02.10.2014 Views

Guidelines for a Palliative Approach in Residential Aged Care

Guidelines for a Palliative Approach in Residential Aged Care

Guidelines for a Palliative Approach in Residential Aged Care

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Rural and Remote<br />

Rural and remote stakeholders came from their membership of the NCISN and from exist<strong>in</strong>g<br />

networks that the Specialist Consultant <strong>for</strong> Rural and Remote had developed. The Rural and<br />

Remote stakeholders’ focus groups were conducted differently to the other focus groups due to<br />

the constra<strong>in</strong>ts of geographical distance. For these groups four teleconference meet<strong>in</strong>gs and one<br />

face-to-face meet<strong>in</strong>g were conducted. Participants represented all states and territories (with the<br />

exception of the ACT, because the ACT does not have areas that are rural or remote).<br />

Focus Groups’ Feedback<br />

The consensus from the participants at the focus groups was that they were enthusiastic about<br />

the <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> development and <strong>in</strong>dicated that they were long over due. They were aware that<br />

there was great need to provide aged care teams <strong>in</strong> RACFs with better <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation about a<br />

palliative approach and were very enthusiastic about the project.<br />

Stakeholders recommended that additional issues should also be <strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> the <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong>,<br />

such as the families ongo<strong>in</strong>g needs <strong>for</strong> bereavement support <strong>for</strong> after the death of the resident<br />

and the effects of a lack of cont<strong>in</strong>uity of staff <strong>in</strong>volved with resident care.<br />

Feedback Loop #2 — Work<strong>in</strong>g Party and Reference Group Members<br />

Subsequent to receiv<strong>in</strong>g all of the focus groups’ feedback, the <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> were discussed and<br />

revised by the project work<strong>in</strong>g party. Additional searches of the databases (mentioned <strong>in</strong> the<br />

search strategies) <strong>for</strong> relevant <strong>in</strong><strong>for</strong>mation on issues that were raised by stakeholders, such as<br />

staff’s bereavement care, were completed by the review work<strong>in</strong>g party to provide evaluated<br />

evidence <strong>for</strong> the project work<strong>in</strong>g party to develop further guidel<strong>in</strong>es. The <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> (Revised<br />

Version #1) were <strong>for</strong>warded to the Departmental Reference Group early <strong>in</strong> December 2002.<br />

Follow<strong>in</strong>g the feedback from the Reference Group, the Work<strong>in</strong>g Party revised the <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

accordance with the suggestions and the evidence base to support the suggested change.<br />

Feedback Loop #3 — Stakeholders<br />

The <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> were placed on the project’s website and an email was <strong>for</strong>warded to all members<br />

of the NCISN and the Reference Group to notify them that the <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> (Revised Version<br />

#2) were available <strong>for</strong> them to download and provide feedback to the Work<strong>in</strong>g Party.<br />

Feedback was received from 55 stakeholders. Approximately one-third of organisations distributed<br />

the <strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> to key personnel and provided them with a pro<strong>for</strong>ma on which to respond. These<br />

responses were collated by the organisation and then <strong>for</strong>warded to the Work<strong>in</strong>g Party.<br />

NCISN Feedback<br />

Feedback that was received was supportive of the revisions that had taken place. Additional<br />

issues that were considered relevant <strong>for</strong> <strong>in</strong>clusion were complementary therapies, clearer<br />

dist<strong>in</strong>ction between depression, delirium and dementia, and more work on advanced dementia<br />

and the physical symptoms (of advanced dementia).<br />

All the feedback received was collated onto a spreadsheet, which was <strong>for</strong>warded to the Work<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Party so they could consider the feedback and provide comment as to whether they agreed<br />

<strong>Guidel<strong>in</strong>es</strong> <strong>for</strong> a <strong>Palliative</strong> <strong>Approach</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Residential</strong> <strong>Aged</strong> <strong>Care</strong> 31

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!