Objective Evidence has shown that, despite wide variation in models of care, community-based specialist palliative care teams can improve outcomes and reduce acute care use at end of life. The goal of this study was to explore similarities in care practices among effective and diverse specialist teams to inform the development of other community-based teams.
Methods Interviews with 78 providers and administrators from 11 distinct community-based specialist palliative care teams from Ontario, Canada were conducted. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using an inductive approach to identify common themes.
Results 3 key themes across all teams emerged. First, the distinct models of care were generally summarised into 3 models: primary care and specialist providers either collaborated by transferring, sharing or consulting in care. Second, teams explicitly or implicitly followed 7 common care practices related to: specialised expertise 24/7; intrateam communication; timeliness; physical symptom and psychosocial–spiritual management; education; peace and fulfilment; and advocacy for patient preferences. Third, all teams emphasised the importance of team building, even more than using clinical tools and processes.
Conclusions Despite wide variation in models of care among community-based specialist palliative care teams, this large qualitative study identified several common themes in care practices that can guide the development of other teams.
- Palliative care
- Home care
- interprofessional team
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors HS and DBa were involved in study design, data collection, data analysis, writing of draft manuscript, review of draft and final manuscript. MB and MLK were involved in review of draft and final manuscript. DBr and STT were involved in study design, data collection, data analysis and review of final manuscript.
Funding The authors gratefully acknowledge funding received for this study from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (contract number 2011-0006) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number 115112).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University Research Ethics Review Board, Ontario, Canada.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
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.