English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background General practitioners (GPs) play a crucial role in the provision of end-of-life care (EoLC). The present study aimed at comparing the quality of GPs’ EoLC before and after an intervention involving a clinical decision aid and a public campaign. Methods The study was part of the larger interventional study ‘Optimal care at the end of life’ (OPAL) (Innovation Fund, Grant No. 01VSF17028). The intervention lasted 12 months and comprised two components: (1) implementation of the Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT-DE™) in general practice and (2) a public campaign in two German counties to inform and connect regional health care providers and stakeholders in EoLC. Participating GPs completed the General Practice End of Life Care Index (GP-EoLC-I) pre- (t0) and post- (t1) intervention. The GP-EoLC-I (25 items, score range: 14–40) is a self-assessment questionnaire that measures the quality of GPs’ EoLC. It includes two subscales: practice organisation and clinical practice. Data were analysed descriptively, and a paired t-test was applied for the pre–post comparison. Results Forty-five GPs (female: 29%, median age: 57 years) from 33 general practices participated in the intervention and took part in the survey at both times of measurement (t0 and t1). The mean GP-EoLC-I score (t0 = 27.9; t1 = 29.8) increased significantly by 1.9 points between t0 and t1 (t(44) = − 3.0;  p  = 0.005). Scores on the practice organisation subscale (t0 = 6.9; t1 = 7.6) remained almost similar (t(44) = -2.0;  p  = 0.057), whereas those of the clinical practice subscale (t0 = 21.0; t1 = 22.2) changed significantly between t0 and t1 (t(44) = -2.6;  p  = 0.011). In particular, items regarding the record of care plans, patients’ preferred place of care at the end of life and patients’ preferred place of death, as well as the routine documentation of impending death, changed positively. Conclusions GPs’ self-assessed quality of EoLC seemed to improve after a regional intervention that involved both the implementation of the SPICT-DE™ in daily practice and a public campaign. In particular, improvement related to the domains of care planning and documentation. Trial registration The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00015108 ; 22/01/2019).

Quality of end-of-life care in general practice – a pre–post comparison of a two-tiered intervention