You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 12, Issue e1
  • The ACS-TQIP palliative care guidelines at two level I trauma centres: a prospective study of patient and caregiver satisfaction

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
The ACS-TQIP palliative care guidelines at two level I trauma centres: a prospective study of patient and caregiver satisfaction
  1. Rebecca Vogel1,
  2. Constance McGraw2,3,
  3. Diane Redmond3,
  4. Pamela Bourg (retired)1,
  5. Chester Dreiman1,
  6. Allen Tanner4,
  7. Neal Lynch4 and
  8. David Bar-Or2,3
  1. 1 Trauma Services Department, St Anthony Hospital and Medical Campus, Lakewood, Colorado, USA
  2. 2 Trauma Research Department, St Anthony Hospital and Medical Campus, Lakewood, Colorado, USA
  3. 3 Trauma Research Department, Penrose Saint Francis Health Services, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
  4. 4 Trauma Services Department, Penrose Saint Francis Health Services, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr David Bar-Or, Trauma Research, St Anthony Hospital and Medical Campus, Lakewood, CO 80113, USA; davidbme49{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Objectives To measure trauma patient and caregiver satisfaction before and after implementation of standardised palliative care (PC) guidelines.

Methods Prospective pre–post study at two level-I trauma centres. PC satisfaction surveys were administered prior to discharge for consented trauma patients (Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Scale, Patient (FAMCARE-P13) survey)≥55 years, and their caregivers (FAMCARE survey), from 1 November 2016 to 30 November 2018. Standardised PC guidelines were implemented January 2018 and included consultations, prognostication assessments, identification of proxies, review of advanced directives and do not resuscitate orders within 24 hours of admission, while advanced goals of care, formal family meetings and spiritual care support were recommended within 72 hours of admission. Generalised linear models were used to determine whether differences in patient or caregiver satisfaction existed pre versus post implementation.

Results There were 572 patients (299 pre; 273 post) and 595 caregivers (334 pre; 261 post) included. Overall patient satisfaction significantly increased post implementation (82.0 vs 86.0, p=0.001). After adjustment, the implementation of the guidelines was an independent predictor of higher overall patient satisfaction (least squares mean (LSM= (83.8% (95%CI 81.2%-86.5%) vs 80.3% (77.7%-82.9%), p=0.003)). Compared with preimplementation, patient satisfaction was significantly higher post implementation in the following domains: information giving (80.9 vs 85.5, p=0.001), followed by physical care (82.2 vs 86.0, p=0.002), availability of care (83.4 vs 86.8, p=0.007) and psychosocial care (84.7 vs 87.6, p=0.04). No significant differences in caregiver satisfaction were found before or after adjustment (LSMpre: 83.1% (95%CI 80.9%-85.3%) vs. post: 82.4% (80.3%-84.5%), p=0.56))

Conclusions Our data suggest that the implementation of PC guidelines significantly improved patient satisfaction following traumatic injury, while maintaining robust caregiver satisfaction.

  • supportive care
  • family management
  • education and training
  • communication
  • clinical assessment

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author: davidbme49@gmail.com; ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3685-314X.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002229

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author: davidbme49@gmail.com; ORCID ID: 0000-0002-3685-314X.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors provided final approval of the submitted manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. RV is responsible for study conception, literature review, interpretation of the data and critical revisions. CM is responsible for literature review, design, data analysis and interpretation, and drafting the manuscript. DR is responsible for acquisition of data, interpretation of the data and critical revisions. PB, CD, AT, NL and DB-O are responsible for interpretation of the data and critical revisions.

    • Funding The study was investigator initiated and internal funding was provided by St. Anthony Hospital and Penrose St. Francis Health Services.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.