BACKGROUND: The care that most people receive at the end of their lives is provided not by specialist palliative care professionals but by generalists such as GPs, district nurses and others who have not undertaken specialist training in palliative care. A key focus of recent UK policy is improving partnership working across the spectrum of palliative care provision. However there is little evidence to suggest factors which support collaborative working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers. AIM: To explore factors that support partnership working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: A systematic review of studies relating to partnership working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers was undertaken. Six electronic databases were searched for papers published up until January 2011. RESULTS: Of the 159 articles initially identified, 22 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Factors supporting good partnership working included: good communication between providers; clear definition of roles and responsibilities; opportunities for shared learning and education; appropriate and timely access to specialist palliative care services; and coordinated care. CONCLUSION: Multiple examples exist of good partnership working between specialist and generalist providers; however, there is little consistency regarding how models of collaborative working are developed, and which models are most effective. Little is known about the direct impact of collaborative working on patient outcomes. Further research is required to gain the direct perspectives of health professionals and patients regarding collaborative working in palliative care, and to develop appropriate and cost-effective models for partnership working.
BACKGROUND: The care that most people receive at the end of their lives is provided not by specialist palliative care professionals but by generalists such as GPs, district nurses and others who have not undertaken specialist training in palliative care. A key focus of recent UK policy is improving partnership working across the spectrum of palliative care provision. However there is little evidence to suggest factors which support collaborative working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers. AIM: To explore factors that support partnership working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: A systematic review of studies relating to partnership working between specialist and generalist palliative care providers was undertaken. Six electronic databases were searched for papers published up until January 2011. RESULTS: Of the 159 articles initially identified, 22 papers met the criteria for inclusion. Factors supporting good partnership working included: good communication between providers; clear definition of roles and responsibilities; opportunities for shared learning and education; appropriate and timely access to specialist palliative care services; and coordinated care. CONCLUSION: Multiple examples exist of good partnership working between specialist and generalist providers; however, there is little consistency regarding how models of collaborative working are developed, and which models are most effective. Little is known about the direct impact of collaborative working on patient outcomes. Further research is required to gain the direct perspectives of health professionals and patients regarding collaborative working in palliative care, and to develop appropriate and cost-effective models for partnership working.
Authors: Cathy Shipman; Julia Addington-Hall; Margaret Thompson; Alison Pearce; Stephen Barclay; Ivan Cox; Jane Maher; David Millar Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Catherine Shipman; Julia Addington-Hall; Stephen Barclay; Jill Briggs; Ivan Cox; Lilian Daniels; David Millar Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Barbara Hanratty; Derek Hibbert; Frances Mair; Carl May; Christopher Ward; Simon Capewell; Andrea Litva; Ged Corcoran Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-09-14
Authors: Patricia M Davidson; Glenn Paull; Kate Introna; Jill Cockburn; Jan Maree Davis; David Rees; David Gorman; Linda Magann; Mary Lafferty; Kathleen Dracup Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2004 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Ivana Mm van der Geest; Patrick Je Bindels; Saskia Mf Pluijm; Erna Mc Michiels; Agnes van der Heide; Rob Pieters; Anne-Sophie E Darlington; Marry M van den Heuvel-Eibrink Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Ann M O'Hare; Jackie Szarka; Lynne V McFarland; Janelle S Taylor; Rebecca L Sudore; Ranak Trivedi; Lynn F Reinke; Elizabeth K Vig Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Pauline Boeckxstaens; Judith Belle Brown; Sonja M Reichert; Christopher N C Smith; Moira Stewart; Martin Fortin Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-04-06
Authors: Peter Pype; Linda Symons; Johan Wens; Bart Van den Eynden; Ann Stes; Myriam Deveugele Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2014-02-19 Impact factor: 2.497