Recent clinical practice guidelines have highlighted the importance of advance care planning (ACP) for improving end-of-life care for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a systematic integrative review of the literature to inform future ACP practice and research in CKD, searching electronic databases in April 2013. Synthesis used narrative methods. We focused on adults with a primary diagnosis of CKD in any setting. We included studies of any design, quantitative or qualitative. ACP was defined as any formal means taken to ensure that health professionals and family members are aware of patients’ wishes for care in the event they become too unwell to speak for themselves. Measures of all kinds were considered of interest. 55 articles met criteria reporting on 51 discrete samples. All patient samples included people with CKD stage 5; 2 also included patients with stage 4. Seven interventions were tested; all were narrowly focused and none was evaluated by comparing wishes for end-of-life care with care received. One intervention demonstrated effects on patient and family outcomes in the form of improved well-being and anxiety following sessions with a peer mentor. Insights from qualitative studies that have not been used to inform interventions include the importance of instilling patient confidence that their advance directives will be enacted and discussing decisions about (dis)continuing dialysis therapy separately from “aggressive” life-sustaining treatments (eg, ventilation). Although quantitative and qualitative findings were integrated according to best practice, methods for this are in their infancy. Research on ACP in patients with CKD is limited, especially intervention studies. Interventions in CKD should attend to barriers and facilitators at the levels of patient, caregiver, health professional, and system. Intervention studies should measure impact on compliance with patient wishes for end-of-life care.

Objective: To examine policy and implementation issues around multidisciplinary care planning (MDP) as a means of improving outcomes for patients with chronic disease and/or complex care needs. Metho...

Introduction: Telehealth approaches to health care delivery can potentially improve quality of care and clinical outcomes, reduce mortality and hospital utilisation, and complement conventional treatments. However, substantial research into the potential for integrating telehealth within health care in Australia, particularly in the provision of services relevant to older people, including palliative care, aged care and rehabilitation, is lacking. Furthermore, to date, no discrete choice experiment (DCE) studies internationally have sought the views and preferences of older people about the basic features that should make up a telehealth approach to these services. Methods: Using a DCE, we investigated the relative importance of six salient features of telehealth (what aspects of care are to be pursued during telehealth sessions, distance to the nearest hospital or clinic, clinicians’ attitude to telehealth, patients’ experience of using technology, what types of assessments should be conducted face-to-face versus via telehealth sessions and the costs associated with receiving telehealth). Data were obtained from an online panel of older people aged 65 years and above, drawn from the Australian general population. Results: The mean age for 330 study participants was 69 years. In general, individuals expressed strong preferences for telehealth services that offered all aspects of care, were relatively inexpensive and targeted specifically at individuals living in remote regions without easy access to a hospital or clinic. Participants also preferred telehealth services to be offered to individuals with some prior experience of using technology, provided by clinicians who were positive about telehealth but wanted all or some pre-telehealth health assessments to take place in a hospital or clinic. Preferences only differed by gender. Additionally, respondents did not feel that telehealth led to loss of privacy and confidentiality. Discussion: Our findings indicate a preference amongst respondents for face-to-face pre-telehealth health assessments and, thereafter, a comprehensive telehealth model (in terms of services offered) targeted at those with some technological know-how as a substitute for attendance at hospitals and clinics, especially where these health facilities were far away from older people’s homes. The findings may be usefully incorporated into the design of future telehealth models of service delivery for older people.

Background: As the use of technology to deliver health services is increasing rapidly and has further intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, these initiatives may fail if ethical impacts are not fully identified and acted upon by practitioners. Ignoring the ethical impacts of information and communication technology health service delivery creates an unintended risk for patients and can lead to reduced effectiveness, noncompliance, and harm, undermining the best intentions of governments and clinicians.Objective: Our aim was to explore how ethical considerations or impacts may be different, greater, or more variable in information and communication technology methods versus face-to-face health care delivery models, and how they may be applied in practice.Methods: We undertook a systemic literature review to provide a critical overview of existing research into the incorporation of ethical principles into telehealth practice. Six databases were searched between March 2016 to May 2016 and again in December 2020 to provide the benefit of currency. A combination of broad terms (“ethics,” “ethical,” “health,” and “care”) with the restrictive terms of “telehealth” and “telemedicine” was used in keyword searches. Thematic analysis and synthesis of each paper was conducted, aligned to the framework developed by Beauchamp and Childress.Results: From the 49 papers reviewed, authors identified or discussed the following ethical principles in relation to telehealth practice: autonomy (69% of authors, 34/49), professional–patient relationship (53% of authors, 26/49), nonmaleficence (41% of authors, 20/49), beneficence (39%, of authors, 19/49), and justice (39% of authors, 19/49).Conclusions: Although a small number of studies identified ethical issues associated with telehealth practice and discussed their potential impact on service quality and effectiveness, there is limited research on how ethical principles are incorporated into clinical practice. Several studies proposed frameworks, codes of conduct, or guidelines, but there was little discussion or evidence of how these recommendations are being used to improve ethical telehealth practice.

Purpose To objectively quantify the literature and the clinical trial basis for palliative and hospice practice given a perception that its evidence base is not well developed. Methods Using Ovid Medline, the study looked at cumulative and absolute numbers of articles in the general medical literature and the palliative and hospice care literature. The same comparisons were made exploring clinical trials from 1902 to 2005. Data were collated in five year groups from 1970 onward using a highly specific search phrase. Results The proportion of all Ovid Medline publications relating to palliative and hospice care rose from 0.08% in 1970 to 0.38% of the literature in 2005. In the same time, clinical trials increased from 0.96% to 7.22% of the palliative care literature published. By 2005, one in every 122 clinical trials published in the literature as a whole was in palliative or hospice care. The rate of growth in palliative care clinical trials as a proportion of all palliative and hospice publications was on average 1.4 times greater than in the corresponding general literature. More than one half of these studies were reported in just 43 journals, most of which were not specialist palliative and hospice care journals. Discussion Given the diversity of journals in which clinical studies related to hospice and palliative care appear, there is a key challenge for clinicians in finding ways that will allow currency of practice in a broad and rapidly changing field.

Background: Telehealth technologies are an emerging resource opening up the possibility of greater support if they have utility for patients, carers and clinicians. They may also help to meet health systems’ imperatives for improved service delivery within current budgets. Clinicians’ experiences and attitudes play a key role in the implementation of any innovation in service delivery. Aim: To explore clinicians’ perspectives on and experiences of the utilisation of a pilot telehealth model and its integration into a specialist community palliative care programme. Design: Focus groups and interviews generated data that were analysed through the lens of a realistic evaluation theoretical framework. Setting/participants: The study was conducted in a metropolitan specialist palliative care service in South Australia. Participants (n = 10) were clinicians involved in the delivery of community specialist palliative care and the piloting of a telehealth programme. Results: Service providers consider telehealth resources as a means to augment current service provision in a complementary way rather than as a replacement for face-to-face assessments. Introducing this technology, however, challenged the team to critically explore aspects of current service provision. The introduction of technologies also has the potential to alter the dynamic of relationships between patients and families and community palliative care clinicians. Conclusion: Implementation of a pilot telehealth programme in a specialist palliative community team needs to involve clinical staff in service redesign from the outset. Reliable IT infrastructure and technical support is critical for telehealth models to be effective and will aid uptake.