Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives This study examined the adherence rate of recommendations of a palliative consultation team (PCT) and a geriatric consultation team (GCT). Secondary aims were to investigate which factors and/or recommendation characteristics influence adherence rates.
Methods This retrospective cohort study was performed in the Maastricht University Medical Center+ in the Netherlands and included hospitalised patients who received a consultation by the PCT or the GCT. Baseline data on consultations were collected for the total population and for the GCT and PCT separately. The adherence rate of the recommendations was evaluated by checking evidence of implementation. The nature of recommendations given (solicited or unsolicited) was documented per domain (somatic, psychological/cognitive, social, spiritual, functional, and existential). The association with adherence was evaluated for solicited and unsolicited recommendations separately. Exploration of potentially associated factors was performed using OpenEpi.
Results Overall, 507 consultations of individual patients were performed (n=131) by the GCT and (n=376) by the PCT. Most recommendations given were solicited (865/1201=72%). Over 80% of both solicited and unsolicited recommendations were implemented in the majority of domains. No potentially modifiable factors associated with the adherence of the advices were found.
Conclusions The overall adherence rate of the GCT and PCT consultations was high. In addition, in certain domains, many recommendations were unsolicited. However, also the majority of these recommendations were implemented.
- Hospital care
- Service evaluation
- Supportive care
- Clinical assessment
- Communication
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as online supplemental information.
Footnotes
Contributors FM: study concept and design, interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript; HJ: study concept and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript; JvL: study concept and design, acquisition and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript; LL: study concept, acquisition and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript; MvdB-E: study concept and design, interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript, guarantor. MT: study concept, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript; NP: study concept and design, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data, and preparation of manuscript; All authors (FM, HJ, JvL, LL, MvdB-E, MT and NP) approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. Guarantor: MvdB-E.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
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.