Barriers for the implementation of guidelines in palliative care—results from a national survey of professionals
- 349 Downloads
In 2015, an evidence- and consensus-based palliative care guideline in adults with incurable cancer was published by the German Guideline Program. Barriers and enablers for the guideline implementation of members of the German Association for Palliative Medicine (DGP) were unknown. Therefore, the aims of this study were (1) to evaluate professionals’ knowledge, motivation, and outcome expectancy towards already existing recommendations for palliative care and (2) to evaluate the self-experienced competence in five medical key topics presented in the new guideline.
A web-based online survey with all DGP members in 2014 using a specifically designed questionnaire including 62 questions was used. Independent predictors for identified barriers were analysed using multivariable logistic regression analyses.
All 4786 members with known email address were invited, 1181 followed the link, 1138 began to answer, and 1031 completed the questionnaire. Fifty-four percent know already existing recommendations concerning palliative care, 8.4% know and use these recommendations; of the latter group, 44.2% do not notice any improvement of their treatment when applying them. Of key symptoms addressed in the guideline, depression was the symptom with lowest perceived competence (63.7 vs. > 90% for other symptoms). Non-physicians and those working in settings with little contact to seriously ill or dying patients feel less competent in almost all symptoms.
Emphasis on the high-quality and evidence- and consensus-based character of the guideline should be underlined in future implementation processes. Implementation strategies should focus on depression and non-physicians and those professionals working in settings with little contact to seriously ill patients.
KeywordsPalliative care Guidelines Implementation Barriers and enablers Predictors National survey Germany
The authors would like to thank all participating members of the German Association for Palliative Care (DGP).
Compliance with ethical standards
The study was approved by the research ethics committee of the University of Cologne (application number 14-097).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Hodgev VA, Kostianev SS, Torosian AA, Yanev IB, Mandoulova PB (2004) Long-term changes in dyspnea, lung function, and exercise capacity in COPD patients. Folia Medica (Plovdiv) 46(3):12–17Google Scholar
- 6.Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M (2008) Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 337:a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
- 9.Baker R, Camosso-Stefinovic J, Gillies C, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S et al (2010) Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 17(3):CD005470. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005470.pub2
- 10.Kalies H, Schottmer R, Simon ST, Voltz R, Crispin A, Bausewein C (2017) Critical attitudes and beliefs towards guidelines amongst palliative care professionals—results from a national survey. BMC Palliat Care 16(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-017-0187-y CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kunz A (2005) Leitlinien in der Medizin - Ansichten Berliner Hausärzte (LIMAH) [Clinical practice guidelines: application, attitudes and barriers—a survey of general practicioners in Berlin]. Master Thesis MPH, Freie Universität BerlinGoogle Scholar
- 13.Hulscher ME, Wensing M, van Der Weijden T, Grol R (2001) Interventions to implement prevention in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD000362. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000362
- 14.Hanbury A, Farley K, Thompson C (2015) Cost and feasibility: an exploratory case study comparing use of a literature review method with questionnaires, interviews and focus groups to identify barriers for a behaviour–change intervention. BMC Health Serv Res 15(1):211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-015-0877-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Krause J, Van Lieshout J, Klomp R, Huntink E, Aakhus E, Flottorp S, Jaeger C, Steinhaeuser J, Godycki-Cwirko M, Kowalczyk A, Agarwal S, Wensing M, Baker R (2014) Identifying determinants of care for tailoring implementation in chronic diseases: an evaluation of different methods. Implementation Sci : IS 9(1):102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-014-0102-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.National Institute of Clinical Studies Australia (2006) Identifying barriers for evidence uptake. Melbourne. www.nicsl.com.au
- 19.Ferrier BM, Woodward CA, Cohen M, Williams AP (1996) Clinical practice guidelines. New-to-practice family physicians’ attitudes. Can Fam Phys Med Fam Can 42:463–468Google Scholar
- 21.The American Association for Public Opinion Research (2016) Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 9th edition. AAPOR, Oakbrook TerraceGoogle Scholar
- 22.Dobrow MJ, Orchard MC, Golden B, Holowaty E, Paszat L, Brown AD, Sullivan T (2008) Response audit of an internet survey of health care providers and administrators: implications for determination of response rates. J Med Internet Res 10(4):e30. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1090 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Larisch A, Oertel WH, Eggert K (2009) Attitudes and barriers to clinical practice guidelines in general and to the guideline on Parkinson’s disease. A National Survey of German neurologists in private practice. J Neurol 256(10):1681–1688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-009-5178-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Hagemeister J, Schneider CA, Barabas S, Schadt R, Wassmer G, Mager G, Pfaff H, Höpp HW (2001) Hypertension guidelines and their limitations—the impact of physicians’ compliance as evaluated by guideline awareness. J Hypertens 19(11):2079–2086. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004872-200111000-00020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar