RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this scoping review is to identify the most commonly used models of palliative care delivery in acute care settings, their advantages and disadvantages, and to review existent research evidence in support of each model. METHODS: We conducted an extensive search using EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL and Pubmed, using various combinations of terms relating to models in palliative care and acute care settings. Data were analysed using tabular summaries and content analysis. RESULTS: 41 articles were analysed. Four models were identified: primary, consultative, integrative and hybrid models of palliative care. All four models have varying characteristics in terms of access to specialist palliative care; fragmentation of healthcare services; therapeutic relationships between patients and providers; optimal usage of scarce palliative care resources; timing of provision of palliative care; communication and collaboration between providers and clarity of provider roles. Moreover, all four models have different patient outcomes and healthcare utilisation. Gaps in research limit the ability to determine what model of care is more applicable in an acute care setting. CONCLUSION: No ideal model of care was identified. Each model had its advantages and disadvantages. Future work is needed to investigate which setting one model may be better than the other.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Online medical information has transformed the way patients obtain information. PURPOSE: The present study examined patients' informational needs and the patient- Healthcare Provider (HCP) relationship from the perceptions of both patients and HCP. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional study; data were collected in Israel from100 HCPs (nurses and physicians) and 184 e-patients. FINDINGS: E-patients were comfortable sharing e-information with their HCP and expected them to consider the e-information in treatment decision-making. Physicians thought they provided more information than the patients considered that they received from them, while both nurses and patients were in agreement about their interactions. Patients thought that there was a higher concordance between the e-information and the information they received from the physician/nurse as compared to what physicians and nurses reported. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: E-health information does not disrupt the patient-nurse/physician relationship. To promote compliance to treatment, it is important that HCPs consider information presented by patients when preparing the treatment plan.