1 / 26

Palliative care and GP teams – defining the optimum

Palliative care and GP teams – defining the optimum. Peter Woolford Simon Allan. Scallop season opens this weekend!!!. Place of death over 3 hospices. GPs are integral to providing best care.

iria
Download Presentation

Palliative care and GP teams – defining the optimum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Palliative care and GP teams – defining the optimum Peter Woolford Simon Allan

  2. Scallop season opens this weekend!!!

  3. Place of death over 3 hospices

  4. GPs are integral to providing best care • GPs are widely regarded, in all developed countries, as being pivotal to successful, high quality cost-effective home based and community care.

  5. GPs are integral to providing best care • They provide contextural knowledge of a patient, family dynamics, history of illness, routine medical surveillance, early intervention to prevent or control symptoms, medical care of carers and bereavement surveillance of carers. Mitchell 2004.

  6. Both Programmes ultimate goals • “To support the terminally ill patients who choose to die at home, and to support the GPs to deliver generalist palliative care who are able to support this option”

  7. Aims PC1 To fulfil the expressed wish of patients who have a stated preference to die at home PC2 To deliver coordinated primary care to support patients their families/whanau through the end of life experience

  8. PC1 Limited, none in the immediate vicinity. Available on a limited basis across town PC2 Access available locally and reasonably easily Access to hospice beds

  9. PC1 21 of the 25 eligible practices 84% PC2 11 of the 19 eligible practices 58% Number of practices enrolled in the programme

  10. PC1 36 of an eligible 100 36% PC2 21 of an eligible 71 30% Number of GPs involved

  11. PC1 114 PC2 110 Patients enrolled in the study year

  12. PC1 Range 24 – 94 Mean 61 More cancer diagnoses – 93% PC2 Range 45 – 100 Mean 81 Less cancer diagnoses - 46% Age of patients enrolled

  13. PC1 Range of days in programme 1 – 275 Median 31.5 76 (66%) patients died 55 (72%) died in their own home/residence 5 died in hospital PC2 Range of days in programme 0 -299 Median 30 days 9 (8%) patients died 2 (2%) died in their own home/residence Deaths

  14. PC1 Practice visits – 108 Home visits – 304 Extended HV – 80 Total contacts - 492 PC2 Practice visits – 34 Home visits – 31 Initial visit with ACP – 110 After hours visits – 15 Total contacts - 190 Services provided by GPs

  15. What did the programmes have in common? • Shared ultimate goals • Quality GPs committed to providing good palliative care • Strong education package for GPs • Access to specialist advice • Access to funding for patients. In PC1 this was primarily for home visits to dying patients, in PC2 there was a strong emphasis on completion of an ACP

  16. PC1 Used Irene Higginson’s POS. This was dropped early on as it became clear it was not transferable PC2 Used an Advance Care Plan, which remained a compulsory part of the programme How did the programmes differ?

  17. PC1 Focused on care in the home and inevitably therefore the last 3 months of life. PC2 Focused on the ACP, and thus more non cancer patients were enrolled How did the programmes differ?

  18. PC1 Has a GP taking an active part in the weekly multidisciplinary team meeting PC2 Has no regular GP involvement in the hospice How did the programmes differ?

  19. PC1 Has a back up call system of 3 GPs, available for the patient’s regular GPs if they are unavailable PC2 Has a system relying on regular GPs, hospice nurses and palliative care specialists who do not visit How did the programmes differ?

  20. PC1 Funding is focused on home visits PC2 Funding is (accidentally) focused on ACP How did the programmes differ?

  21. 80% of patients being supported to die at home Spinoffs • Fulfilling patient wishes • Healthier for the patient • Healthier for the patients’s family • Healthier for communities • Decreased acute and inpatient demand on hospitals

  22. An integrated model of care • GP involvement in hospice – MDT • Hospice nurses always using the GP as first port of call for medical advice • Hospice nurses carrying medication and being able to administer on GP advice • PC specialist acting as consultants, particularly consulting in home with GP

  23. An integrated model of care - 2 • All team members being proactive using an anticipatory model of care. Palliative care lends itself to this • Provide ongoing education in a variety of formats web based/short course/ordinary CME diploma/masters level (grants by PHO)

  24. An integrated model of care - 3 • GP’s being available 24/7 • No need for individual GP to be 100% available • Need to be flexible • May only need phone contact • May delegate to partner • Have a back up system of GP cover

  25. An integrated model of care - 4 • Pay patient fees for home visits • Encourage/pay GPs for ACPs • Link in with national programme • Not compulsary

  26. Integration across services Tuia te rangi e tu iho nei Tuia te papa e takoto nei. Join the sky above To the earth below Just as people join together As sky joins to earth, so people join together. People depend on one another

More Related