Search

BackgroundFor GPs to implement early palliative care, the first step is to identify patients with palliative care needs. The surprise question (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to aid this identification; for example, a response of 'no' to the SQ — 'Would you be surprised if this patient would die within a year?' — would suggest palliative care may be needed.AimTo describe setting-specific screening results of patients eligible for early palliative care in family practices, which is defined as patients aged ≥45 years with GPs' responses of 'no' to the SQ.Design & settingA secondary analysis was undertaken using a cross-sectional descriptive study in family practices in five areas in Belgium.MethodGPs were recruited by targeted sampling. As a first part of an implementation research project, participating GPs provided demographic information about themselves and also provided a response to the SQ for all patients who came to the practice in 10 consecutive office days. A summary table describing the sex, age, location of contact (GP surgeries, patients' homes, or nursing homes) of the patients was provided by each GP.ResultsFifty-six GPs provided complete data for the practice summary tables. In total, 9150 patients were described (all ages, all settings), of which 506 patients (6%) had a GP response of 'no' to the SQ. The distribution of SQ-no-as-answer patients per setting was: 152/7659 (2%) patients seen in family practice surgeries; 139/998 (14%) patients seen in their homes; and 215/493 (44%) patients seen in nursing homes.ConclusionThere was a large number of patients with SQ-no-as-answer, with possible palliative care needs. To enhance implementation of early palliative care, future research should compare results of SQ and other screening tools with palliative care symptoms assessments.

Background To deliver optimal palliative care, a Care Pathway for Primary Palliative Care (CPPPC) was developed. This CPPPC was implemented by general practitioners (GPs) in territories of five Belgian palliative care networks (2014–2016). Belgian doctors have much therapeutic freedom, and do not commonly follow guidelines. Objectives To assess how palliative care was provided by GPs before the CPPPC and its implementation project were presented publicly. Methods Between 2013 and 2015, seven focus groups with GPs were conducted. Participants included 15 GPs in three French-speaking focus groups and 26 GPs in four Dutch-speaking focus groups, with diversity for age, gender, palliative care experience and practice context. Some GPs implemented the CPPPC later. Results GPs considered each palliative care case unique and disliked strict protocols. However, they expressed a need for peer review and reflective frameworks. GPs felt it is important to identify palliative care patients ‘timely’, but found this difficult. Screening methods help, but are not widely used. GPs struggled most with identifying palliative care needs in non-oncological patients. Bad news breaking was considered difficult. Continuity of care was considered very important. However, advance care planning seemed more widely practised by Dutch-speaking GPs than by French-speaking GPs. The taboo of palliative care provoked emotional discussions. Conclusion Palliative care frameworks which help GPs to deliver ‘tailor-made’ care have more chance to be adopted than strict protocols. GPs should be given education for bad news breaking. Palliative care and advance care planning practices differ locally: guideline dissemination plans should respect these local differences.

Veel huisartsen vinden palliatieve zorg een belangrijk deel van hun taak. Toch zijn er ook barrières bij huisartsen om aan vroegtijdige zorgplanning te doen.

International audience; The number of people in their last years of life with advanced chronic conditions, palliative care needs, and limited life prognosis due to different causes including multi-morbidity, organ failure, frailty, dementia, and cancer is rising. Such people represent more than 1% of the population. They are present in all care settings, cause around 75% of mortality, and may account for up to one-third of total national health system spend. The response to their needs is usually late and largely based around institutional palliative care focused on cancer. There is a great need to identify these patients and integrate an early palliative approach according to their individual needs in all settings, as suggested by the World Health Organization. Several tools have recently been developed in different European regions to identify patients with chronic conditions who might benefit from palliative care. Similarly, several models of integrated palliative care have been developed, some with a public health approach to promote access to all in need. We describe the characteristics of these initiatives and suggest how to develop a comprehensive and integrated palliative approach in primary and hospital care and to design public health and community-oriented practices to assess and respond to the needs in the whole population. Additionally, we report ethical challenges and prognostic issues raised and emphasize the need for research to test the various tools and models to generate evidence about the benefits of these approaches to patients, their families, and to the health system. (C) 2016 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: A multidisciplinary European Association of Palliative Care Taskforce was established to scope the extent of and learn what facilitates and hinders the development of palliative care in the community across Europe. Aim: To document the barriers and facilitators for palliative care in the community and to produce a resource toolkit that palliative care specialists, primary care health professionals or policymakers, service developers, educationalists and national groups more generally could use to facilitate the development of palliative care in their own country. Design: (1) A survey instrument was sent to general practitioners with knowledge of palliative care services in the community in a diverse sample of European countries. We also conducted an international systematic review of tools used to identify people for palliative care in the community. (2) A draft toolkit was then constructed suggesting how individual countries might best address these issues, and an online survey was then set up for general practitioners and specialists to make comments. Iterations of the toolkit were then presented at international palliative care and primary care conferences. Results: Being unable to identify appropriate patients for palliative care in the community was a major barrier internationally. The systematic review identified tools that might be used to help address this. Various facilitators such as national strategies were identified. A primary palliative care toolkit has been produced and refined, together with associated guidance. Conclusion: Many barriers and facilitators were identified. The primary palliative care toolkit can help community-based palliative care services to be established nationally.