Julian Abel1, Allan Kellehear2, Aliki Karapliagou1. 1. DHEZ Academic, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. 2. DHEZ Academic, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK. a.kellehear@bradford.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: If global palliative care is to successfully address challenges of unequal access, continuity of care, and health services reductionism, new practice models to address these issues need to be identified, debated and tested. This paper offers one such practice model based on a public health approach to palliative care that has so far shown promising evidence of effectiveness. METHODS: We describe how four essential elements within a public health model can work together to address quality and continuity of care as well as addressing the numerous barriers of access. These elements are: (I) specialist, and (II) generalist palliative care services working with (III) communities and neighbourhoods, working in their turn with their (IV) key civic institutions. RESULTS: The positive and negative impact and advantages of each of these elements is described and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: A solely clinical model of palliative care is inadequate to addressing the multiple co-morbidities and access issues characteristic of modern palliative care. A public health approach based on a close partnership between clinical services and communities/civic institutions is the optimal practice model.
BACKGROUND: If global palliative care is to successfully address challenges of unequal access, continuity of care, and health services reductionism, new practice models to address these issues need to be identified, debated and tested. This paper offers one such practice model based on a public health approach to palliative care that has so far shown promising evidence of effectiveness. METHODS: We describe how four essential elements within a public health model can work together to address quality and continuity of care as well as addressing the numerous barriers of access. These elements are: (I) specialist, and (II) generalist palliative care services working with (III) communities and neighbourhoods, working in their turn with their (IV) key civic institutions. RESULTS: The positive and negative impact and advantages of each of these elements is described and discussed. CONCLUSIONS: A solely clinical model of palliative care is inadequate to addressing the multiple co-morbidities and access issues characteristic of modern palliative care. A public health approach based on a close partnership between clinical services and communities/civic institutions is the optimal practice model.
Keywords:
Public health; civic engagement; community; inter-professional working; social determinants
Authors: Julian Abel; Helen Kingston; Andrew Scally; Jenny Hartnoll; Gareth Hannam; Alexandra Thomson-Moore; Allan Kellehear Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-10-08 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Grace Warner; Emily Kervin; Barb Pesut; Robin Urquhart; Wendy Duggleby; Taylor Hill Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Chariklia Tziraki; Corrina Grimes; Filipa Ventura; Rónán O'Caoimh; Silvina Santana; Veronica Zavagli; Silvia Varani; Donatella Tramontano; João Apóstolo; Bart Geurden; Vincenzo De Luca; Giovanni Tramontano; Maria Rosaria Romano; Marilena Anastasaki; Christos Lionis; Rafael Rodríguez-Acuña; Manuel Luis Capelas; Tânia Dos Santos Afonso; David William Molloy; Giuseppe Liotta; Guido Iaccarino; Maria Triassi; Patrik Eklund; Regina Roller-Wirnsberger; Maddalena Illario Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 1.458
Authors: Mostofa Kamal Chowdhury; Nezamuddin Ahmad; Fazle Noor Biswas; Nadia Farheen; Lailatul Ferdous; Kazi Maksoda Akter; Stephen R Connor Journal: Palliat Care Soc Pract Date: 2021-12-16