Author:
Oelschlägel Lina,Moen Anne,Dihle Alfhild,Christensen Vivi L.,Heggdal Kristin,Österlind Jane,Steindal Simen A.
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Welfare technology interventions have become increasingly important in home-based palliative care for facilitating safe, time-efficient, and cost-effective methods to support patients living independently. However, studies evaluating the implementation of welfare technology innovations are scarce, and the empirical evidence for sustainable models using technology in home-based palliative care remains low. This study aimed to report on the use of the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to assess the implementation of remote home care (RHC) a technology-mediated service for home-living patients in the palliative phase of cancer. Furthermore, it aimed to explore areas of particular importance determining the sustainability of technologies for remote palliative home-based care.
Methods
A secondary analysis of data collected by semi-structured interviews with patients with cancer in the palliative phase, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) experienced with RHC was performed. A deductive reflexive thematic analysis using RE-AIM dimensions was conducted.
Results
Five themes illustrating the five RE-AIM dimensions were identified: (1) Reach: protective actions in recruitment - gatekeeping, (2) Effectiveness: potential to offer person-centered care, (3) Adoption: balancing high touch with high tech, (4) Implementation: moving towards a common understanding, and (5) Maintenance: adjusting to what really matters. The RE-AIM framework highlighted that RHC implementation for patients in the palliative phase of cancer was influenced by HCP gatekeeping behavior, concerns regarding abandoning palliative care as a high-touch specialty, and a lack of competence in palliative care. Although RHC facilitated improved routines in patients’ daily lives, it was perceived as a static service unable to keep pace with disease progression.
Conclusions
A person-centered approach that prioritizes individual needs and preferences is necessary for providing optimal care. Although technologies such as RHC are not a panacea, they can be integrated as support for increasingly strained health services.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference45 articles.
1. World Health Organization. Palliative Care [Fact sheet].; 2020. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/palliative-care. Accessed 17 Apr 2023.
2. Kaasa S, Loge JH, Aapro M, Albreht T, Anderson R, Bruera E, et al. Integration of oncology and palliative care: a Lancet Oncology Commission. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:e588–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30415-7.
3. Radbruch L, De Lima L, Knaul F, Wenk R, Ali Z, Bhatnaghar S, et al. Redefining palliative care-A new consensus-based definition. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60:754–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2020.04.027.
4. Oelschlägel L, Dihle A, Christensen VL, Heggdal K, Moen A, Österlind J, et al. Implementing welfare technology in palliative homecare for patients with cancer: a qualitative study of health-care professionals’ experiences. BMC Palliat Care. 2021;20:146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-021-00844-w.
5. World Health Organization. Integrating palliative care and symptom relief into primary health care: a WHO guide for planners, implementers and managers.; 2018. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/274559/9789241514477-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 17 Apr 2023.