers of these patients also bear an emotional and physical burden similar to that of caregivers for patients with cancer. Despite the proven benefits of nonhospice PC for other serious illnesses and cancer, there are no evidence-based structures and processes to support its integration within the routine care of patients with ESLD and their caregivers. In this article, we review the current state of PC for ESLD and propose key structures and processes to integrate nonhospice PC within routine hepatology practice. Results found that PC is highly underutilized within ESLD care, and limited prospective studies are available to demonstrate methods to integrate PC within routine hepatology practices. Hepatology providers report lack of training to deliver PC along with no clear prognostic criteria on when to initiate PC. A well-informed model with key structures and processes for nonhospice PC integration would allow hepatology providers to improve clinical outcomes and QOL for patients with ESLD and reduce health care costs. Educating hepatology providers about PC principles and developing clear prognostic criteria for when and how to integrate PC on the basis of individual patient needs are the initial steps to inform the integration. The fields of nonhospice PC and hepatology have ample opportunities to partner clinically and academically. (Hepatology 2020;71:2149-2159). E nd-stage liver disease (ESLD) is the 12th leading cause of death and claims approximately 66,000 lives each year in the United States. (1) Between 2006 and 2016, the prevalence of ESLD increased by 7.9% among men 25-34 years of age and 11.4% among women in the same age group because of the increasing burden of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, alcohol-associated liver disease, and advanced hepatitis C virus. (2) In parallel, mortality due to ESLD increased by 65% from 1999 to 2016. (3) ESLD is also associated with functional and cognitive impairment, often with concomitant mental health and substance use disorders. The physical and psychological symptom burden and social-role consequences of ESLD are often worse than those for many non-liver cancers. (4) The most frequently reported symptoms include pain, breathlessness, muscle cramps, sleep disturbance, fatigue, pruritus, anxiety, depression, and erectile dysfunction. (4) In addition to its direct effects on patients, ESLD is linked with a substantial caregiver emotional and physical burden, mirroring that observed in caregivers of patients with cancer. (5) However, interventions to improve the quality of life (QOL) for patients with ESLD and their caregivers are underdeveloped.Palliativ...

show abstract

“…Palliative care interventions can assist home management of patients' end‐of‐life (EOL) symptoms (Beasley et al, 2019; Institute of Medicine, 2015; Meghani & Hinds, 2015) and their completion of Advance Directives involved in home end‐of‐life palliative care (EOLPC) (Hughes & Smith, 2014). It is a national priority to address the palliative care needs of patients with advanced illness and their family members/caregivers (Adams et al, 2016; National Institute of Nursing Research [NINR], 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verifying intervention fidelity procedures for a palliative home care intervention with pilot study results

Piamjariyakul

Smothers

Young

et al. 2021

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fidelity (consistency of intervention implementation) is essential to rigorous research. Intervention fidelity maintains study internal validity, intervention reproducibility, and transparency in the research conduct. The purpose of this manuscript is to describe intervention fidelity strategies/procedures developed for a pilot study testing a new palliative care nursing intervention (FamPALcare) for families managing advanced lung disease. The procedures described herein are based on the fidelity best practices recommendations from the NIH Consortium. An evidence‐based checklist guided observational ratings of the fidelity procedures used and the intervention content implemented in each intervention session. Descriptive data on how participants understood (received), enacted, or used the intervention information were summarized. The fidelity checklist observational scores found ≥93% of the planned intervention content was implemented, and the fidelity strategies were adhered to consistently during each intervention session. The small variation (7%) in implementation was expected and related to participants' varying experiences, input, and/or questions. The helpfulness scale items include participants' ability to use home care resources, to anticipate and manage end‐of‐life symptoms, and to use Advance Directive forms. The high ratings (M = 4.4) on the 1–5 (very helpful) Likert Helpfulness Scale verified participants utilized the information from the intervention. Furthermore, there was an improvement in patients' breathlessness scores and completion of Advance Directive forms at 3 months after baseline. It is essential to plan intervention fidelity strategies to use throughout a study and to report fidelity results.

show abstract

Evolution and Conceptual Foundations of Nonhospice Palliative Care

Cited by 10 publications

References 53 publications

Hospice vs Palliative care: A comprehensive review for primary care physician

Hospice vs Palliative care: A comprehensive review for primary care physician

Nonhospice Palliative Care Within the Treatment of End‐Stage Liver Disease

Verifying intervention fidelity procedures for a palliative home care intervention with pilot study results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About