Premium
Palliative and end‐of‐life educational interventions for staff working in long‐term care facilities: An integrative review of the literature
Author(s) -
Iida Kieko,
Ryan Assumpta,
Hasson Felicity,
Payne Sheila,
McIlfatrick Sonja
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
international journal of older people nursing
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.707
H-Index - 29
eISSN - 1748-3743
pISSN - 1748-3735
DOI - 10.1111/opn.12347
Subject(s) - cinahl , psycinfo , palliative care , psychological intervention , medline , nursing , critical appraisal , cochrane library , intervention (counseling) , viewpoints , end of life care , medicine , long term care , psychology , quality of life (healthcare) , medical education , gerontology , alternative medicine , political science , art , pathology , law , visual arts
Background Given the increase in the number of deaths within long‐term care facilities (LTCFs), the need for palliative and end‐of‐life (EOL) care education among such facilities has been increasing. As such, a systematic synthesis of global palliative and EOL care educational approaches and evaluation can aid further educational development. Objective To synthesise the current literature on palliative and EOL care educational interventions for staff working in LTCFs and identify barriers to, and facilitators of, intervention implementation. Methods The study used an integrative review framework wherein indexed databases, namely, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Japan Medical Abstract Society, were systematically searched for studies published in English and Japanese between 2007 and 2019. Search terms that are related to palliative care, LTCF, and education were combined to increase search sensitivity. The quality of the papers was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools and the Mixed‐Methods Appraisal Tool. Results A total of 52 studies were included in the review. Our results suggested that although studies in this area and setting have been evolving, suboptimal developmental research and educational practices, global variability and unstandardised approaches to education and lacking viewpoints from service users have remained. Barriers to intervention implementation were also reported due to the specific characteristics of LTCFs, which include high staff turnover and considerable variation in professional skills and experience. Conclusions Given the different LTCF types, systems and policies across each country or region, further research on standardised educational interventions with contextual considerations using large‐scale studies with robust methodology is needed to meet the increasing demand for palliative and EOL care among the global ageing population. Implications for practice Palliative and EOL care educational intervention for LTCF staff need to include more consideration of context, organisational culture and the user involvement throughout the process of education and research to enhance the quality of care in this complex setting.