Search

Background: In the Netherlands, euthanasia has been regulated by law since 2002. In the past decade, a growing number of persons with dementia requested for euthanasia, and more requests were granted. A euthanasia request from a patient with advanced dementia (PWAD) can have a major impact on a general practitioner (GP). We aimed to get insights in the views of Dutch GPs on euthanasia concerning this patient group., Methods: A postal survey was sent to 894 Dutch GPs. Questions were asked about a case vignette about a PWAD who was not able to confirm previous wishes anymore. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics., Results: Of the 894 GPs approached, 422 (47.3%) completed the survey. One hundred seventy-eight GPs (42.2%) did not agree with the statement that an Advance Euthanasia Directive (AED) can replace an oral request if communication with the patient concerned has become impossible. About half of the respondents (209; 49.5%) did not agree that the family can initiate a euthanasia trajectory, 95 GPs (22.5%) would accept such a family initiative and 110 GPs (26.1%) would under certain conditions., Discussion: In case of a PWAD, when confirming previous wishes is not possible anymore, about half of the Dutch GPs would not accept an AED to replace verbal or non-verbal conformation nor consider performing euthanasia; a minority would. Our study shows that, probably due to the public debate and changed professional guidelines, conflicting views have arisen among Dutch GPs about interpretation of moral, ethical values considering AED and PWADs., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: General practitioners (GPs) are advised to offer advance care planning (ACP) to people with dementia (PWD). In a randomized controlled trial, an educational intervention for GPs aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP proved to be effective. During the intervention most GPs were accompanied by their practice nurse (PN). To provide insights into the intervention's successful components and what could be improved, we conducted a process evaluation and explored implementation, mechanisms of impact and contextual factors., Methods: We used the Medical Research Council guidance for process evaluations. Implementation was explored identifying reach and acceptability. We performed descriptive analyses of participants' characteristics; selection, inclusion and intervention attendance; a GP post-intervention survey on initiating ACP; a post intervention focus group with trainers of the intervention. Mechanisms of impact were explored identifying adoption and appropriateness. We used: participants' intervention ratings; a GP post-intervention survey on conducting ACP; ACP documentation in PWD's medical files; post-intervention interviews with PWD/FC dyads. All data was used to identify contextual factors., Results: The intervention was implemented by a small percentage of the total Dutch GP population invited, who mostly included motivated PWD/FC dyads with relatively little burden, and PWD with limited cognitive decline. The mechanisms of impact for GPs were: interactively learning to initiate ACP with training actors with a heterogeneous group of GPs and PNs. For PWD/FCs dyads, discussing non-medical preferences was most essential regarding their SDM experience and QoL. Some dyads however found ACP stressful and not feasible. Younger female GPs more often initiated ACP. Male PWD and those with mild dementia more often had had ACP. These characteristics and the safe and intimate training setting, were important contextual facilitators., Conclusion: We recommend Interventions aimed at improving ACP initiation with PWD by GPs to include interactive components and discussion of non-medical preferences. A safe environment and a heterogeneous group of participants facilitates such interventions. However, in practice not all FC/PWD dyads will be ready to start. Therefore, it is necessary to check their willingness when ACP is offered.

Background: In the Netherlands, in 2002, euthanasia became a legitimate medical act, only allowed when the due care criteria and procedural requirements are met. Legally, an Advanced Euthanasia Directive (AED) can replace direct communication if a patient can no longer express his own wishes. In the past decade, an exponential number of persons with dementia (PWDs) share a euthanasia request with their physician. The impact this on physicians, and the consequent support needs, remained unknown. Our objective was to gain more insight into the experiences and needs of Dutch general practitioners and elderly care physicians when handling a euthanasia request from a person with dementia (PWD)., Methods: We performed a qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited via purposive sampling. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using the conventional thematic content analysis., Results: Eleven general practitioners (GPs) and elderly care physicians with a variety of experience and different attitudes towards euthanasia for PWD were included. Euthanasia requests appeared to have a major impact on physicians. Difficulties they experienced were related to timing, workload, pressure from and expectations of relatives, society's negative view of dementia in combination with the 'right to die' view, the interpretation of the law and AEDs, ethical considerations, and communication with PWD and relatives. To deal with these difficulties, participants need support from colleagues and other professionals. Although elderly care physicians appreciated moral deliberation and support by chaplains, this was hardly mentioned by GPs., Conclusions: Euthanasia requests in dementia seem to place an ethically and emotionally heavy burden on Dutch GPs and elderly care physicians. The awareness of, and access to, existing and new support mechanisms needs further exploration.

Background: ACP enables individuals to define and discuss goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care with family and healthcare providers, and to record these goals and preferences if appropriate. Because general practitioners (GPs) often have long-lasting relationships with people with dementia, GPs seem most suited to initiate ACP. However, ACP with people with dementia in primary care is uncommon. Although several barriers and facilitators to ACP with people with dementia have already been identified in earlier research, evidence gaps still exist. We therefore aimed to further explore barriers and facilitators for ACP with community-dwelling people with dementia., Methods: A qualitative design, involving all stakeholders in the care for community-dwelling people with dementia, was used. We conducted semi-structured interviews with community dwelling people with dementia and their family caregivers, semi structured interviews by telephone with GPs and a focus group meeting with practice nurses and case managers. Content analysis was used to define codes, categories and themes., Results: Ten face to face interviews, 10 interviews by telephone and one focus group interview were conducted. From this data, three themes were derived: development of a trust-based relationship, characteristics of an ACP conversation and the primary care setting. ACP is facilitated by a therapeutic relationship between the person with dementia/family caregiver and the GP built on trust, preferably in the context of home visits. Addressing not only medical but also non-medical issues soon after the dementia diagnosis is given is an important facilitator during conversation. Key barriers were: the wish of some participants to postpone ACP until problems arise, GPs' time restraints, concerns about the documentation of ACP outcomes and concerns about the availability of these outcomes to other healthcare providers., Conclusions: ACP is facilitated by an open relationship based on trust between the GP, the person with dementia and his/her family caregiver, in which both medical and non-medical issues are addressed. GPs' availability and time restraints are barriers to ACP. Transferring ACP tasks to case managers or practice nurses may contribute to overcoming these barriers.

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care., Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers., Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care., Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care.

Background: Large numbers of vulnerable patients are in need of palliative cancer and dementia care. However, a wide gap exists between the knowledge of best practices in palliative care and their use in everyday clinical practice. As part of a European policy improvement program, quality indicators (QIs) have been developed to monitor and improve the organisation of palliative care for patients with cancer and those with dementia in various settings in different European countries., Method: A multidisciplinary, international panel of professionals participated in a modified RAND Delphi procedure to compose a set of palliative care QIs based on existing sets of QIs on the organisation of palliative care. Panellists participated in three written rounds, one feedback round and one meeting. The panel's median votes were used to identify the final set of QIs., Results: The Delphi procedure resulted in 23 useful QIs. These QIs represent key elements of the organisation of good clinical practice, such as the availability of palliative care teams, the availability of special facilities to provide palliative care for patients and their relatives, and the presence of educational interventions for professionals. The final set also includes QIs that are related to the process of palliative care, such as documentation of pain and other symptoms, communication with patients in need of palliative care and their relatives, and end-of-life decisions., Conclusion: International experts selected a set of 23 QIs for the organisation of palliative care. Although we particularly focused on the organisation of cancer and dementia palliative care, most QIs are generic and are applicable for other types of diseases as well.

Background: There is a gap between readily available evidence of best practice and its use in everyday palliative care. The IMPACT study evaluated the potential of facilitated use of Quality Indicators as tools to improve palliative care in different settings in England. Methods: 1) Modelling palliative care services and selecting a set of Quality Indicators to form the core of an intervention, 2) Case studies of intervention using the Quality Indicator set supported by an expert in service change in selected settings (general practice, community palliative care teams, care homes, hospital wards, in-patient hospices) with a before-and-after evaluation, and 3) realist evaluation of processes and outcomes across settings. Participants in each setting were supported to identify no more than three Quality Indicators to work on over an eight-month period in 2013/2014. Results: General practices could not be recruited to the study. Care homes were recruited but not retained. Hospital wards were recruited and retained, and using the Quality Indicator (QI) set achieved some of their desired changes. Hospices and community palliative care teams were able to use the QI set to achieve almost all their desired changes, and develop plans for quality improvements. Improvements included: increasing the utility of electronic medical records, writing a manual for end of life care, establishing working relationships with a hospice; standardising information transfer between settings, holding regular multi-disciplinary team meetings, exploration of family carers' views and experiences; developing referral criteria, and improvement of information transfer at patient discharge to home or to hospital. Realist evaluation suggested that: 1) uptake and use of QIs are determined by organisational orientation towards continuous improvement; 2) the perceived value of a QI package was not powerful enough for GPs and care homes to commit to or sustain involvement; 3) the QI set may have been to narrow in focus, or more specialist than generalist; and 4) the greater the settings''top-down' engagement with this change project, the more problematic was its implementation. Conclusions: Whilst use of QIs may facilitate improvements in specialist palliative care services, different QI sets may be needed for generalist care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: People with dementia can benefit from a palliative care approach. Recommendations, such as those of the EAPC have been proposed to strengthen the provision of palliative care for this group of patients. Yet, it remains challenging for professionals to identify when a person with dementia is in need of palliative care. The objective of this study therefore was to explore when professionals in long-term care settings consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. Methods: Teams with in total 84 professionals working in 13 long-term care settings from 6 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland and the Netherlands) received a case-vignette concerning a person with dementia recently admitted to a nursing home. Teams were asked to discuss when they considered people with dementia eligible for palliative care. The constant comparative method was used to analyse their answers. Results: Three different time points in the disease trajectory when people with dementia were considered to be eligible for palliative care were extracted: (1) early in the disease trajectory; (2) when signs and symptoms of advanced dementia are present; and (3) from the time point that curative treatment of co-morbidities is futile. Yet, none of these time points was uniformly considered by the professional teams across Europe. In some cases, professionals working in the same nursing home didn't even reach consensus when considering persons with dementia eligible for palliative care. Conclusion: The results of the study identified that professionals across Europe have different opinions regarding the time point when to consider a person with dementia in need of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]