Integrating Step-down Care in Community-based Paediatric Palliative Services: A Realist Evaluation - Yeo, Zhi Zheng; Poh Heng, Chong (medRxiv, 2024)
Background Young persons with advanced life-limiting illness living at home have fluctuating and complex needs. Community paediatric palliative care (PPC) is still predominantly specialist-led. This poses a potential care vacuum as medical conditions stabilise and specialised care ceases. One home-based PPC service introduced a step-down care program (COMET) as bridge to continuous yet adaptable support. Above overall effectiveness, how different outcomes are achieved is also investigated for context.Methods We conducted a realist evaluation, using a mixed-methods case series design to study COMET operations and impact within the community care context (Context->Mechanism->Outcomes). Patient medical records and in-depth interviews with family caregivers and PPC professionals generated rich quantitative and qualitative data for analysis.Results Of 121 patients under specialist PPC homecare, 18 (14.9%) were enrolled in COMET since November 2020; 12 of these formed individual case studies. Interviews with 15 caregivers and 7 PPC clinicians produced three crucial findings: (i) Ongoing access to specialist care is required for ever evolving complexities; (ii) Continuing support at home is vital for regular management and intermittent emergencies; (iii) COMET harmonizes shifting levels of support within a single unified framework, safeguarding existing rapport and care consistency.Conclusion Until generalist PPC expertise becomes prevalent outside the hospital setting, novel care models like COMET could plug gaps in community PPC services by offering flexible care options. Continuity of care, efficient resource management, and superior service quality are inherent benefits, if meaningful care tiering through substantive patient assessments are refined further in future iterations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Centralised Institutional Review Board of Singapore Health Services waived ethical approval for this work. This study was reviewed by the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board (CIRB) on 30 August 2021 and determined not to require further ethical deliberation as a program evaluation study (Reference number 2021/2560).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors