Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
Research ArticleResearch

Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings

Mixed-methods evaluation of the INTEGRATE Project

Jenna M. Evans, Marnie Mackinnon, José Pereira, Craig C. Earle, Bruno Gagnon, Erin Arthurs, Sharon Gradin, Tara Walton, Frances Wright and Sandy Buchman
Canadian Family Physician April 2021, 67 (4) 270-278; DOI: https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.6704270
Jenna M. Evans
Scientist at Cancer Care Ontario in Toronto and Assistant Professor (status) at the Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation at the University of Toronto.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marnie Mackinnon
Director of Integrated Care at Cancer Care Ontario.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
José Pereira
Palliative care physician and was Director of Research at the College of Family Physicians of Canada in Mississauga, Ont, at the time of the study, Dr Gillian Gilchrist Chair in Palliative Care Research at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont, and Scientific Officer at Pallium Canada.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Craig C. Earle
Medical oncologist in the Odette Cancer Centre at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, Vice-President of Cancer Control at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Senior Scientist at ICES, and Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bruno Gagnon
Palliative care physician and Associate Professor in the Cancer Research Centre in the Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine at Laval University in Quebec.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erin Arthurs
Senior Analyst in Integrated Care at Cancer Care Ontario at the time of the study.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sharon Gradin
Group Manager in Integrated Care at Cancer Care Ontario at the time of the study.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tara Walton
Team Lead in Palliative Care at Cancer Care Ontario.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frances Wright
Oncologist and affiliate scientist with the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandy Buchman
Palliative care physician in the Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care in the Sinai Health System in Toronto.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Sandy.Buchman@sinaihealthsystem.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective To evaluate an intervention aimed at building capacity to deliver palliative care in primary care settings.

Design The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year pilot project involving interprofessional palliative care education and an integrated care model to promote early identification and support of patients with palliative care needs. A concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using descriptive data, provider surveys before and after implementation, and interviews with providers and managers.

Setting Four primary care practices in Ontario.

Participants All providers in each practice were invited to participate. Providers used the “surprise question“ as a prompt to determine patient eligibility for inclusion.

Main outcome measures Provider attitudes toward and confidence in providing palliative care, use of palliative care tools, delivery of palliative care, and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care.

Results A total of 294 patients were identified for early initiation of palliative care, most of whom had multiple comorbid conditions. Results demonstrated improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care (30% mean increase, P < .05) and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services (25% mean increase, P < .05). There was substantial variation across practices regarding the percentage of patients identified using the surprise question (0.2% to 1.5%), the number of advance care planning conversations initiated (50% to 90%), and mean time to conversation (13 to 76 days). This variation is attributable, in part, to contextual differences across practices.

Conclusion A standardized model for the early introduction of palliative care to patients can be integrated into the routine practice of primary care practitioners with appropriate training and support. Additional research is needed to understand the practice factors that contribute to the success of palliative care interventions in primary care and to examine patient outcomes.

Palliative care aims to relieve suffering and improve quality of life for patients and their families who are facing serious, life-limiting illness.1 It focuses on open and sensitive communication with patients about their prognosis and illness trajectory, including advance care planning (ACP), setting goals of care (GoC), and discussing available treatments.1 Palliative care also involves the provision of pain and symptom management and psychosocial and spiritual support to help patients and families cope with the illness.1 In the past, palliative care was relegated to the last stages of care when patients were at or near the end of life. However, empirical evidence suggests that initiating palliative care earlier in the illness trajectory can improve symptom control, quality of life, and survival, and result in less aggressive care and less distress among family caregivers compared with patients receiving standard care.2-8

Despite increasing evidence regarding the benefits of initiating palliative care early, many Canadians only receive palliative care in the last month of life, and most continue to die in hospital.9,10 Integrating palliative care into primary care enables early identification and access to palliative care, while reserving scarce specialist palliative care resources for the most complex cases.11-13 Primary care practitioners (PCPs) are uniquely positioned to deliver effective “generalist” palliative care: they treat the whole person (not just individual illnesses), can readily identify patients who might benefit from a palliative approach to care, tend to have continuous relationships with patients and their families over time, and often wish to remain active in the care of their dying patients.11,14-17 In addition to supporting most patients’ preference to die at home in the care of a physician they know and trust,18,19 home- and community-based palliative care can also generate statistically significant cost savings for the health care system.3,20 However, many PCPs have not been trained to provide palliative care and report few resources and supports.11,21-29

In this study, we report the results of an intervention aimed at building the capacity of PCPs to deliver palliative care to patients in the community. The INTEGRATE Project was a 3-year (2014 to 2016) pilot project that delivered interprofessional palliative care education to providers and implemented an integrated care model to promote early identification of and support for patients with palliative care needs.30 The overall goals of the INTEGRATE Project were to enhance provider knowledge and confidence in palliative care delivery, identify patients who might benefit from palliative care earlier in their disease trajectory, and increase the provision of palliative care and the use of palliative care tools. The INTEGRATE Project was implemented in 4 primary care practices (results reported herein) and select disease sites within 4 cancer centres (results to be reported elsewhere) in Ontario.

METHODS

To evaluate the effect of the INTEGRATE Project on primary care capacity to deliver palliative care, we analyzed descriptive data and conducted preintervention and postintervention surveys and semistructured interviews. Ethics approval for this study was granted by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board.

Intervention settings and patient eligibility criteria

Four primary care practices in Ontario were invited to participate in the INTEGRATE Project. These practices were purposefully selected using maximum variation sampling to ensure diversity in geography and practice characteristics (eg, academic status, extent of interprofessional resources) (Table 1). All 4 practices accepted the invitation to participate and identified a local clinical champion to support the INTEGRATE Project implementation in their practice. Individual PCPs at each practice chose whether to participate in the INTEGRATE Project. To support early identification, participating PCPs used the surprise question: “Would you be surprised if this patient were to die within 6 to 12 months?”31 The surprise question was used as a prompt for all patients expected to need symptom management in the next year based on age (ie, older than 75 years) and diagnoses (ie, diagnosis of life-limiting disease or presence of multiple comorbidities). If the answer to the surprise question was no, the patient was included in the intervention and a palliative approach to care was initiated, including symptom assessment and management, ACP and GoC conversations with patients and family members, and referrals to community supportive care.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Primary care practices that participated in the INTEGRATE Project

Interventions

The INTEGRATE model consisted of 2 interventions: interprofessional palliative care education; and an integrated care model to facilitate early identification of patients with palliative care needs, early linkages to community-based resources, and improved communication between providers involved in patient care. The model was co-developed by the research team and provincial working groups comprising clinicians, allied health practitioners, administrators, and patient and family advisors, and was adapted from the Gold Standards Framework, which is endorsed by the National Health Service in the United Kingdom (Figure 1).31

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

INTEGRATE model of care for primary care practices

Providers at participating practices completed Pallium Canada’s Learning Essential Approaches to Palliative Care (LEAP) 2-day workshop (“LEAP Core”). The LEAP course provides a standardized, interactive, competency- and team-based approach to learning about current best practice in caring for patients with life-threatening illness.32 Sites were strongly encouraged to include all members of the care team. For this reason, most INTEGRATE Project providers were trained together, regardless of professional role. In addition, a trifold decision aid was developed, in both English and French, to support providers in the identification of patients likely to benefit from a palliative approach (available from the authors upon request).

Once physicians identified a patient using the surprise question, a palliative approach to care was initiated. Patient assessment of symptoms and functional status was conducted using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the Palliative Performance Scale.33,34 Advance care planning conversations with patients and family members were also initiated by physicians and, at some sites, followed up by other members of the team, such as a nurse or social worker. Providers agreed to common referral criteria: a Palliative Performance Scale score of less than 60 (indicating substantial disease and reduced mobility) triggered a referral to a Community Care Access Centre (CCAC). (Community Care Access Centres were regional bodies that coordinated and provided access to home and community care services.) Each site was assigned a coordinator through its local CCAC. The coordinators, who were on site for 1 half day or 1 full day per week, supported implementation of the INTEGRATE Project, facilitated patient navigation, and participated in interprofessional discussions where possible. Symptom management, triage, and referrals to home and community care (including palliative care specialists) were performed continuously by the care team based on patient need.

Data collection and analysis

Project managers were responsible for documenting patients identified using the surprise question, the date of identification, and other clinical data elements for evaluation purposes. These data was collected on an ongoing basis from the point of implementation (Table 2) until August 31, 2016.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Patients identified with the surprise question by primary care practice: N = 294.

To provide a baseline against which to assess the effect of the INTEGRATE Project, a Web-based self-administered survey was co-developed by the research team and provincial working groups, drawing from existing surveys where possible, such as from the Canadian Hospice and Palliative Care Association. The survey consisted of 20 questions with primarily Likert-type agreement scales, and was administered before and after implementation to measure provider attitudes toward and confidence to provide palliative care; use of palliative care tools; delivery of palliative care; and perceived barriers to delivering palliative care. All PCPs who participated in the project were invited via e-mail to participate. In accordance with the Dillman method, partial respondents and nonrespondents were sent 3 reminders to complete each survey.35 To compare preimplementation and postimplementation survey participant characteristics and responses, 2 members of the research team used the Embedded Image2 test.

Two members of the research team also conducted semistructured interviews with care providers and clinical and administrative leaders. The aim was to understand their views and experiences, identify implementation enablers and barriers, and assess the sustainability of the model. Interviewees provided verbal consent to participate in the interviews. Interviews were recorded and a summary of each interview was generated using a combination of interviewer notes and verbatim transcripts. The interview summaries were sent back to participants for review as a form of “member checking.”36 Two members of the research team inductively coded the interview transcripts, reconciled their differences through discussion, and thematically analyzed the coded data using NVivo software.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients were identified using the surprise question across 4 primary care practices (Tables 2 and 3). Only 1 practice reached the hypothesized 1% of patients in primary care who are expected to die within a year and would benefit from palliative care.37 The primary disease that contributed to the decision to initiate a palliative approach to treatment varied. Cancer was reported as the most common diagnosis (41%), with heart disease (17%) and dementia (10%) being the next most common diagnoses. Frailty (8%), chronic lung disease (6%), and chronic kidney disease (5%) were less common. Other diagnoses (10%) reported included liver disease, motor neuron disease, Parkinson disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, diabetes, stroke, multiple sclerosis, seizure disorder, and hypertension. More than 3 comorbid conditions were reported by 65% of patients, likely contributing to their need for a palliative approach to care.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

INTEGRATE Project patient characteristics and milestones by practice: N = 265 patients; owing to missing data for 29 patients, this table reports on 265 of 294 identified patients (90%).

Preimplementation and postimplementation provider survey

The preimplementation and postimplementation surveys yielded 55% (n = 71) and 34% (n = 49) response rates, respectively. A description of the survey respondents is provided in Table 4. A summary of the results before and after implementation across the 4 primary care practices is provided in Table 5. The results demonstrate improvement in provider confidence to deliver palliative care and self-reported use of palliative care tools and services; 14 of 17 (82%) of these improvements are statistically significant (P < .05). The most prominent shifts occurred in providers’ belief that they have sufficient education to provide palliative care (21% to 64%), use of the surprise question (54% to 91%), and confidence to initiate the ACP conversation (25% to 62%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Profile of preimplementation and postimplementation survey respondents

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 5.

Comparison of provider survey responses before and after implementation of the INTEGRATE Project

Provider interviews

A total of 14 interviews were conducted with 12 physicians and 2 nurses across the 4 primary care practices (3 to 4 providers per practice). The providers agreed that the INTEGRATE Project enhanced awareness of and helped prioritize palliative care. Even providers who were using the surprise question or delivering palliative care before the INTEGRATE Project noted that the model supported a more proactive and explicit approach, particularly for initiating ACP conversations. There was also consensus that provider confidence and skill in delivering palliative care increased, and that ACP conversations were initiated earlier and for a broader group of patients than in previous practice. These results align with the quantitative results of the preimplementation and postimplementation surveys.

Providers also highlighted several enablers of and barriers to the implementation of the INTEGRATE Project. Common enablers across sites included the team-based LEAP training, which created a common language and approach; the dedicated CCAC care coordinator; physician champions; and the use of electronic medical records to alert providers about eligible patients (eg, based on age), to support documentation of the surprise question and ACP conversation, and to embed educational resources and referral forms. Notable barriers to the implementation and sustainability of the INTEGRATE Project included time per patient visit and physician workload (although it was noted that this became less of a barrier over time as the new model was normalized), technical challenges with documentation in electronic medical records in select practices, staff turnover, persistent discomfort initiating ACP conversations, varying levels of patient and family readiness for ACP conversations, and sharing a person’s identified goals and values across care settings. Providers also flagged practice type as a factor influencing the success of the INTEGRATE Project; practices with more internal interprofessional resources (ie, Barrie and Community Family Health Team, Petawawa Centennial Family Health Team, Sunnybrook Academic Family Health Team) generally experienced fewer barriers integrating the model into their routine work flow compared with those that did not (ie, Forest Hill Family Health Group).

DISCUSSION

The importance of integrating palliative care into primary care is well established and there is evidence to show that it has benefits; however, scholars highlight the need for more research to better understand how to best equip and empower PCPs to deliver a palliative approach to care.11,13,15-17,27,29,38,39 We evaluated a 3-year intervention to build capacity for early palliative care delivery in primary care, and identified significant increases in PCP confidence to deliver a palliative approach to care, use of palliative care tools, initiation of ACP or GoC conversations, home visits for palliative care, and referrals to community palliative care services.

The results demonstrate that the surprise question can be feasible and useful as a standard method for identifying patients who might benefit from a palliative approach in primary care settings, but key enablers are required, such as a physician champion. Although recent evidence suggests that the surprise question performs poorly to modestly as a prognostic tool,40 it was not used for this purpose in the INTEGRATE Project; rather, the surprise question was used as a prompt to identify patients who could benefit from a palliative care approach earlier in their disease trajectory.41-43

The results also suggest that, with appropriate training and support, a palliative approach to care can be integrated into the routine practice of PCPs. However, there was considerable variation across sites with regard to the number of patients identified using the surprise question, the percentage of patients for whom an ACP or GoC conversation was initiated, and the time between identification and the ACP or GoC conversation. This variation might be attributable, in part, to contextual differences across the sites, including co-location of interprofessional resources, leadership commitment, capacity to conduct research, rurality, practice culture, clinician buy-in over time, and clinician and patient readiness to have these conversations. Overall, the results suggest that the care processes introduced by the INTEGRATE Project can be successfully incorporated into practice with appropriate and regular education, and a flexible approach to implementation that enables local tailoring.

Limitations

Limitations of our study include that the evaluation relied on self-reported data. However, a number of strategies were used to ensure data quality, including triangulation between data sources such as the surveys and interviews, standardized Microsoft Excel spreadsheets with data rules, opportunities for sites to review and correct submitted data, and the investigation of anomalies. Physicians at each practice could choose whether to participate the INTEGRATE Project, which might have introduced selection bias. We do not have comparative data on the physicians at each practice who chose to participate in the INTEGRATE Project versus those who did not. The postimplementation provider survey generated a poor response rate (34%) compared with baseline (55%), and thus might not be representative of all providers who participated in the INTEGRATE Project. The lower response rate might have been owing to competing priorities and initiatives taking place at 1 or more practices at the time of administration. Furthermore, we were unable to create “matched pairs” of preintervention and postimplementation responses for each individual. However, no significant differences were identified in the demographic profiles for the preintervention and postimplementation survey respondents, with the exception that no providers from the Petawawa Centennial Family Health Team participated in the postimplementation survey. Finally, the evaluation measures were focused on assessing intervention implementation and feasibility from the perspective of participating PCPs. As such, no measures of effect were included, such as patient-reported quality of life or health outcomes.

Conclusion

The results of this real-world pilot study have relevance to primary health care reform efforts. Primary care professionals can support early identification and initiation of palliative care for patients, thereby improving the reach and sustainability of palliative care. However, education and a thoughtful approach to implementation are required. Additional research is needed to better understand the practice factors that contribute to the success or failure of palliative care interventions in primary care, and to examine associated patient outcomes.

Acknowledgment

The INTEGRATE Project was funded by the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and was supported in kind by Cancer Care Ontario.

Notes

Editor’s key points

▸ Many Canadians only receive palliative care in the last month of life. Integrating palliative care into primary care enables early identification and access. However, many primary care practitioners lack training in palliative care and report few resources and supports.

▸ After the INTEGRATE Project was implemented, significant increases were identified in primary care practitioner confidence to deliver a palliative approach to care, use of palliative care tools, initiation of advance care planning (ACP) or goals of care (GoC) conversations, home visits for palliative care, and referrals to community palliative care services. There was considerable variation across sites with regard to the number of patients identified using the ”surprise question,“ the percentage of patients for whom an ACP or GoC conversation was initiated, and the time between identification and the ACP or GoC conversation.

▸ Overall, the results suggest that the care processes introduced by the INTEGRATE Project can be successfully incorporated into practice with appropriate and regular education, and a flexible approach that enables local tailoring.

Points de repère du rédacteur

▸ De nombreux Canadiens ne reçoivent des soins palliatifs que durant le dernier mois de leur vie. L’intégration des soins palliatifs dans les soins primaires permet une identification et un accès précoces. Par ailleurs, de nombreux professionnels des soins primaires n’ont pas assez de formation en soins palliatifs et signalent un manque de ressources et de soutien.

▸ Après la mise en œuvre du projet INTEGRATE, on a constaté des hausses significatives dans la confiance des professionnels en soins primaires d’offrir une approche palliative dans leurs soins, d’utiliser des outils de soins palliatifs, d’amorcer des conversations sur les directives préalables (DP) ou les objectifs des soins (OdS), de faire des visites à domicile pour donner des soins palliatifs et d’orienter les patients vers les services communautaires de soins palliatifs. Il y avait des variations considérables d’une clinique à l’autre en ce qui a trait au nombre de patients identifiés à l’aide de la « question surprise », au pourcentage de patients pour qui une conversation sur les DP ou les OdS avait été amorcée et au temps écoulé entre l’identification et la conversation sur les DP ou les OdS.

▸ Dans l’ensemble, les résultats font valoir que les processus de soins implantés par le projet INTEGRATE peuvent être intégrés avec succès dans la pratique au moyen d’une éducation appropriée et régulière, de même qu’avec une approche flexible qui permet une adaptation locale.

Footnotes

  • Contributors

    Dr Evans performed formal data analysis and wrote the original draft of the manuscript. Ms Mackinnon participated in conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, and supervision of the project, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Dr Pereira participated in conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, investigation, and formal data analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Dr Earle participated in methodology and formal data analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Dr Gagnon participated in conceptualization, funding acquisition, methodology, and formal data analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Ms Arthurs participated in project administration and formal data analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Ms Gradin participated in project administration and data curation, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Ms Walton participated in tool development and project administration, and reviewed and edited the manuscript. Drs Wright and Buchman participated in conceptualization, funding acquisition, data curation, and formal data analysis, and reviewed and edited the manuscript.

  • Competing interests

    Dr Pereira is Scientific Officer of Pallium Canada. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article a fait l’objet d’une révision par des pairs.

  • Copyright© 2021 the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Sepúlveda C,
    2. Marlin A,
    3. Yoshida T,
    4. Ullrich A.
    Palliative care: the World Health Organization’s global perspective. J Pain Symptom Manage 2002;24(2):91-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bakitas M,
    2. Lyons KD,
    3. Hegel MT,
    4. Balan S,
    5. Brokaw FC,
    6. Seville J, et al.
    Effects of a palliative care intervention on clinical outcomes in patients with advanced cancer: the Project ENABLE II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2009;302(7):741-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Brumley R,
    2. Enguidanos S,
    3. Jamison P,
    4. Seitz R,
    5. Morgenstern N,
    6. Saito S, et al.
    Increased satisfaction with care and lower costs: results of a randomized trial of in-home palliative care. J Am Geriatr Soc 2007;55(7):993-1000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.
    1. Casarett D,
    2. Pickard A,
    3. Bailey FA,
    4. Ritchie C,
    5. Furman C,
    6. Rosenfeld K, et al.
    Do palliative consultations improve patient outcomes? J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56(4):593-9. Epub 2008 Jan 16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.
    1. Gade G,
    2. Venohr I,
    3. Conner D,
    4. McGrady K,
    5. Beane J,
    6. Richardson RH, et al.
    Impact of an inpatient palliative care team: a randomized controlled trial. J Palliat Med 2008;11(2):180-90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    1. Rabow MW,
    2. Dibble SL,
    3. Pantilat SZ,
    4. McPhee SJ.
    The comprehensive care team: a controlled trial of outpatient palliative medicine consultation. Arch Intern Med 2004;164(1):83-91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Temel JS,
    2. Greer JA,
    3. Muzikansky A,
    4. Gallagher ER,
    5. Admane S,
    6. Jackson VA, et al.
    Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363(8):733-42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Zimmermann C,
    2. Swami N,
    3. Krzyzanowska M,
    4. Hannon B,
    5. Leighl N,
    6. Oza A, et al.
    Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2014;383(9930):1721-30. Epub 2014 Feb 19.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Brazil K,
    2. Howell D,
    3. Bedard M,
    4. Krueger P,
    5. Heidebrecht C.
    Preferences for place of care and place of death among informal caregivers of the terminally ill. Palliat Med 2005;19(6):492-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Costa V,
    2. Earle CC,
    3. Esplen MJ,
    4. Fowler R,
    5. Goldman R,
    6. Grossman D, et al.
    The determinants of home and nursing home death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Palliat Care 2016;15:8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Marshall D,
    2. Howell D,
    3. Brazil K,
    4. Howard M,
    5. Taniguchi A.
    Enhancing family physician capacity to deliver quality palliative home care. An end-of-life, shared-care model. Can Fam Physician 2008;54:1703.e1-7. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/54/12/1703.full.pdf. Accessed 2021 Mar 11.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.
    1. Parrish M,
    2. Kinderman A,
    3. Rabow M.
    Weaving palliative care into primary care: a guide for community health centers. Oakland, CA: California Health Care Foundation; 2015.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Quill TE,
    2. Abernethy AP.
    Generalist plus specialist palliative care—creating a more sustainable model. N Engl J Med 2013;368(13):1173-5. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Higginson IJ.
    Evidence based palliative care. There is some evidence—and there needs to be more. BMJ 1999;319(7208):462-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Lehmann F,
    2. Daneault S.
    Palliative care. First and foremost the domain of family physicians [Editorial]. Can Fam Physician 2006;52:417-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  16. 16.
    1. Lloyd-Williams M,
    2. Carter Y.
    The need for palliative care to remain primary care focused. Fam Pract 2002;19(3):219-20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Murray SA,
    2. Boyd K,
    3. Sheikh A,
    4. Thomas K,
    5. Higginson IJ.
    Developing primary palliative care. BMJ 2004;329(7474):1056-7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association
    . Fact sheet: hospice palliative care in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association; 2017. Available from: https://www.chpca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/new_fact_sheet_hpc_in_canada-summer2017-final-en.pdf. Accessed 2021 Mar 11.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Heyland DK,
    2. Cook DJ,
    3. Rocker GM,
    4. Dodek PM,
    5. Kutsogiannis DJ,
    6. Skrobik Y, et al.
    Defining priorities for improving end-of-life care in Canada. CMAJ 2010;182(16):E747-52. Epub 2010 Oct 4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    Chapter 3. Section 3.08. Palliative care. In: Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. 2014 Annual report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario. Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 2014. p. 258-88. Available from: http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/content/annualreports/arreports/en14/308en14.pdf. Accessed 2021 Mar 11.
  21. 21.↵
    1. Block SD,
    2. Bernier GM,
    3. Crawley LM,
    4. Farber S,
    5. Kuhl D,
    6. Nelson W, et al.
    Incorporating palliative care into primary care education. National Consensus Conference on Medical Education for Care Near the End of Life. J Gen Intern Med 1998;13(11):768-73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    1. Fitzsimons D,
    2. Mullan D,
    3. Wilson JS,
    4. Conway B,
    5. Corcoran B,
    6. Dempster M, et al.
    The challenge of patients’ unmet palliative care needs in the final stages of chronic illness. Palliat Med 2007;21(4):313-22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.
    1. Grande GE,
    2. Barclay SI,
    3. Todd CJ.
    Difficulty of symptom control and general practitioners’ knowledge of patients’ symptoms. Palliat Med 1997;11(5):399-406.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.
    1. Groot MM,
    2. Vernooij-Dassen MJFJ,
    3. Crul BJP,
    4. Grol RPTM.
    General practitioners (GPs) and palliative care: perceived tasks and barriers in daily practice. Palliat Med 2005;19(2):111-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.
    1. Kramer BJ,
    2. Auer C.
    Challenges to providing end-of-life care to low-income elders in advanced chronic disease: lessons learned from a model program. Gerontologist 2005;45(5):651-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.
    1. Kuin A,
    2. Courtens AM,
    3. Deliens L,
    4. Vernooij-Dassen MJFJ,
    5. van Zuylen L,
    6. van der Linden B, et al.
    Palliative care consultation in the Netherlands: a nationwide evaluation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2004;27(1):53-60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Mitchell GK.
    How well do general practitioners delivery palliative care? A systematic review. Palliat Med 2002;16(6):457-64.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Oneschuk D,
    2. Bruera E.
    Access to palliative medicine training for Canadian family medicine residents. Palliat Med 1998;12(1):23-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Shadd JD,
    2. Burge F,
    3. Stajduhar KI,
    4. Cohen SR,
    5. Kelley ML,
    6. Pesut B.
    Defining and measuring a palliative approach in primary care. Can Fam Physician 2013;59:1149-50 (Eng), 1156-7 (Fr).
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Evans JM,
    2. Matheson G,
    3. Buchman S,
    4. MacKinnon M,
    5. Meertens E,
    6. Ross J, et al.
    Integrating cancer care beyond the hospital and across the cancer pathway: a patient-centred approach. Healthc Q 2015;17(SP):28-32.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    1. Gold Standards Framework [website]
    . Evidence. How GSF improves outcomes in all settings. London, Engl: Gold Standards Framework; 2013. Available from: http://www.goldstandardsframework.org.uk/evidence. Accessed 2017 Dec 5.
  32. 32.↵
    1. Pallium Canada [website]
    . Our courses. Ottawa, ON: Pallium Canada; 2021. Available from: https://www.pallium.ca/courses/. Accessed 2021 Mar 11.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Anderson F,
    2. Downing GM,
    3. Hill J,
    4. Casorso L,
    5. Lerch N.
    Palliative Performance Scale (PPS): a new tool. J Palliat Care 1996;12(1):5-11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Myers J,
    2. Kim A,
    3. Flanagan J,
    4. Selby D.
    Palliative performance scale and survival among outpatients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 2015;23(4):913-8. Epub 2014 Sep 18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Dillman DA.
    Mail and internet surveys. The tailored design method. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons; 2000.
  36. 36.↵
    1. Lincoln YS,
    2. Guba EG.
    Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1985.
  37. 37.↵
    1. Free A,
    2. Thomas K,
    3. Walton WJ,
    4. Griffin T.
    Full guidance on using QOF to improve palliative/end of life care in primary care. London, Engl: The Gold Standards Framework; 2006. Available from: http://www.goldstandardsframework.org.uk/cd-content/uploads/files/Library,%20Tools%20%26%20resources/A%20Full%20GSF%20Guidance%20Paper%20on%20Primary%20Palliative%20care%20for%20QOF.pdf. Accessed 2014 Jan 12.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Brown CR,
    2. Hsu AT,
    3. Kendall C,
    4. Marshall D,
    5. Pereira J,
    6. Prentice M, et al.
    How are physicians delivering palliative care? A population-based retrospective cohort study describing the mix of generalist and specialist palliative care models in the last year of life. Palliat Med 2018;32(8):1334-43. Epub 2018 Jun 11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Seow H,
    2. Brazil K,
    3. Sussman J,
    4. Pereira J,
    5. Marshall D,
    6. Austin PC, et al.
    Impact of community based, specialist palliative care teams on hospitalizations and emergency department visits late in life and hospital deaths: a pooled analysis. BMJ 2014;348:g3496.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. 40.↵
    1. Downar J,
    2. Goldman R,
    3. Pinto R,
    4. Englesakis M,
    5. Adhikari NKJ.
    The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ 2017;189(13):E484-93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  41. 41.↵
    1. Lynn J,
    2. Schall MW,
    3. Milne C,
    4. Nolan KM,
    5. Kabcenell A.
    Quality improvements in end of life care: insights from two collaboratives. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000;26(5):254-67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  42. 42.
    1. Moroni M,
    2. Zocchi D,
    3. Bolognesi D,
    4. Abernethy A,
    5. Rondelli R,
    6. Savorani G, et al.
    The ‘surprise’ question in advanced cancer patients: a prospective cohort study among general practitioners. Palliat Med 2014;28(7):959-64. Epub 2014 Mar 24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Moss AH,
    2. Lunney JR,
    3. Culp S,
    4. Auber M,
    5. Kurian S,
    6. Rogers J, et al.
    Prognostic significance of the “surprise” question in cancer patients. J Palliat Med 2010;13(7):837-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 67 (4)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 67, Issue 4
1 Apr 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings
Jenna M. Evans, Marnie Mackinnon, José Pereira, Craig C. Earle, Bruno Gagnon, Erin Arthurs, Sharon Gradin, Tara Walton, Frances Wright, Sandy Buchman
Canadian Family Physician Apr 2021, 67 (4) 270-278; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6704270

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Building capacity for palliative care delivery in primary care settings
Jenna M. Evans, Marnie Mackinnon, José Pereira, Craig C. Earle, Bruno Gagnon, Erin Arthurs, Sharon Gradin, Tara Walton, Frances Wright, Sandy Buchman
Canadian Family Physician Apr 2021, 67 (4) 270-278; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.6704270
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Natural history of abdominal pain in family practice
  • Factors influencing family physician engagement in practice-based quality improvement
  • Impact of early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic on family medicine residency training
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Collection française
    • Résumés de recherche

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2023 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire