Search

To help general practitioners (GPs) in early identification of patients with palliative care (PC) needs, this pilot study aimed to determine the potential of the combined original surprise question (SQ1) (‘Would I be surprised if this patient died within the next 12 months?’) and the second surprise question (SQ2) (‘Would I be surprised if this patient was still alive after 12 months?’). We hypothesized that answering these SQs would trigger them to make a multidimensional care plan.

Background: The Surprise Question ('Would I be surprised if this patient died within 12 months?') identifies patients in the last year of life. It is unclear if 'surprised' means the same for each clinician, and whether their responses are internally consistent. Aim: To determine the consistency with which the Surprise Question is used. Design: A cross-sectional online study of participants located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland and UK. Participants completed 20 hypothetical patient summaries ('vignettes'). Primary outcome measure: continuous estimate of probability of death within 12 months (0% [certain survival]–100% [certain death]). A threshold (probability estimate above which Surprise Question responses were consistently 'no') and an inconsistency range (range of probability estimates where respondents vacillated between responses) were calculated. Univariable and multivariable linear regression explored differences in consistency. Trial registration: NCT03697213. Setting/participants: Registered General Practitioners (GPs). Of the 307 GPs who started the study, 250 completed 15 or more vignettes. Results: Participants had a consistency threshold of 49.8% (SD 22.7) and inconsistency range of 17% (SD 22.4). Italy had a significantly higher threshold than other countries (p = 0.002). There was also a difference in threshold levels depending on age of clinician, for every yearly increase, participants had a higher threshold. There was no difference in inconsistency between countries (p = 0.53). Conclusions: There is variation between clinicians regarding the use of the Surprise Question. Over half of GPs were not internally consistent in their responses to the Surprise Question. Future research with standardised terms and real patients is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Specialist-provided end-of-life scenarios (SP-EOLS) may improve advance care planning (ACP) implementation in primary care by helping overcome barriers such as uncertain prognosis and poor interprofessional collaboration. We aimed to explore the current use and potential impact of SP-EOLS on ACP in Dutch primary care., Methods: We performed a mixed-methods study. From patients discussed in a hospital-based academic palliative care multidisciplinary team meeting between 2016 and 2019 and died, we collected primary care electronic medical records data on SP-EOLS, actual EOLS, and ACP initiation and applied descriptive and comparative analyses. Subsequently, we interviewed general practitioners (GPs) and thematically analyzed the transcripts., Results: In 69.7% of 66 reviewed patient files, SP-EOLS were found. In patients whose GP had received SP-EOLS, ACP conversations were more often reported (92.0 vs. 61.0%, p = 0.006). From 11 GP interviews, we identified 4 themes: (1) SP-EOLS guide GPs, patients, and relatives when dealing with an uncertain future perspective; (2) SP-EOLS provide continuity of care between primary and secondary/tertiary care; (3) SP-EOLS should be tailored to the individual patient; and (4) SP-EOLS need to be personalized and uniformly transferred to GPs., Significance of Results: SP-EOLS may facilitate ACP conversations by GPs. They have the potential to help overcome existing barriers to ACP implementation by providing guidance and supporting interprofessional collaboration. Future research should focus on improving SP-EOLS and tailor them to the needs of all end users, focusing on improving their effect on ACP conversations.

The prevalence of cancer is rising, on the one hand because of increasing cancer incidence as a consequence of lifestyle changes, aging and screening and on the other hand because of increasing survival rates thanks to increasingly successful therapeutic possibilities. Since virtually all caregivers are confronted with cancer patients or survivors, a basic knowledge of oncology is required. In this article we present a brief update on the current situation in the field of oncology. We pay attention to diagnostics, treatment and palliative care for patients with cancer.

Pain is one of the main factors influencing quality of life; its incidence is higher than is generally assumed. Pain is not spontaneously reported in all cases; it should be asked about more often. Not measuring pain is one of the main reasons for inadequate pain treatment. Pain should be assessed and recorded more routinely in both primary and secondary healthcare. This can be done in simple and quick ways. Self-reporting using a visual-analogue scale or numeric rating scale is the preferred method. This can be done even by patients with a mild cognitive disorder. Several simple and reliable observational scales exist for patients who cannot report well, e.g. elderly patients with a cognitive disorder or young children. For chronic pain, the low-threshold use of a multi-dimensional scale will increase the likelihood of successful treatment.

Two male patients, aged 75 and 47 years, suffered from dyspnoea in the terminal phase of their disease, COPD and lung cancer, respectively. Both were given palliative sedation. The palliative consultation team was consulted when problems occurred. Although the Royal Dutch Medical Association issued a guideline on palliative sedation, the practice of administering palliative sedation is still complicated. Determining whether a symptom is 'refractory' and estimating the life expectancy is especially complex. A symptom is refractory when it causes unbearable suffering and conventional modes of treatment are not effective or timely. Knowledge of this guideline, early anticipation of possible scenarios and communication with the patient and his family contribute to good care. The palliative consultation team can help physicians with these decisions, preferably by starting at an early stage.