3.9 Article

Coordination of end-of-life care for patients with lung cancer and those with advanced COPD: are there transferable lessons? A longitudinal qualitative study

Journal

PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 46-51

Publisher

PRIMARY CARE RESPIRATORY SOC-PCRS UK
DOI: 10.4104/pcrj.2014.00004

Keywords

lung cancer; COPD; coordination; keyworker; qualitative research; palliative care; end-of-life care

Funding

  1. BuildCARE
  2. National Institute for Health Research [08/1813/258, NF-SI-0611-10209] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Care coordination is defined as good communication between professionals to enable access to services based on need. Aims: To explore patients' experience of care coordination in order to inform current debates on how best to coordinate care and deliver services in end-of-life for patients with lung cancer and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: A qualitative study involving serial interviews was performed in 18 patients recruited from three hospital outpatient clinics situated in a hospital. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. Results: Data comprised 38 interviews. Patients experiencing services related to lung cancer reported good access enabled by the involvement of a keyworker. This contrasted with COPD patients' experiences of services. The keyworker coordinated care between and within clinical settings, referred patients to community palliative care services, helped them with financial issues, and provided support. Conclusions: For patients with lung cancer, the keyworker's role augmented access to various services and enabled care based on their needs. The experiences of patients with COPD highlight the importance of providing a keyworker for this group of patients in both secondary and primary care. (C) 2014 Primary Care Respiratory Society UK. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available