| Literature DB >> 35664932 |
Sahar Khonsari1, Claire O Neill2, Catriona R Mayland3, Fraser Gilmour4, Marc Aitken5, Alistair Mckeown2, Sian Russell2, Angela Mcalees2, Morag Gardner2, Bridget Johnston5.
Abstract
Although there are studies on the use of social media and palliative and end-of-life care (PEOLC), there are no studies specifically investigating the content of online public feedback about PEOLC services. This study sought to understand experiences of end-of-life care provided in hospitals in the West of Scotland by exploring the main themes within the content of stories posted on a nationally endorsed nonprofit feedback online platform, Care Opinion, within a 2-year period. We used "Appreciative Inquiry" as a theoretical framework for this study to determine what works well in end-of-life care, while also identifying areas for further improvement. Of the 1428 stories published on "Care Opinion" from March 2019 to 2021 regarding hospitals in the West of Scotland, 48 (3.36%) were related to end-of-life care, of which all were included in data analysis. Using the software package NVivo and thematic analysis, we identified 4 key themes. We found that people overwhelmingly posted positive feedback about their experiences with end-of-life care. People reported positively about staff professionalism in providing compassionate and person-centered care to meet their loved ones needs at end of life. Other experiences of care related to challenges facing healthcare services, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Quality appraisal of staff responses highlighted areas for improving feedback. This study can add to the aim of improving staff response to people's concerns about end-of-life care. This study has provided a novel perspective of patients' experiences of end-of-life care in hospitals in the West of Scotland. Novel insights were the appreciation of quality of care, staff professionalism, effective communication, and meeting patient's needs at end-of-life particularly by nursing staff.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; care opinion; clinician–patient relationship; communication; end-of-life care; health information technology; online feedback
Year: 2022 PMID: 35664932 PMCID: PMC9158404 DOI: 10.1177/23743735221103029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Patient Exp ISSN: 2374-3735
Search Strategy.
| Search Terms | Results |
|---|---|
| “dying” OR “death” OR “died” OR “Passed away” OR “bereaved” OR “bereavement” OR “grief” OR “grieving” OR “end of life” OR “palliative” OR “palliative care” OR “life-limiting disorder” OR “terminal” OR “terminal care” OR “terminal illness” | 17,950 |
| “NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde” | 4350 |
| 1 AND 2 | 153 |
| After applying date limit: | 61 |
| After reviewing for inclusion/exclusion criteria:
Irrelevant (Maternity care, n = 3; Orthopaedic Disorder, n = 2; Child and COVID-19 shielding issues, n = 1; paperwork and mortuary, n = 1; stroke n = 1) Nonhospital, GP (n = 2) Nonhospital, NHS24 (n = 1) Nonhospital, home care (n = 1) Nonhospital, hospice (n = 1) | 48 |
Abbreviation: NHS, National Health Service.
Summary of Themes and Subthemes and Representative Quotes.
| Themes/subthemes | Total (n = 48), n (%)
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
|
| Appreciation of staff | 29 (60.41) |
|
|
| |
|
| Compassion | 13 (27.08) |
|
|
| |
|
| Trust | 8 (16.66) |
|
|
| |
|
| Being ignored | 8 (16.66) |
|
|
| |
|
| Disappointment | 5 (10.41) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Family involvement and shared decision making | 29 (60.41) |
|
|
| |
|
| Person-centered care | 24 (50) |
|
|
| |
|
| Teamwork | 7 (14.58) |
|
|
| |
|
| Controlling symptoms at end of life | 6 (12.5) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Effective clinician–patient /relative communication | 21 (43.75) |
|
|
| |
|
| Difficult conversations when approaching end of life care | 9 (18.75) |
|
|
| |
|
| When communication breaks down | 9 (18.75) |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Staffing pressure | 7 (14.58) |
|
|
| |
|
| Staff behavior and negative attitudes | 6 (12.5) |
|
|
| |
|
| Prolonged waiting | 6 (12.5) |
|
|
| |
|
| Lack of equipment and supplies | 2 (4.16) |
|
|
| |
|
| Lost personal property | 1 (2.08) |
|
|
| |
|
| COVID-19 pandemic visitor restrictions | 7 (14.58) |
|
|
| |
As people stories contained multiple subthemes their numbers do not add up to the total number of stories within a theme.
Spread of Responders by job Title.
| Responder role/title | Response contribution, Total (n = 58), n (%) |
|---|---|
| Nursing Team | 25 (43.1) |
| Chief Nurse | 15 (25.86) |
| Lead Nurse | 8 (13.79) |
| Senior Charge Nurse | 1 (1.72) |
| Clinical Nurse Specialist | 1 (1.72) |
| Patient Experience and Public Involvement Team | 13 (22.41) |
| General Manager | 6 (10.34) |
| Business Manager, Emergency Care, and Medical Services | 3 (5.17) |
| Clinical Services Manager | 2 (3.44) |
| Corporate Affairs and Engagement | 2 (3.44) |
| Deputy Regional Director | 1 (1.72) |
| Chief Allied Health Professional | 1 (1.72) |
| Unspecified | 5 (8.62) |
Staff Responses and Quality Appraisal of Existing Responses.
| PLLR Scope
| Questions, % (n) |
|---|---|
| Introductions | Have you provided a picture of yourself? 47.9% (n = 23/48)
|
| Have you provided your name in the title of your response? 100% (n = 48/48) | |
| Have you addressed the story provider? 83.33% (n = 40/48) | |
| Explanations | Have you identified your role? 95.83% (n = 46/48) |
| Have you explained your role? What you’re responsible for etc.? 10.4% (n = 5/48) | |
| Have you explained why you in particular are responding? 10.41% (n = 5/48) | |
| Speed of response | Are you responding within 7 days? 100% (n = 48/48) |
| Thanks and apologies | Have you thanked the story provider for taking the time to provide their feedback? 81.25% (n = 39/48) |
| If positive, have you offered to pass the feedback on?* 100% (n = 36/36) | |
| If negative, have you apologised and reassured the provider that you are there to help and listen?** 83.33% (n = 10/12) | |
| Content | Have you uniquely tailored your response? 100% (n = 48/48) |
| Have you offered to make contact with the story provider at a later date? ** 100% (n = 13/13) | |
| Signposting | Have you directed the story provider to other relevant services and explained that services purpose?** 83.33% (n = 10/12) |
| Have you provided: contact details, opening times, and a named person?** 81.81% (n = 9/11) | |
| Have you provided more than one contact option?** 27.27% (n = 3/11) | |
| Sign-off | Have you signed off your response in a polite manner? 95.83% (n = 46/48) |
“Plymouth Listen, Learn and Respond framework” (PLLR).
“Traffic light” colour coding system (green ≥ 60% good practice; orange = 50% to 60% acceptable; and red ≤ 50% areas for possible improvement.
*Only applicable to positive or mixed stories.
**Only applicable to negative or mixed stories
| No. | Inclusion Criteria | Check one | Comment | Initials and Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Story posted on Care Opinion Scotland between March 2019 and March 2020 and April 2020 and March 2021. | ○ Yes ○ No | ||
| 2 | Story discusses the treatment or diagnosis of a life-limiting condition and/ or end-of-life care experience. | ○ Yes ○ No | ||
| 3 | Story is relevant to end-of-life care provided in acute hospitals across NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. | ○ Yes ○ No | ||
| 4 | The content is relevant and useful and not only related to GP surgery or nonhospital services. | ○ Yes ○ No |