Home Away from Home: Comparing Factors Impacting Migrants' and Italians Sense of Psychological Home.

Psychological home is an understudied concept within community psychology, especially focused on migrants. Previous literature on psychological home found a positive relationship with well-being and resilience in general populations and migrants. Studying psychological home in migrants may provide important tools to buffer various stresses associated with migration. The present study explored the relationship between psychological home and demographic factors, including dwelling type and situation between migrants (n = 132) and Italian citizens' population (n = 76). Results offer theoretical reasons explaining the differences in the meaning of home between migrant and non-immigrant populations.

'Less ticking the boxes, more providing support': A qualitative study on health professionals' concerns towards the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway.

BACKGROUND: Despite being widely used, research into the effectiveness of the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway (LCP) and associated cases of malpractice does not match dissemination. No study exists focusing on concerns voiced by professionals. AIM: To explore the views of professionals who, during the hospital implementation of the Italian version of the Liverpool Care of the Dying Pathway (LCP-I), voiced or showed concerns towards it. DESIGN: A qualitative study nested within the LCP-I randomized cluster trial, with semi-structured interviews analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Six nurses and five physicians from six out of the eight hospital wards who completed the LCP-I implementation were interviewed. Eligibility criteria were having taken part in all steps of the LCP-I Programme, voiced or somehow shown concerns, or failed to fully engage with the implementation process. RESULTS: A total of 12 categories were identified, referring to four topics: the Implementation Programme, the LCP-I clinical documentation, the hospital environment and the educational and professional background of hospital healthcare staff. Issues raised by participants concerned both 'real' characteristics of the LCP-I and a misinterpretation of the LCP-I approach and clinical documentation. Furthermore, difficulties were reported which were not linked to the Programme but rather to end-of-life care. CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into the experience of professionals with negative opinions of or concerns with the LCP-I. A more comprehensive approach to professional training in palliative care is needed and may envisage the development of new interventions aimed at improving the quality of care throughout the illness trajectory.

Feasibility of assessing quality of care at the end of life in two cluster trials using an after-death approach with multiple assessments.

BACKGROUND: In 2009 two randomised cluster trials took place to assess the introduction of the Italian Version of the Liverpool Care Pathway in hospitals and hospices. Before and after data were gathered. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of using a combination of assessment methods aimed at different proxy respondents to create a means of measuring quality of care at the end of life. We also aim to explore whether there are differences in response to this approach between the hospice and hospital inpatient settings. METHODS: A retrospective design was used. Eligible deaths were traced through death registries, and proxies were used to give information. Four procedures of assessment were used to measure different dimensions. Feasibility was assessed through compliance and adherence to the study instruments, and measured against standards derived from previous after-death studies. The proxy caregiver's rating of the study tools was also measured, to gauge feasibility and effectiveness. All consecutive cancer deaths that occurred in the study period were eligible. In both trials, deaths were excluded if the patient was a relative of hospital/hospice staff. 145 patients were recruited from the Hospital setting, and 127 from Hospice. RESULTS: A high proportion of non-professional caregivers were interviewed - in both hospital (76.6%) and hospice (74.8%). There was no significant difference in the median number of days in each setting. 89.0% of hospital patients' GPs and 85.0% of hospice patients' GPs were interviewed. Care procedures were recorded in all hospice cases, and were missing in only 1 hospital case.52.7% of Hospital patients' relatives and 64.12% Hospice relatives were assessed to have been caused a low level of distress through the study. CONCLUSIONS: The data shows high levels of compliance and adherence to the study instruments. This suggests that this approach to assessing quality of care is feasible, and this coupled with low levels of distress caused by the study instruments suggest effectiveness. There were no substantial differences between the hospice and hospital settings.

The Liverpool Care Pathway for cancer patients dying in hospital medical wards: a before-after cluster phase II trial of outcomes reported by family members.

BACKGROUND: Hospital is the most common place of cancer death but concerns regarding the quality of end-of-life care remain. AIM: Preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of the Liverpool Care Pathway on the quality of end-of-life care provided to adult cancer patients during their last week of life in hospital. DESIGN: Uncontrolled before-after intervention cluster trial. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: The trial was performed within four hospital wards participating in the pilot implementation of the Italian version of the Liverpool Care Pathway programme. All cancer patients who died in the hospital wards 2-4 months before and after the implementation of the Italian version of Liverpool Care Pathway were identified. A total of 2 months after the patient's death, bereaved family members were interviewed using the Toolkit After-Death Family Interview (seven 0-100 scales assessing the quality of end-of-life care) and the Italian version of the Views of Informal Carers - Evaluation of Services (VOICES) (three items assessing pain, breathlessness and nausea-vomiting). RESULTS: An interview was obtained for 79 family members, 46 (73.0%) before and 33 (68.8%) after implementation of the Italian version of Liverpool Care Pathway. Following Italian version of Liverpool Care Pathway implementation, there was a significant improvement in the mean scores of four Toolkit scales: respect, kindness and dignity (+16.8; 95% confidence interval = 3.6-30.0; p = 0.015); family emotional support (+20.9; 95% confidence interval = 9.6-32.3; p < 0.001); family self-efficacy (+14.3; 95% confidence interval = 0.3-28.2; p = 0.049) and coordination of care (+14.3; 95% confidence interval = 4.2-24.3; p = 0.007). No significant improvement in symptom' control was observed. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide the first robust data collected from family members of a preliminary clinically significant improvement, in some aspects, of quality of care after the implementation of the Italian version of Liverpool Care Pathway programme. The poor effect for symptom control suggests areas for further innovation and development.

Implementation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for the dying patient in the inpatient hospice setting: development and preliminary assessment of the Italian LCP program.

BACKGROUND: The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is extensively used in hospices, but the literature on the process of implementation is scarce. AIM: Developing, piloting, and preliminarily assessing the LCP program within the inpatient hospice setting. METHODS: This is a phase 0-1 study, according to the Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework, divided into three phases: literature review on LCP in hospice and development of the Italian version of the LCP program (LCP-I), development of a procedure for assessing the quality of the implementation process and assessing the feasibility of the implementation process, and piloting the procedure in 7 inpatient Italian hospices. RESULTS: The LCP was implemented in all the hospices involved. A high proportion of physicians (50%-100%) and nurses (94%-100%) attended the self-education program. The self-implementation of the LCP-I program was completed in all hospices. The proportion of patients who died on LCP-I ranged between 35.6% and 89.1%. Professionals from 2 hospices reported a positive impact of the LCP-I. Conversely, professionals from 2 hospices did not recognize a positive impact of the program and did not agree to maintain the LCP-I in hospice. Finally, professionals from the other 3 hospices reported intermediate evaluations (1 stopped to use the LCP-I). Some weaknesses emerged from the external audits, related to the self-education and the self-implementation approach. Professionals required an external support from a trained palliative care team with reference to both phases. CONCLUSIONS: The LCP-I implementation within hospices is feasible, and the process of implementation is evaluable. Issues that occurred within the implementation process suggest the introduction of an external support from a trained palliative care team in implementing the LCP program.

Liverpool Care Pathway for patients with cancer in hospital: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care provided to patients with cancer who are dying in hospital and their families is suboptimum. The UK Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) for patients who are dying was developed with the aim of transferring the best practice of hospices to hospitals. We therefore assessed the effectiveness of LCP in the Italian context (LCP-I) in improving the quality of end-of-life care for patients with cancer in hospitals and for their family. METHODS: In this pragmatic cluster randomised trial, 16 Italian general medicine hospital wards were randomly assigned to implement the LCP-I programme or standard health-care practice. For each ward, we identified all patients who died from cancer in the 3 months before randomisation (preintervention) and in the 6 months after the completion of the LCP-I training programme. The primary endpoint was the overall quality of care toolkit scale. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01081899. FINDINGS: During the postintervention assessment, data were gathered for 308 patients who died from cancer (147 in LCP-I programme wards and 161 in control wards). 232 (75%) of 308 family members were interviewed, 119 (81%) of 147 with relatives cared for in the LCP-I wards (mean cluster size 14·9 [range eight to 22]) and 113 (70%) of 161 in the control wards (14·1 [eight to 22]). After implementation of the LCP-I programme, no significant difference was noted in the distribution of the overall quality of care toolkit scores between the wards in which the LCP-I programme was implemented and the control wards (score 70·5 of 100 vs 63·0 of 100; cluster-adjusted mean difference 7·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 18·7]; p=0·186). INTERPRETATION: The effect of the LCP-I programme in our study is less than the effects noted in earlier phase 2 trials. However, if the programme is implemented well it has the potential to reduce the gap in quality of care between hospices and hospitals. Further research is needed to ascertain what components of the LCP-I programme might be effective and to develop and assess a wider range of approaches to quality improvement in hospital care for people at the end of their lives and for their families. FUNDING: Italian Ministry of Health and Maruzza Lefebvre D'Ovidio Foundation-Onlus.