Search

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a means of allowing people with dementia to take part in making choices, be autonomous and participate in social activities. Involving them in SDM is an important way of promoting social health. However, including families and dementia residents in decision-making can be challenging for care staff working in nursing homes. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an SDM framework for care planning in two nursing homes, one in Italy and one in the Netherlands. Methods: Focus group interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who, after being trained, applied the SDM framework. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Six months after the feasibility trial, focus group interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 10 in Italy; n = 9 in the Netherlands) were held. We found 6 themes and 15 categories. Within these themes, facilitators and barriers were identified. The categories of team collaboration, communication skills and nursing home policy were found to be facilitators to the implementation process, whereas regulations, lack of funding and of involvement of family caregivers were the main barriers. Family attitudes towards SDM could be both. The main difference between countries concerned the residents' cognitive status that influenced their degree of involvement. Conclusion: Communication skills training for professionals, training of family caregivers, and involvement of the management in the implementation process seem to be crucial factors in successfully implementing SDM in nursing homes, and increasing the involvement of families and dementia residents in decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Dutch clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of pain in patients with cancer was published in 2008 and intensively promoted to healthcare professionals who see patients with cancer. One of the most important recommendations is the systematic registering of the pain and its intensity. To evaluate in which degree this part of the practice guideline is implemented, we analyzed the medical records of patients attending the outpatient oncological clinic in an academic hospital, a large teaching hospital, and 4 smaller peripheral hospitals. None of the participating hospitals assessed pain by a standardized scale. Reference to pain in the medical record happened more frequently in the academic hospital than in the other hospitals. The frequency of recording pain in the medical record in the academic hospital was much higher in this study than the one previously reported, whereas the findings in the other hospitals were comparable. There may be several reasons for the difference in reporting rate of pain in patients with cancer. Our findings indicate that the clinical practice guideline with regard to pain registration is poorly implemented in oncology outpatient clinics. More efforts should be made to generate the awareness for the need of pain registration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Systematic pain registration and assessment with a visual analog scale ( VAS) or numeric rating scale ( NRS) at each visit are key recommendations in one of the most recent guidelines on cancer pain management. It is unclear whether this recommendation is applied. Objectives The aim was to explore registration of pain in medical records of patients visiting the medical oncology outpatient clinic. Methods In a multicenter study in six Dutch hospitals, data were extracted from medical records of 380 outpatients with cancer. Data of the first three visits at the outpatient clinic were studied. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results In 23% of all 987 visits at the outpatient clinic, pain or absence of pain was registered, and in an additional 15%, a nonspecific symptom description was given. Regarding all other visits, (62%) pain or absence of pain was not documented at all. Pain measurement using a VAS or NRS was documented in only one visit. Pain was more often registered in medical records of patients with metastasis, as well as in those of patients with urogenital tumors. Conclusion Pain in medical oncology outpatients is not systematically registered in their medical records. With one exception, pain was not registered with a VAS or NRS. Yet, registration and assessment of pain to monitor pain are essential to evaluate and adapt pain treatment over time. Pain registration has not improved since 2001 and therefore implementing the recommendations regarding systematic monitoring of pain is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Many patients with cancer suffer from pain, which is often not optimally treated. In 2008, the evidence-based, multidisciplinary Dutch guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of pain in this patient group was published. We assessed knowledge about and adherence to the guideline by pain specialists. Methods A cross-sectional case vignette survey describing a palliative patient with intractable pancreatic cancer and pain was sent to all 350 Dutch anesthesiologists registered as pain specialists at the Netherlands Association of Anesthesiology. Descriptive statistics were conducted. Results Ninety-three pain specialists completed the questionnaire (27%). The majority appeared to follow the guideline recommendations on pharmacological (99%) and invasive treatment (95%) in the diverse stages of the disease. However, the recommendation to use a one-dimensional pain scale to evaluate the effect of pain treatment and the recommendation to perform a multidimensional pain assessment if the patient in pain is in a deteriorating stage were only followed by a minority of the respondents (23% and 15%, respectively). Conclusions Regarding most recommendations, Dutch pain specialists know and intend to follow the national multidisciplinary cancer pain guideline. Yet, only a minority of them perform structural pain assessment of the patient with cancer pain. However, as the response rate was low (27%), the results should be interpreted with caution and cannot be generalized to the entire population of pain specialists in the Netherlands. We recommend that, in the guideline update and implementation programs, more attention be given to thorough assessment of the patient with pain and cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study investigated the psychometric properties of the Severe Dual Sensory Loss screening tool, a tool designed to help nurses and care assistants to identify hearing, visual and dual sensory impairment in older adults. Design: Construct validity of the Severe Dual Sensory Loss screening tool was evaluated using Crohnbach's alpha and factor analysis. Interrater reliability was calculated using Kappa statistics. To evaluate the predictive validity, sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparison with the criterion standard assessment for hearing and vision. The criterion used for hearing impairment was a hearing loss of ≥40 decibel measured by pure-tone audiometry, and the criterion for visual impairment was a visual acuity of ≤ 0.3 diopter or a visual field of ≤0.3°. Feasibility was evaluated by the time needed to fill in the screening tool and the clarity of the instruction and items. Prevalence of dual sensory impairment was calculated. Results: A total of 56 older adults receiving aged care and 12 of their nurses and care assistants participated in the study. Crohnbach's alpha was 0.81 for the hearing subscale and 0.84 for the visual subscale. Factor analysis showed two constructs for hearing and two for vision. Kappa was 0.71 for the hearing subscale and 0.74 for the visual subscale. The predictive validity showed a sensitivity of 0.71 and a specificity of 0.72 for the hearing subscale; and a sensitivity of 0.69 and a specificity of 0.78 for the visual subscale. The optimum cut-off point for each subscale was score 1. The nurses and care assistants reported that the Severe Dual Sensory Loss screening tool was easy to use. The prevalence of hearing and vision impairment was 55% and 29%, respectively, and that of dual sensory impairment was 20%. Conclusions: The Severe Dual Sensory Loss screening tool was compared with the criterion standards for hearing and visual impairment and was found a valid and reliable tool, enabling nurses and care assistants to identify hearing, visual and dual sensory impairment among older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Poor social health is likely associated with cognitive decline and risk of dementia; however, studies show inconsistent results. Additionally, few studies separate social health components or control for mental health.Objective: To investigate whether loneliness and social support are independently associated with cognitive decline and risk of dementia, and whether depressive symptoms confound the association.Methods: We included 4,514 participants from the population-based Rotterdam Study (RS; aged 71±7SD years) followed up to 14 years (median 10.8, interquartile range 7.4-11.6), and 2,112 participants from the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K; aged 72±10SD years) followed up to 10 years (mean 5.9±1.6SD). At baseline, participants were free of major depression and scored on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) ≥26 for RS and ≥25 for SNAC-K. We investigated loneliness, perceived social support, and structural social support (specifically marital status and number of children). In both cohorts, dementia was diagnosed and cognitive function was repeatedly assessed with MMSE and a global cognitive factor (g-factor).Results: Loneliness was prospectively associated with a decline in the MMSE in both cohorts. Consistently, persons who were lonely had an increased risk of developing dementia (RS: HR 1.34, 95%CI 1.08-1.67; SNAC-K: HR 2.16, 95%CI 1.12-4.17). Adjustment for depressive symptoms and exclusion of the first 5 years of follow-up did not alter results. Neither perceived or structural social support was associated with cognitive decline or dementia risk.Conclusion: Loneliness, not social support, predicted cognitive decline and incident dementia independently of depressive symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advance care planning (ACP) is seldom initiated with people with dementia (PWD) and mainly focuses on medical end-of-life decisions. We studied the effects of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) aimed at initiating and optimizing ACP, with a focus on discussing medical and nonmedical preferences of future care. A single-blinded cluster randomized controlled trial. In 2016, 38 Dutch GPs (all from different practices) completed the study. They recruited 140 PWD, aged ≥65 years at any stage and with any type of dementia, from their practice. Intervention group GPs were trained in ACP, including shared decision-making and role-playing exercises. Control group GPs provided usual care. The primary outcome was ACP initiation: the proportion of PWD that had at least 1 ACP conversation documented in their medical file. Key secondary outcomes were the number of medical (ie, resuscitation, hospital admission) and nonmedical (ie, activities, social contacts) preferences discussed. At the 6-month follow-up, subjects' medical records were analyzed using random effect logistics and linear models with correction for GP clustering. 38 GP clusters (19 intervention; 19 control) included 140 PWD (intervention 73; control 67). Four PWD (2.9%) dropped out on the primary and key secondary outcomes. After 6 months, intervention group GPs initiated ACP with 35 PWD (49.3%), and control group GPs initiated ACP with 9 PWD (13.9%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.99; P =.002]. Intervention group GPs discussed 0.8 more medical [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3, 1.3; P =.003] and 1.5 more nonmedical (95% CI 0.8, 2.3; P <.001) preferences per person with dementia than control group GPs. Our educational intervention increased ACP initiation, and the number of nonmedical and medical preferences discussed. This intervention has the potential to better align future care of PWD with their preferences but because of the short follow-up, the GPs' long-term adoption remains unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was at gaining insight into the participatory design approach of involving people with dementia in the development of the DecideGuide, an interactive web tool facilitating shared decision-making in their care networks.Method: An explanatory case study design was used when developing the DecideGuide. A secondary analysis focused on the data gathered from the participating people with dementia during the development stages: semi-structured interviews (n = 23), four focus group interviews (n = 18), usability tests (n = 3), and a field study (n = 4). Content analysis was applied to the data.Results: Four themes showed to be important regarding the participation experiences of involving people with dementia in research: valuable feedback on content and design of the DecideGuide, motivation to participate, perspectives of people with dementia and others about distress related to involvement, and time investment.Conclusions: People with dementia can give essential feedback and, therefore, their contribution is useful and valuable. Meaningful participation of people with dementia takes time that should be taken into account. It is important for people with dementia to be able to reciprocate the efforts others make and to feel of significance to others. Implications for Rehabilitation People with dementia can contribute meaningfully to the content and design and their perspective is essential for developing useful and user-friendly tools.Participating in research activities may contribute to social inclusion, empowerment, and quality of life of people with dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study describes the process elements of decision-making for dementia, in order to enrich a model to facilitate shared decision-making for professionals working with people with dementia and their informal caregivers.Methods: We performed a qualitative study based on secondary analysis of 117 interviews from 23 care networks consisting of people with dementia, their informal caregivers and professionals. Findings were compared to an existing model of collaborative deliberation.Results: We made an enhancement to the existing collaborative deliberation model, to include: (1) constructive network engagement, (2) recognizing the need for a decision, (3) defining what to decide on, (4) developing alternatives, (5) constructing preferences through deliberation and trying out alternatives, (6) multiple preference integration, and (7) evaluating decision-making.Conclusion: In describing the process elements of decision-making in dementia, this empirical study proposes a modification of the model of collaborative deliberation for the context of dementia care. The adaptation highlights the special attention needed to recognize and define what to decide on, try out alternatives, and handle conflicting interests and preferences.Practice Implications: Professionals should be attentive to mark the start of the decision-making process and work with participants towards a shared view on the pressing matters at hand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Evaluate the effectiveness of a training package to implement a community occupational therapy program for people with dementia and their caregiver (COTiD). Design: Cluster randomized controlled trial. Subjects: A total of 45 service units including 94 occupational therapists, 48 managers, 80 physicians, treating 71 client-caregiver couples. Interventions: Control intervention: A postgraduate course for occupational therapists only. Experimental intervention: A training package including the usual postgraduate course, additional training days, outreach visits, regional meetings, and access to a reporting system for occupational therapists. Physicians and managers received newsletters, had access to a website, and were approached by telephone. Main measures: Primary outcome: The intended adherence of therapists to the COTiD program. This was assessed using vignettes. Secondary outcomes: clients’ daily functioning, caregivers’ sense of competence, quality of life, and self-perceived performance of daily activities of both clients and caregivers. Between-group differences were assessed using multilevel analyses with therapist and intervention factors as covariates. Results: No significant between-group differences between baseline and 12 months were found for adherence (1.58, 95% CI −0.10 to 3.25), nor for any client or caregiver outcome. A higher number of coaching sessions and higher self-perceived knowledge of dementia at baseline positively correlated with adherence scores. In contrast, experiencing more support from occupational therapy colleagues or having conducted more COTiD treatments at baseline negatively affected adherence scores. Conclusion: The training package was not effective in increasing therapist adherence and client–caregiver outcomes. This study suggests that coaching sessions and increasing therapist knowledge on dementia positively affect adherence. Clinical trial number: NCT01117285 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients with advanced cancer experience problems and unmet needs. However, we assume that patients with advanced cancer will have more problems and unmet needs in a country with a lower economic status than in an economically stronger country. We studied whether patients with advanced cancer in Indonesia have more problems and unmet needs than a similar group of patients in the Netherlands. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey. We compared the data for 180 Indonesian and 94 Dutch patients relating to 24 items of the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care-short version questionnaire. We performed descriptive and χ2 analysis with Bonferroni correction. Results The prevalence of most physical problems, including pain, was similar in the 2 groups. In Indonesia, financial problems were the most common: 70 to 80% vs. 30 to 42% in the Netherlands. In Indonesia, 25 to 50% of the patients reported psychological and autonomy problems versus 55 to 86% in the Netherlands. The Indonesian group had many more unmet needs for each problem (> 54%) than the Dutch group (< 35%). Conclusion Apparently, economic and cultural differences hardly influence physical problems. Nonetheless, fewer Indonesian patients reported psychological and autonomy problems than Dutch patients. This difference contradicts our hypothesis. However, we found more unmet needs for professional attention in Indonesia than in the Netherlands, which is compatible with our hypothesis. These simple comparative data provide interesting insights into problems and unmet needs and give rise to our new hypothesis about cultural influences. This hypothesis should be studied in more depth. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a wide gap between knowledge about palliative care and its application in everyday clinical practice, affecting many patients in our ageing population. However, changing health care practice is a complex and challenging process. Therefore, the EU funded IMplementation of quality indicators in PAlliative Care sTudy (IMPACT) project aims to develop optimal implementation strategies to improve the organization of palliative care for people with cancer or with dementia in Europe. Methods and design The organization of palliative care in Europe will be mapped to develop and prepare strategies to improve it, and an overview of barriers and incentives regarding successful organizational changes in palliative care will be undertaken. A pre-test with a set of quality indicators (QIs), developed within the project, will be used to identify aspects of the organization of palliative care requiring change in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices, and primary care in five European countries. Based on the results of the pre-test, each setting will be invited to prioritise and improve aspects of their organization that appeared weak. The improvement objective they choose will be tailored to national and setting-specific barriers. Finally, a post-test with the same QIs will determine the effectiveness of the strategies used. An extensive process analysis will be conducted throughout the entire study. Discussion It is expected that the IMPACT project will provide professionals and policy makers useful tools to facilitate effective implementation of high-quality palliative cancer and dementia care in different settings in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several studies have highlighted the need for improvement in palliative care delivered to older people long-term care facilities. However, the available evidence on how to improve palliative care in these settings is weak, especially in Europe. We describe the protocol of the PACE trial aimed to 1) evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ‘PACE Steps to Success’ palliative care intervention for older people in long-term care facilities, and 2) assess the implementation process and identify facilitators and barriers for implementation in different countries. Methods: We will conduct a multi-facility cluster randomised controlled trial in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland and England. In total, 72 facilities will be randomized to receive the ‘Pace Steps to Success intervention’ or to ‘care as usual’. Primary outcome at resident level: quality of dying (CAD-EOLD); and at staff level: staff knowledge of palliative care (Palliative Care Survey). Secondary outcomes: resident’s quality of end-of-life care, staff self-efficacy, self-perceived educational needs, and opinions on palliative care. Economic outcomes: direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Measurements are performed at baseline and after the intervention. For the resident-level outcomes, facilities report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over a previous four-month period and structured questionnaires are sent to (1) the administrator, (2) staff member most involved in care (3) treating general practitioner, and (4) a relative. For the staff-level outcomes, all staff who are working in the facilities are asked to complete a structured questionnaire. A process evaluation will run alongside the effectiveness evaluation in the intervention group using the RE-AIM framework. Discussion: The lack of high quality trials in palliative care has been recognized throughout the field of palliative care research. This cross-national cluster RCT designed to evaluate the impact of the palliative care intervention for long-term care facilities ‘PACE Steps to Success’ in seven countries, will provide important evidence concerning the effectiveness as well as the preconditions for optimal implementation of palliative care in nursing homes, and this within different health care systems. Trial registration: The study is registered at www.isrctn.com – ISRCTN14741671 (FP7-HEALTH-2013-INNOVATION-1 603111) Registration date: July 30, 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives Although a growing number of older people are dying in care homes, palliative care has developed in these settings only recently. Cross-country representative comparative research hardly exists in this area. As part of a large EU-funded project, we aim to undertake representative comparative research in care homes in Europe, to describe and compare 6 countries in terms of (1) resident outcomes, quality and costs of palliative and end-of-life care; and (2) palliative care structures and staff knowledge and attitudes toward palliative care. We also aim to explore country, facility, staff, patient, and care characteristics related to better outcomes at resident level. Design and Methods To obtain a representative nationwide sample, we will conduct a large-scale cross-sectional study of deceased residents in care homes in Belgium, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United Kingdom, using proportional stratified random sampling (taking into account region, facility type and bed capacity). In each country, all participating care homes retrospectively report all deaths of residents in and outside the facilities over the previous 3-month period. For each case, structured questionnaires, including validated instruments, are sent to (1) the administrator/manager, (2) staff member most involved in care, (3) treating physician (general practitioner or elderly care physician), and (4) a closely involved relative. It is estimated that, per country, 50 care homes are needed on average to obtain a minimum of 200 deceased residents. Collected data include clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, quality of dying, quality and costs of palliative care and end-of-life care, and palliative care structures at the facility level and country level. To obtain a representative view of staff knowledge and attitudes regarding palliative care, PACE will conduct a cross-sectional study of staff working in the participating care homes. Conclusion Considering the growing challenges associated with aging in all European countries, there is an urgent need to build a robust international comparative evidence base that can inform the development of policies to target improved palliative care in care homes. By describing this research protocol, we hope to inform international research in care homes on how to perform representative end-of-life care research in these settings and better understand which systems are associated with better outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]